[Congressman Billybob]

Dunno why FR no longer allows me to post the entire column. Balance below in reply....

[ClintonBeGone]

Dunno why FR no longer allows me to post the entire column. Balance below in reply....

Maybe because you're setting up a straw man. Biased or not, the media is correct. However, for one to defend the war saying essentially, 'it's not even as bad as the civil war' is illogical. What foreign soil was the civil war fought on? What country were we fighting against? Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys? What were 'we' fighting about? I think there are much better analogies one could make than using the civil war in the defense of the Iraq offensive.

[presidio9]

"Son, there ain't no draft no more..." -Sgt. Hulka

[Congressman Billybob]

Another measure of the sacrifice of America’s men (and today some women) in combat is the percentage of all soldiers who served, who were killed from any cause. In the Mexican War, that was 16.9%. In the Civil War, those were 12.8% on the Union side, 18.7% on the Confederate side, and 14.4% for both sides combined. We were reminded this week, in the funeral services for the eight crew members of the Confederate submarine Hunley, that all who fought in that conflict were Americans.

In all other wars, the percentage of those who served, who died of all causes, has been 2.5%. And in the last four wars, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War and now Iraq, the percentage of deaths has been substantially less than 1% of all who served.

By printing cold statistics, by no means do I denigrate the loss of any single life in any war. These numbers represent one by one the fathers, husbands, and sons (and today mothers, wives and daughters) who took up the cause, went off to war, and returned to a decorated grave. But from these statistics, the LEAST bloody war we have ever fought is this one, with 42 deaths per month compared with the second-lowest total of 55 per month in the American Revolution.

But that isn’t a fair comparison. In all prior wars, the population of the United States was less, sometimes very much less, than it is today. The total blood cost to a society is in proportion to the total population. In 1776, the “United States of America” that was born in that war contained slightly less than 3 million people. Today the United States has slightly less than 300 million people.

So every single man who fell to British bullets, beginning with Crispus Attucks in the Boston Massacre and including the Minute Men who fell at Lexington and Concord, 229 years ago this week, was equivalent to 100 who fall in battle today. Measured against the total population of the day, the American Revolution was second only to World War II in the blood price paid by American citizens.

Looked at through the lens of facts and history, the argument that “Iraq is another Vietnam” is false on its face. Furthermore, the idea that the combat deaths of Americans in this war is “too high a price to pay” is really an argument that America should never go to war at any time and for any reason.

The idea that America should never fight another war for any reason is both honest and ancient. In 1776, in The American Crisis, Tom Paine urged the American Quakers to reconsider whether the Revolution’s cause was just, and do what they could to advance that cause, even if their service was only non-military.

The claim today that the blood cost is “too high” in this war is a false argument. Advances in training, equipment and tactics have seen to that. If we cannot bear this burden, we should disband our military worldwide and retreat to “fortress America,” for that would be the only option. And the attacks of 9/11 demonstrate that even such a wholesale retreat would be insufficient to protect our civilian population.

A poll by the Washington Post reported this week that “Two in three [respondents] said the nu er of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, the highest reading since the war began 13 months ago.” This is a product of the American press dwelling in gory detail on each individual death at the top of the nightly news. If war deaths were reported the way auto accident deaths are -- only on the local news -- and auto deaths were all reported above the fold, would Americans conclude that auto “casualties are unacceptable”? After all, about 40,000 Americans are killed every year on the highways.

This poll result is another proof that the American press has become a coprophage, consuming its own excrement in order to survive. The press is reporting extensively the deaths in Iraq, with no context whatever about comparisons to prior wars. Such a poll result would not occur if the press reported combat deaths in the context of history, as I have done here.

If the press in 1776 - 1781 had reported combat deaths the way it does today, Congress would have withdrawn support for the Revolution in a few years. General Washington and his troops would have fled in fear of their lives. And today, we would be singing “God Save the Queen” before baseball games. Does that make the comparison clear enough?

With the facts so obvious, what’s fueling the arguments against the Iraq War? It is emotion only, unthinking and in deliberate rejection of the truth. It’s akin to the “feel good” politics that floated through the atmosphere of Woodstock nearly forty years ago like the sweet smell of marijuana.

I may be the only non-drug user in America who knew about the phenomenon of Woodstock before it happened. I then worked for an advertising agency, whose art department had a keen familiarity with “medicinal substances used for recreational purposes,”as the Libertarian Party says. The whole art department was anxious to head for Woodstock, and kept me informed on that.

Why bring up Woodstock? Well, just this week Country Joe and the Fish got together for a new concert. Barry (the Fish) Melton couldn’t join in, because he’s now in charge of the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office. So the reassembled group is just known as the Country Joe Band.

The band will certainly reprise its “I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die Rag,” with appropriate additional lyrics concerning Iraq. You remember the lyrics to the original, don’t you? “Well, it’s one, two, three / What are we fighting for? / Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn / Next stop is Vietnam....” It’s appropriate to note that the first concert of the reconstructed band is in Berkeley, California, and that Country Joe McDonald was named after Josef Stalin, since his parents were both active Communists.

