You can't compare wars just on US deaths. How about the structure of Iraq now compared to the structure of Vietnam in the same time period?

Hello. One of the top men saw 13? soccer games going on. How can ya ignore that kinda of progress?

Now people in the Green Zone are suggested to duck and cover.

Now? Weren't they always at risk from rockets, car bombs and kidnappings?

The statistics fail to consider that a same injury rarely causes a death today. Even in Nam where death rates from wounds were lower; today, same injuries are 8 times less likely to create death. Today, soldiers also have body armor that routinely stops bullets. Soldiers in Iraq were often stuck by bullets without injury. Soldiers in WWII and Vietnam had no such protection.

More useful statistic is to compare fatalities then to all casualties today. 4000 deaths in Iraq mean something like 40,000 Vietnam fatalities. Massive injuries today will result in long term disabilities - missing limbs, missing brains, etc. These injuries were once always fatal - a trivial cost. Today’s injuries result in long term expenses for America - something in the high $hundreds of billions. But then Reagan proves that deficits don't matter.

Vietnam killed maybe 50,000 Americans. Today that is a war that kills something less than 6,000 Americans. Those 6,000 deaths mean costs will be incurred for generation - not just a quick payment for a burial. 4000 deaths means battles have been as vicious as Nam.

"Mission Accomplished" was justified only by a political agenda. Threats did not exist. "Mission Accomplished" had no smoking gun, no strategic objective, and no exit stategy - all factors for defeat. No wonder George Jr could not find a sufficient competent general for "Mission Accomplished" - which the Frontline piece makes so obvious.

Later facts make it apparent that without "Mission Accomplished", Saddam could only last as long as his enemies remained divided and disorganized. Saddam had virtually no serious weapons production facilities after 1998; was a threat to no other nation. Operation Desert Fox was so successful that Saddam had virtually no serious weapons production facilities. Only wacko extremists deny this because Operation Desert Fox was Clinton's attack. Again, conclusions only based in political agendas; not in facts.

Why was "Mission Accomplished" so easily achieved? Why, for example, did Saddam not mount a defense in the Karbala gap? Because Saddam, strangely, never worried of the American invasion. Saddam worried about civil uprisings.

Saddam was indeed a strange man. Saddam invaded Kuwait believing that America did not oppose his endeavor. Saddam was confused when America attacked. But then how would he understand. Saddam lived in a world where no one would tell him otherwise. Saddam lived in a world where he believed, in time, he could restore his previous "American ally" position.

Saddam was not a threat to America ... except where political agendas even regarded Saddam a greater threat than bin Laden. No wonder America's number one enemy - bin Laden - still lives. No wonder America still makes no serious effort to get bin Laden. When extremist fear is preached, then a toothless Saddam is proclaimed a founding member of 'axis of evil' - one of the devil's own. Toothless Saddam was a threat to no one. Toothless Saddam's only defense was to lie - hype mythical weapons. Only a wacko extremist driven by his political agenda would promote fears of Saddam. That is what George Jr and Cheney are.

Questions by people from David Letterman to NBC's Brian Williams, and from Charlie Rose to Sen Specter indicate what "Mission Accomplished" has done to America. Question such as "will we ever recover from the damage to American prestige?" These are not questions being asked by political agendas. Informative is Brian William reply noting how Americans students (including his own daughter) at St Andrews would be heckled by Scotsman in the streets of Edinburgh.

America that once could have recruited troops from virtually any nation to attack Afghanistan now cannot even get NATO to send troops. But then American credibility is that low in the world and mythically high in the minds of extremists. "Mission Accomplished" has been a disaster worse than even I speculated in 2003. Everything that could have gone wrong has because, well, even casualty figures can only be made acceptable by forgetting facts.

Still to come is a recession created by those war costs. Those war casulty numbers imply a recession equivalent to one created by another wasted war in Nam. Another war due to another lying president. A recession that resulted after a war just as costly and after the "Fed pumped money into the economy" to avert a downturn.

The statistics don't consider anything - they're inanimate.

The statistics reflect a different situation on the ground. There are no "battles" in this "war". Nobody takes on the US forces directly; they know they will lose. So they snipe, they IED, they suicide bomb, they car bomb, they ambush. But nowhere are there battalions of armed forces taking on other battalions of armed forces.

Oh but you're wrong again. US wounded figures 4000 deaths to 30,000 wounded in Iraq. 60,000 dead/lost to 305,000 wounded in Vietnam. 7.5:1 wound:death ratio in Iraq; 5:1 wound:death ratio in Vietnam. Better, but not revolutionary, and not the cause of the "troubling" statistics.

Oh cool, we can avoid the recession created by the housing bubble. Still, it's always true there are numerous ways to lose, and it is somehow reassuring that we know we can expect tw to find and claim them.

