BREAKING: 20 U.S. service members killed in Iraq

YAHOO NEWS ^ | 20 JANUARY 2007 | AP

[El Gato]

picnic compared to World War 2. (1.2 million casualties in 4 years) And that was out of a much smaller US population. Casualities for the Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis (New Zealanders) were even higher proportional to their populations at the time. US population was about 133 million during WW-II compared to about 294 million in 2004, so 1.2 million casualties then would be like about 2.6 million casualties today. Compare that to 3 thousand KIAs and about 23,000 WIAs in Iraq. Add in about 300 KIA and no more than 1,000 WIAs in Afghanstain, and you'll see the numbers of casualties in this war is much lower, by orders of magnitude than those from WW-II.

And remember non of the Axis powers ever attacked the United States themselves. (Hawaii was a territory at the time, as were the Phillipines.) The same can not be said of the Islamist Enemy we are fighting now. Causalities on 9-11-2001 were higher than those of 12-07-1941, and the later were mostly military, while the former were overwhelmingly civilians.

[El Gato]

Thank god we didn't have today's media back then.

In some ways, we did. It's just that we were fighting against the same enemy as their inspiration, the Soviet Communists. So naturally they wrote good things about the soldiers fighting "Stalins War". They didn't want Uncle Joe defeated as they want the US and especially its President defeated today, and 35 or so years ago as well, when we were fighting against what they might today call "Progressive Forces".

[El Gato]

But we've got to stop this hunker down and get good men killed stuff.

Did you actually read the FReeking article?

In south Baghdad, U.S. helicopters dropped Iraqi police commandos into the dangerous Dora neighborhood to stage a raid on the Omar Brigade, an al-Qaida-linked Sunni militant group, Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said.

Khalaf said 15 insurgents were killed and five captured during an intense battle
...
The U.S. military, in a statement that did not name al-Darraji, said special Iraqi army forces operating with U.S. advisers had "captured a high-level, illegal armed group leader" in Baghdad's Baladiyat neighborhood, next to the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City.

Doesn't sound like "hunkering down" to me. Sounds more like taking the fight to the enemy. Troops do get killed doing that too you know.

[El Gato]

If your concern is which came first (by 3 months) -- the Japanese surrender or the German surrender -- you missed the point of the statement.

My point was that people who don't have their facts straight, and don't bother to check them, don't have much credibility. My experience has been that folks who get the "small stuff" wrong, also screw up the "big stuff". YMMV.

[El Gato]

. Let's see how it goes.

Exactly. Let's not give aid and comfort to the enemy by second guessing the man we elected to be Commander in Chief. We gave him the job, lets let him do it.

[El Gato]

In a single long battle of WW-II, near the end in fact, we lost 6,821 Killed 19,217 Wounded That battle lasted 36 days. It was for a tiny Island which while important for the bomber crews who were even then pounding Japan, and the fighter pilots sent along to protect the bombers, it really wasn't all that important a place. We would have won the war even if we'd just bombed and by passed it. But we didn't. And we likely saved as many bomber and fighter crewman, as we lost Marines, probably more in fact.

The Marines consider it one of their finest hours. They "persuaded" the Navy to name this little boat after the battle fought there.

USS Iwo Jima.

[dennisw]

Prayers for our fallen and wounded.

[rebel_yell2]

I hate to break it to you, but we are STILL in Japan and Germany, 62 years after the end of WWII, and what do we have to show for it?

[avenir]

"We should be focusing our IRE on those who are IN CONTROL of the situation so we can get RESULTS, so that our BEST don't get taken out."

We're at war, not play. I know it's hard to accept this with coffee in one hand and mouse in the other. Death in combat is not a dishonorable way to die, your disapproval notwithstanding.

[hershey]

I agree.

[hunter112]

They are united against us, they want us dead. Period. If we leave and let the Mullahs take control, it will be Iran times 1000. They will gather strength, numbers and technology and go after us till we no longer exist.

Nope, we let them go after each other. That was the beauty of Ronald Reagan's strategy, keep the Iraqis and the Iranians fighting each other.

When we pull out (it will be when, and not if) the Iranians can unite with their Shia allies, and then the Saudis, Jordanians, etc. can come to the 'rescue' of their Sunni bretheren. Since it is obvious by this point that we don't have the balls to rid the world of Islam, let the Islamics do it for us. We can mop up whatever is left after a few decades of this.

[expatguy]

With all due respect, you should be focusing your ire on the terrorists who shot down the helicopter, not the President of the United States.

Many here including myself feel very strongly that we (as a country) are not being as brutal as we need to be to ultimately win this war.

[org.whodat]

Doesn't sound like "hunkering down" to me.

One little police action, man we're getting tough now. Sac off

[jveritas]

I am really shocked at the number of freepers who lost all type of historical perspective. You two have done a great job showing the perspective that many freepers appear to lack. We are very sad for every fallen hero we lose in Iraq, however still our casualties rate is miraculously low compared to other wars with the same length of time. WW II we lost over 400,000 troops, in Vietnam after 4 years of war we lost almost 40,000 troops. This incredibly low casualty rate we have in Iraq is the ultimate testimony to the extreme professionalism and power of the US military the most powerful military in history.

Many people and some on this forum just do not have it in them what does it take to win a war, may be in the future the "Defeatists" should try to amend the Constitution to include the following:

Stop the war and retreat if the number of dead troops exceed 1000, or the war costs more than 50 billions dollars, or if it lasts more than one year, whichever comes first.

[anglian]

I saw this from a poster at hughhewitt, and would like to repeat it here.

Perspective

It is nearly 4 years since the invasion of Iraq began. Let's compare the progress to date with the same period during the Civil War.

Year 1: Iraq War

- major fighting ends in less than 2 months, Saddam is captured in 9 months

Civil War

- The Army of the Potomac is defeated in nearly every battle - Lincoln relieves Gens McDowell and then McClellan, and nearly relieves Grant after losing 13,000 men at Shiloh

Year 2:

Iraq - provisional government formed. First elections held. In the 2nd battle of Fallejuh, the Marines lose 95 men with 500 wounded.

Civil War - Union loses again at Bull Run, wins, but suffers horrible losses at Antietam - 2100 dead, 9500 wounded, then suffers a terrible loss at Fredricksburg - another 12,000+ killed or wounded. Lincoln goes through 3 commanders of the Army of the Potomac

Year 3

Iraq - While the media reports that the insurgency is tearing Iraq apart, the Iraqis hold two elections - one to ratify a Constitution the other to select an assembly. Turnout is higher than in most U.S. elections.

Civil War - Union loses at Chancellorsville - with 17,000 casualties, Lincoln selects his 5th Commander of the Army of the Potomac - the Union actually turns the corner and wins at Gettysburg thanks to tremendous leadership by several senior officers on the Union side. Riots take place in New York, killing 120 people.

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, there government is still operational, most provinces are peaceful and the control of the security responsibility is gradually being turned over to the Iraqis Casualties: 3047 US Dead, 22,834 Wounded

Four years after the bombing of Fort Sumter, Lee finally surrenders Casualties - Union Only - 140,414 battle deaths, 224,097 non theatre deaths, 281,881 Wounded.

According to the media, Democrats and some Republicans, we are losing the War in Iraq. What would these same people have said 3 years into the Civil War? Would they have suggested a rapid re-deployment into Vermont? Perhaps Jack Murtha would have suggested basing the Army of the Potomac in Iceland?

Lincoln's words at Gettysburg:

"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced"

[jveritas]

Excellent post for historical perspectives.