Thank you, thank you! Not even so much that you agree that my numbers are plausible, but that you took my question seriously.
I'm not sure I agree with you that we lack the will to win. If these numbers are anywhere near correct, how could we reach any conclusion other than that we are winning decisively?
If our soldiers are this effective, if the militias are doing some of our dirty work for us, if the bad guys are being steadily rooted out of their hiding places around the world, what would you do differently? What bolder actions would expedite matters?
I guess I am of the opinion that this will be a decades-long WOT. If so, then patience and pacing are a virtue -- but a very, very hard sell to the American people.
While our efforts to minimize collateral damage are humanitarian, they also cause us to wend our way towards victory a lot slower than if we went after the bad guys with overwhelming force even if they are using civilians as shields. Since the MSM and other fascist-friendly forces decline to condemn the bad guys for targetting and slaughtering civilians, while beating us up for every conceivable "war crime", we might be better served by actually saving some of our own troops at the expense of higher civilian casualties by being very aggressive. Like I said - I don't have to make the decisions and I praise God for it because I wouldn't want the burden either way.
Thank you to everyone who has responded. All very insightful. Some responses, most of which are to clarify my position rather than disagree with others ...
1. "McNamara and company had a very mathematical approach to warfighting, along the lines of what you're thinking."
Please don't get the impression that I'm in favor of a strict mathematical approach. Not being very close to the action, I merely want to have some quantifiable sense of what is happening. One problem with the way this war is represented to the American people, I think, is that we never have any sense at all of the damage we inflict on the enemy.
2. "We kill a lot of terrorists in Iraq, but as terrorist levels in Iraq sink, they rise everywhere else in the Islamic world. ... So, the number of jihadists we kill in Iraq ... is a statistically insignificant number compared to the number of Muslims worldwide. Thinking of jihadists like they're hidden infantry units that must be lured out of hiding and into the open is a misconception."
I see your point, and to some extent concede it. Indeed, there is a lot to be said for what you are saying. Still ... I think the truth lies somewhere inbetween. By any measure, 500,000 dead is a lot, and orders of magnitude more than the MSM is portraying. Part of the jihadists' enthusiasm for taking up arms depends upon the prospects for success vs. dying. If my mathematical numbers are correct or even close to being correct, the average jihadist in Iraq has a very, very short life expectancy. I suspect that the average jihadist entering Iraq has no idea that he may have a better than 80% chance of dying within six months.
3. "Islam has some crippling internal weaknesses that make it very uncompetitive, and we're holding some very staggering advantages over it."
Agreed. 100%. We need to hear and read more about these.
4. "Islam is just not vulnerable in the same way as the enemies we're used to fighting. Sheer body counts won't defeat it. Not on the scale we're willing to effect, at any rate."
Again, I don't disagree. I don't want to create the impression that body counts alone will defeat radical Islam. I still maintain, I think despite the consensus of other respondents, that 500,000 dead will be a factor in their ultimate defeat.