Again: there has never been in this country a war and a recession happening simultaneously, until now.

Welcome to Nam. Deja vue. Why did My Lai happen. Soldiers were so frustrated at their losses and no enemy to confront (fight). Iraq is no different. Deja vue Nam. Too late. We already did that. Now, four to ten years later, we begin to reap what we used money games to avoid. Same is discussed in Anyone scared about the economic crisis?. After years of pumping the economy with free money (low interest rates, tax cuts with massive spending increased, etc), we still have this history: as we pumped more easy money into the economy. With so much easy money, where is all this growth? Deja vue Nam is now called "Mission Accomplished".

Were you trying to find an engineering job in the early 1970s? The recession had already begun. It was not yet apparent on spread sheets.

Red line, if accurately portraying all the munitions striking Americans, looks much like or may be higher than the blue line. I was hoping I would not have to sound byte what is much better explained in a 500 word post - where reasons why are provided. UTs graph only demonstrates superior medical treatment, body armor, etc. "Mission Accomplished" continues to parallel Nam - especially the part where leaders lie. Especially the severe economic consequences. Especially the part where a president will do anything to not lose a war under his watch - America be damned.

What is different? During Nam, nobody was asking, "When do we go after bin Laden." IOW Nixon was not the prolific liar that George Jr is. And Nixon did not do what Agnew ordered. Nixon was smarter.

SSDD

http://planetwill.jt.org/media/characters/art/ted1.jpg

There is indeed a war going, Iraq is only a facet.

Speaking only of Iraq and Viet Nam, the conventional Army does their job very well. They always have. They do their job, and they do it well. The large conventional Army does not do counterinsurgency or unconventional warfare very well. It's not their job. Asking them to do it is like asking a gardener to build your house. He might try and you will have great gardens around your house. I submit your house will not be done as well. Only recently in Iraq have we begun to accept this as true. As far as I'm concerned this is a fact.

Why we got into Iraq, who got us into Iraq, all that stuff really does not matter to me. We are there. Now, what do we do? Do we only do what is good for the U.S.? Is doing only what's good for the U.S., good for the U.S.?

Also, Iraq is not the only stage, the play is fairly large.

Good points Reg Joe - Too many assume that the only theater is the one in Iraq. That the only activity is what is happening there. Others make claims like "Deja vue this or that..." There are some similarities - they were both wars, in foreign countries ... Its a completely different world today. Things have changed so much that all these comparisons on any significant level are relatively worthless. Especially when they are proved false several posts later - with citations and facts. Then the story changes... seen it all too many times before - go find another place to grind your axe. That dog won't hunt anymore.

Not answering that question means we have no strategic objective and no exit strategy. Both necessary to continue war forever. Without hardly any military, America built the world's largest war machine, then fought, deployed, and won wars on virtually every continent. In far longer time, we are not even close to ending “Mission Accomplished”. To win, one must first admit the most basic facts including why we got into war, who got us into war, all that stuff. One must admit why this is called a “Mission Accomplished” war. Without those answers, one can never answer, "What do we do?"

We do only what is good for the US. But without those above answers, no one can even agree as to what is good for the US. Again more denial. Without answering the simplest questions, "why we got into war, who got us into war, all that stuff." How then do you expect to know what is good for the US? You don’t. Deja vue Nam.

We had no strategic objective. So we invented reasons to still be in Nam when even Nixon acknowledged we could not win. That even the Wise Men in 1968 said could not be won. That even Walter Cronkite, in a most rare editorial said was a lost effort. Even Le Duc Thou would share with Kissenger the most secret N Vietnamese analysis which turned out to be wrong only in time. N Vietnam expected to be at war for two years longer. Even though honest men said bluntly that Nam could not be won, instead, we sacrificed another 30,000 uselessly. Even today, UG still will not admit why we got into war, who got us into war, all that stuff.

How do we have a strategic objective and an exit strategy when 1) we cannot even admit who is the enemy, 2) not even admit to a civil war that we created, 3) refuse to admit what the various parties want (let alone who they are), 4) only see enemies hiding everywhere, 5) our leaders are so out of touch that virtually all every competent military commander ends up quitting and then publically criticizing America leadership, and 6) we are so much in denial as to even ignore 79 points from the Iraq Study Group. These denials are classic contempt for the American soldier.

Avoid asking, "why we got into war, who got us into war, all that stuff" is how to not have an exit strategy. But then George Jr did what he wanted: make sure "Mission Accomplished" was not lost on his watch. George Jr years ago stated "Mission Accomplished" to be ongoing in 2010. No problem. Not enough Americans have died yet. Due to denial, only a graveyard mentality can end “Mission Accomplished”. Only a fool would see victory in a diminished but still ongoing civil war. But then how many will not even admit “Mission Accomplished” is only a civil war. Just another reason why we must sacrifice more American. Deja vue Nam.