REALLY p***-poor public relations, that.
That, Soldiers dying IS NOT a good sign. But the article was good none the less.
No. You're (again) dead-wrong. It has NOTHING to do with public relations, and everything to do with fact.
FACT: To do an effective job of rooting out the terrorists- wherever they are- necessitates the use of ground forces. This means close-quarters combat, with weapons like shotguns, HK submachine guns, knives and hand-grenades.
FACT: In this environment, there will be casualties.
If there are none??? This means we aren't serious about doing the job, and letting the bastards off easy.
FACT: THIS IS ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE.
Given the above facts, it's unreasonable to expect we'll not have casualties. It's stupid, niave, ignorant. It't also something we all knew, when we signed up. We did, anyway, betting that we'll be quicker on the draw, and kill the bad guy before he kills us. Every serviceman, every one of them, knows this in their heart of hearts.
Don't give me this bullsh!t about how that knowledge, and the fact that we're having casualties actually indicates a seriousness not seen in ten years... Don't tell me that this is bad PR.
The only thing that's bad, around here, is statements based on rampant ignorance, being imparted by you... BTW, SmartBlonde, you give the truly smart blondes a bad name...