The opposition to the Iraq War has almost nothing to do with war itself, and everything to do with anti-American politics. And most of those who join in the criticism of the war now are simply stuck in Woodstock, mired in the mud of Max Yasgar’s farm. It was good fun then, but geopolitical nonsense. It’s less fun now -- even Country Joe has given up the drugs -- and it’s still geopolitical nonsense.

As I said to my colleagues in the art department so long ago, sorry to harsh your mellow, Dude, but the facts are what the facts are. - 30 -

About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress. - 30 -

©) 2004, Congressman Billybob & John Armor. All rights reserved.

[Verginius Rufus]

After each heading there are two or three figures. Could you explain for us Bears of Very Little Brain what the numbers refer to?

[John Lenin]

Excellent title. Bwahahaa Kerry's mind is mired in a Vietnam quagmire !

[eureka!]

Well done, as usual. Thankfully, the fraudcast networks have lost their monopoly (albeit they are still too powerful) and there will never be another Vietnam where the left will turn the main of the country against our brave troops...

[ThreeYearLurker]

Play us a song, Pedro!

[RISU]

IRAQ will not become Vietnam because there is no "refuge" (like Cambodia) into which insurgents can escape. It is the death of any who come ther to fight the great Satan. The longer we keep Iraq going, the less hot heads will be alive.

[Smartass]

Any fool that tries to equate Vietnam to Iraq, is
is exactly that...A fool. The two are like night
and day. The DumboRats media know that, but still
continue to snook the public. Vietnam lasted ten
years and was started by a Democrat president, who
didn't know how to win a war. As a result of that
self inflicted loss, we now will forever suffer with
a rain cloud hanging over our military. If the Dems
have it their way, history will repeat itself. If we
reelect Bush, we will win. In winning, a clear
message will be sent to terrorists, that we will be
coming after them. The American people must realize
that fighting world-wide terrorism is a long term
and complicated commitment. We have the best
and dedicated military in the world, of which need
our prayers and support.

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[mikenola]

If Bush is reelected, I wonder if the "antiwar" movement will dry up, or really start to crank up.

We all know these protesters don't give three farts about "war" or the Iraqi people. I don't remember seeing any protests about the wars Kosovo, Chechnya , etc.

If the left is stuck with Bush for four more years will the Iraq issue disappear? Or will we start to the see the impeachment calls,etc starting to work up?

The Iraq/Vietnam analogy cannot be supported with any significant facts. If you consider optempo alone, Iraq isn't even a war at all. It's a classic counterinsurgency campaign, one that's going pretty well comparitively speaking.

Also, the ratio of US KIA to forces committed is far lower in Iraq than Vietnam.

The only Iraq/Vietnam similarity is the political ambitions of the communist leftists.

[backtothestreets]

The war in Iraq may have one similarity with the Viet Nam War not being discussed. That similarity is to create, and defend with American lives, a western style government in a culture that may not accept it. Just as with Viet Nam, I expect any government we install to collapse in civil war among factions of the Iraqi population.

[Clemenza]

Why must boomers insist that every conflict is "another Vietnam."

[Freesofar]

Sorry I did not read every post here (as time permits)

But forgive me it is just my opinion;
The parellael I see to Vietnam is the mistake of fighting a war without totaly annhilating the enemy with overwhelming force and ruthless "show no quarter take no prisoners" protocol, invading every venue of refuge from mothers homes to mosques and toilets.
This is our " fault " here IMO.
If it continues we WILL LOSE this .
The politicians are not studying history in the context that war is not won by military might, or by making compromise concessions, but by breaking the will of a huge and diverse body of people to resist.
The mistake is to think that if we fight fairly they will "like us" .
Well ,
we are not fighting anyone with the potential to possibly "like us"
To win this we must scare them so bad that they will never ever want to pick up arms against the USA again.
It worked on Japan and germany.
Time to say "oops" a lot more and screw the Al Jazeera , UN french fruitcakes and start accidently dropping Daisy Cutters.
If we do not learn from the mistakes of Vietnam we WILL lose this.

[Mr. Silverback]

There are only two major similarities between Iraq and Vietnam: An enemy that knows they can only win their war on the American homefront, and a press that is willing to be used toward that end.

[muawiyah]

Revolutionary War statistics are misleading (at best). For the most part most deaths as a result of wounds or injuries received as a consequence of combat were simply never reported as such.

There were also "allies" such as the Oneida Indians who suffered a 75% population loss! History does not record them at all although I've been able to infer some of the deaths by taking a good look at the New York Minuteman rosters.

By the time the War of 1812 came around record keeping was much better.

[the OlLine Rebel]

"War Deaths KIA/Mo. Proportionate Revolutionary War 4,435 55 5,500"


I'm confused - what the heck numbers are these? Looks for most of the wars like there are 3 #s (except part of the CW?), but I'm not sure to what they correspond. That "War Deaths KIA/Mo. Proportionate" looks like 2 numbers....what is the split? And what is the definition?

[the OlLine Rebel]

"I calculated it by applying the proportion of deaths in the US population during the war in question to the current population of the United States"


Huh? Please 'splain more precisely (I think). What have the old deaths to do w/current population?