Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Here is a comparison between the entire 5 years of operation in Iraq, and specific WW2 *battles* the US was involved in which constitute a few days' worth in a real, declared ...
|
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.