But the MSM is slanting the coverage of Iraq if you believe our returning military. You don't use a scorecard of the killed and wounded to determine if you are winning or losing. It is the accomplishment of objectives, which are important. I think we are winning using those criteria.
FYI: US dead and wounded declined in 2005 from 2004 and will decline again in 2006 from 2005. The MSM used the slight uptick in October 2006 to give people the impression that we were seeing a massive increase in violence. Of course it was also intended to influence our elections.
2004
Dead--848[KIA-719]; wounded--7998; Total--8,846
2005
Dead--846[KIA-676]; wounded--5943; Total--6,798
2006 thru November 8
Dead--659[KIA-565]; wounded--4,338 [thru Oct 31]; Total--4,997
November 1-8, 2006, we have lost 20 dead [16 KIA]. Barring some unforeseen development, 2006 will mark the second straight year that US casualties have declined. You won't read that in the MSM anywhere.
Of the 20,687 wounded since March 2003, 11,682 were returned to duty within 72 hours. It also bears mentioning that 5,716 Iraqi securty forces [military and police] have been killed or twice the number of American military lost. Iraqi losses have been increasing as they take on more of the security burden. In the "infamous" month of October 2006, the US lost 105 [KIA-99] compared to Iraqi security KIAs of 224. And to put October 2006 into context, we lost 96 dead [KIA-78] in October 2005.
Major combat operations have ceased. It is amazing that Americans have become so casualty averse and unable to put our current low rate of casualties into some sort of context. We are a nation of 300 million. If we can't deal with these kind of casualties in pursuit of our national security interests, then we are indeed a paper tiger. I say that advisedly as a Vietnam vet who was in Danang during the Tet offensive.
"Barring some unforeseen development, 2006 will mark the second straight year that US casualties have declined. You won't read that in the MSM anywhere."
Spoken like a graduate of the "McNamarra/Rumsfeld War College".
Wars are not won by statistics; they are won by the application of relentless, destructive power by your military machine and the practical demonstration that your system is superior to the other guy's.
If you don't fight wars in this way, you will lose.
If you fight wars with one eye on casulaty counts and the other on press releases, you will lose.
If you fight with one hand tied behind your back (in this case, Iraqi's who's first loyalty is to tribe, sect or scumbag-du-jour masquerading as Today's Savior, in other words, unreliable allies) then you will lose.
If you allow your enemies to not only survive, but to prosper (see Usama Bin Hidin', Al-Sadr, et. al.), you will lose.
If your goal is to promote your system without making the preparations to ensure that your system will take root (i.e. holding elections when democracy and the public/private institutions which form it's foundations, don't exist as even abstract notions), then you will lose.
The goal of this war, from Day One, should have been the complete and total destruction of Ba'athist Iraq, returning it to it's natural,pristine, desert state, erasing any visible sign of the "Old Order", ensuring that the "Iraqi people" (an artificial construct to begin with) were reduced to pre-Stick Age living conditions and under such incredible suffering that resort to Islam, Ba'athism, Pan-Arabism, and a whole host of other "-ism's" were all equally unattractive options in which no one had the slightest confidence. Or the ability to advance.
THAT is war. Not "how many did we lose this month as opposed to last month, or six months ago".
The fact remains that the rush to pass responsibility off to the Iraqis, the indecent haste in which a "Hearts and Minds" campaign was begun before the shooting stopped, coupled with a cake-walk-three-week-bumrush on Baghdad (the Iraqi army can only fight those weaker than themsleves or totally unarmed peasants) blinded those in power to a universal truth; Wars are not won by guys in White Hats running a Public-relations campaign. They are won by the application of brute force.
But of course, Rumsfeld had all that 'Vietnamization' experience behind him, so it's easy to see why he wasn't up to the task. What puzzles me is why GWB didn't realize it a year or two ago. Apparently, the only message that gets through is electoral defeat.