Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: r9etb
I agree. We have to be WILLING to take casualties. I just have a problem with the premise in the title.

To use a different analogy, take the "predicted automobile deaths." Yes, we know some people are going to die on the streets and highways, but we take all possible precautions from a public safety perspective to keep that number down.

And I learned in safety engineering training, that 99% of actions are the result of someone breaking a rule, whether intentionally or on purpose.

When you head into a battle zone, you are CONSCIOUSLY going somewhere where the risk of loss of life is high. And you try to assess that threat as much as possible. And when bad stuff happens, it is investigated thoroughly in order to figure out how it could have been prevented, with a possibility of avoiding mistakes, IF ANY, in the future.

But any way you look at it, casualties are NOT a "good sign." They are just a hazard we have to decide to live with.

17 posted on 03/05/2002 2:38:04 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Illbay
Actually, the logistics staff have manuals with tables based on historical experience predicting everything from casualty rates to food, fuel and ammo consumption. Of course, the experience of the last 10 years has probably caused a re-writing of the manuals!

The key point, though, is that you can't achieve your objective without engaging the enemy and that's almost impossible to do without sustaining casualties, even though the US has gotten very, very good at minimizing our own.

24 posted on 03/05/2002 3:01:35 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson