U.S. Deaths in Iraq Pass 1800 - Can 2,000 Be Far Off?
Update:I cross-posted part of this story and added some additional commentary in a diary entry on Daily Kos.
According to the Defense Department, the number of U.S. combat dead in Iraq has passed, 1800, now totaling 1802. The milestone of 1800 was passed after 14 U.S. Marines were killed early today.
Interestingly, there have now been 1658 combat deaths since official combat operations were declared over on May 1, 2003. That's compared to 139 deaths during the "official" war. For those of you doing the math, that's more than 11 times as many casualties "after the war" than "during the war." Interesting.
The U.S. public is getting increasingly fed up with this deceptive, wasteful war. It's only a matter of time before we pass 2,000 U.S. war dead. The billions of dollars keep on piling up. Already, even the Bush administration is finally starting to call for U.S. troops to pull out. It's about time, I say. Let's give the Iraqi government TRUE SOVEREIGNTY and close the 14 permanent bases in Iraq.
posted by Ben at 8:46 AM
4 Comments:
Okay, first off, I have to say that while American public opinion is shifting, it's not a Vietnam-esque conflagration yet. Right or wrong, the public isn't up in arms yet...
BUT, what should we be demanding? A total and immediate pullout? Lets think back... the last time we massively destabilized a country and then disappeared, the Taliban regime was the outcome. To suggest that the U.S. should leave Iraq at this juncture is, simply put, idiotic. While I don't believe the presence of U.S. forces is particularly stabilizing, abandoning the country to civil war would be far worse. A pullout wouldn't empower a sovereign Iraqi government, it would allow the most violent faction to seize power. There is no evidence to suggest that the existant Iraqi security forces can maintain stability and safety, and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
Yes, it's an imperfect situation, and perhaps the resolution lies in a more multilateral force that puts less stress on the U.S. military and gives the mission international credibility. While violence doesn't resolve violence, this may be a situation where the U.S. military's inability to respond with overwhelming force to control the insurgency has led to a strengthened and more violent rebel movement.
thanks for your comment.
i fully endorse a multilateral force. if we were going to go in, that's exactly what we should have had in the beginning.
i'm not advocating that we immediately pull everyone out. i'm arguing that we need an exit strategy NOW rather than "later." the status quo is failing, and we cannot afford to stick with it.
iraqi security forces may not be ready to hold the entire country, but they need to get small portions to control so they work up to the task. right now we aren't doing a particularly good job of training them rapidly enough. it's a tough job-no doubt. but i can't help but think that the administration wants our presence to be permanent there. the link about the 14 bases is scary...
While the 14 "enduring base" article raises an issue, it can't really substantiate anything beyond a conspiracy type theory regarding the administrations aims there. While I won't deny that the United States, while being governed by both Republican and Democrat, has set up permanent bases around the world to support friendly governments and further our global strategic interests, the language in that article is fairly vague. There's nothing to substantiate the idea that we intend to maintain a presence there for the next 25 years. The construction of bases, while superficially ominous, doesn't necessarily signify imperialist designs. (Caveat: I'm not a shrieking liberal who's outraged about potential imperialism, and I won't rule out the idea that our long term presence in Iraq may well be part of the administration's plans, but my point is that the article doesn't prove it.) Such bases could be transferred to the Iraqi security forces in a few years as their capabilities and needs grow, in such the construction of bases is simply building the infrastructure the Iraqis need to rule themselves. Furthermore, in the interim, while the Iraqis move towards the capability for self-government, it is undeniable that the American military's presence is necessary for the time being. As such, we need bases that are more than tents in the desert, which as temporary facilities do not really give our troops what they need for a mission that could last a few more years.
Now about an exit strategy... I'm in the camp that believes that the Bush administration's true transgression was not that they invaded Iraq, nor that we're still there, but that they botched the whole damn thing so badly. There's lots of reports that show how the hubris and ideological conviction of the Pentagon clique of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz ignored carefully drawn up CIA and State Department plans for both controlling the inevitable insurgency and rebuilding afterwards. That screwup is largely why we are where we are today. So how do we get out?
I guess the best way to look at it might be what needs to exist for the U.S. to pull out? For me the answer is a stable security situation, which can probably only be attained through more military forces, not fewer. Hence, multilateralism becomes the answer... whether we'll see that, I don't know. As the London attacks demonstrated the domestic risks for other countries if they participate is elevated, yet the other road may prove just as dangerous and morally disturbing.
i don't think it's a "conspiracy-type theory." the fact is, those bases are built, and their presence has not been explained. if they will just be turned over to iraqi forces, then fine. but i think it's quite naive to believe that to be the case.
this administration wants to protect the oil reserves and use iraq as a forward operating base to launch more operations in the Middle East. it is my firm belief that they have no intent of giving up these bases unless they are forced to do so.
Post a Comment
<< Home