Why Is No One Talking About Casualties?

Sitting on a desk somewhere in the Pentagon is a computer printout listing projected American casualties for a range of Iraq invasion scenarios. Unfortunately, these vital figures are the only numbers that haven't been part of the war debate.

We've heard all kinds of estimates about how much the war is going to cost -- including Ari Fleischer's ultra-macho Bullet to Saddam's Head discount special -- how many troops will be deployed, how much the price of oil may go up, and the over-under on how long our forces will have to remain in Iraq. We've been given headcounts of Iraq's fractious Kurds and Shiites, reference numbers for security council resolutions defied, and been frequently reminded that Saddam has remained in power for 34 years, 11 of them since the last time we tried to send him and his mustache packing.

But no one in the Bush administration is talking about how many of our soldiers will be sent home in body bags. And not a single reporter has stood up at a press conference -- or at one of the president's countless fundraising appearances -- and asked, "Mr. President, how many young Americans are going to die?"

Will the deaths number in the hundreds, as was the case in Desert Storm and as would be again if Saddam collapsed like a cheap umbrella? Or will they be closer to the 10,000 to 50,000 some experts have predicted? And is Saddam the clear and present danger that would justify asking our sons and daughters to give up their lives for their country?

The question of casualties is all the more important given the weight attached to polls showing that over 70 percent of Americans support an invasion of Iraq. This purported groundswell of public opinion is being dropped like an old-fashioned "dumb" bomb to kill dissent on both sides of the political aisle.

Let's set aside for a moment the ludicrousness of basing our national security policy on the shoot-from-the-lip responses of a person who has been interrupted in the middle of dinner -- or a soapy shower or helping the kids with their homework -- and asked by a pollster, "Do you support the president's policy on Iraq?"

The fact is the number of Americans in favor of going to war with Iraq plummets -- down to only 39 percent in the latest Zogby poll -- when the prospect of "thousands of American casualties" is added to the question.

And such a bloody outcome is very likely given the kind of urban warfare it's going to take to oust Saddam. Forget about the caves of Tora Bora or the open desert cakewalk of the last Gulf War. Baghdad is a densely populated city of 4 million people -- roughly the same size as Los Angeles. Picture our troops having to battle their way down Hollywood Boulevard in search of a lone madman.

"We have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad," says Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former commander in chief of the military's central command. "All our advantages of command and control, technology, mobility, all of those things are in part given up and you are working with corporals and sergeants and young men fighting street to street. It looks like the last 15 minutes of 'Saving Private Ryan'." Or every frame of "Black Hawk Down."

The high number of casualties that would result from gaining control of a heavily defended Baghdad is the main reason Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, and the president's father pulled up short of the capital city the last time we took on Saddam. And remember that Saddam is a master of that ruthless strategy of defense known as "the human shield." Even the smartest of bombs will not be able to discern between Republican guardsmen and Iraqi children. That will be the dangerous business of Army rangers, Marine expeditionary units, and other special forces.

And unlike the Gulf War, which was primarily about the liberation of Kuwait, this war is about the elimination of Saddam. We've heard again and again that this ruthless despot will do anything, no matter how reckless or costly, to preserve his own regime. And we also know that he has been amassing stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, hideous high-body-count instruments disdained by the civilized world. You don't have to be George Tenet to connect these dots. Saddam will use whatever weapons he can in the impending fight to the finish. If he's going down, he's taking as many of us with him as he can.

"The likelihood is very good that he could use weapons of mass destruction," Gen. John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in September. "It could get very messy...The casualties, in my judgment, could be very high."

We are told by the proponents of invading Iraq that it's a bold step necessary to prevent future casualties. But in order to make an informed decision on the war, shouldn't the people also be told how many present casualties we will have to suffer in order to avoid these future ones?

I saw this also with a thread about Ron Paul's objections. You know he was dismissed as an "idiot" without any refuting of his points.

Well, that may have been true of some posts, but quite a few answered him point by point.

so many conservatives are blindly agreeing with anything and everything comeing out of the Bush administration.

I just don't see that many "blindly" agreeing with "everything" that comes out of the administration. He took plenty of justified flack for CFR and other issues. On the other hand, his actions with respect to Al Queda and the Taliban (the best criticism anyone can seem to come up with is that we "didn't find Osama" yet) justify a certain amount of deference with respect to overall strategy where it's not possible or advisable to lay every iota of intelligence out on the table for public consumption. That's not blind agreement, that's trust based upon demonstrated performance. Clinton never earned it; Bush has, to a considerable extent. Just my opinion, of course.

In war there are casualties. We are either prepared to accept that or we never fight. If we never fight we might as well surender now.

You're railing against a straw dog. Everyone, including Huffington and Pentagon, knows there will be casulties in the upcoming Iraqi war. That's why our generals have prepared casulty estimates in the first place. What Huffington is asking is that the Pentagon reveal what those casulty estimates are. And, in a democracy, what's so awful about that?

I thought you were a libertarian KDD?

Actually I'm a life long Republican and an active organizer in my area for more then 30 years. But I am first and foremost a conservative from the Old School ie. "Young Americans for Freedom"(YAF). From a conservative standpoint I have reason to take issue with my party when they propagate and futher socialist policies in government. That happens far too often in my party and only someone who is dazzled by personality or blinded by dogma would not recognize policy flaws that transend party lines. Conservatism doesn't exist without small L(libertarian)principals in it though. And if I ever do vote outside my party, I expect it will be the Libertarian Party that will get it.

But in order to make an informed decision on the war

Arianne, what are you whining about now?:
Nobody is asking for you or anyone else in the private sector to make an informed decision on the war. It is a matter of State.

So then what about the point about war for oil? You really think that's justified constitutionally?

I'm not against the war, like I said I'm undecided. But I only would be in support of it in the context of there being a threat to America and American citizens.

Saddam agreed to terms of a cease fire...he has violated the terms repeatedly. His intentions have not changed since the Gulf War. This is not a new war but a continuation of Desert Storm. If Saddam had complied with the terms of the agreements he made, action by the U.S. would not be necessary. I was merely pointing out other possible advantages of finishing the war.

Well, I wasn't "railing", but I realize what you are saying. But it is also true that the reason Huffington and others want the estimates so badly is so they can make an issue of the casualty figures to argue against going to war. Polls have shown that the American public's approval of an Iraq war is subject to having low casualties, as if that could be promised in advance.

The casualty estimates overestimate anyway. They have to in order to be prepared. Estimates for the Gulf War were much higher than what turned out to be true.

Considering that in a free Iraq, 1/3 of the oil reserves in the ME will begin flowing at full production, thus forcing "our friends" the Saudies and OPEC to lower their oil prices, it would appear that would work against US oil companies interests - as only high oil prices motivate new oil exploration projects and (according to liberal doctrine) high oil prices benefit US oil companies.

Although the oil prices might climb temporarily during another Gulf war, it wouldn't last long enough to spur new domestic exploration projects and certainly wouldn't motivate greater demand, as various conservation efforts would be forced on the public and other industries. Lower demand and thinner refinery and distribution markups necessary to keep the pump prices down to what the market will bear, will actually cost oil investors in lost profits and cost oil jobs.

Then there will be the whiplash of lower oil prices when Saddam is gone and order is established in Iraq. That could have a chilling effect on both the domestic and foreign oil companies. That is really why the Saudies (and Kuaities) are worried about the US booting out Saddam - their leverage of OPEC over us will be greatly reduced.

Didn't all the doomsayers and peaceniks predict 10,000-50,000 (what a nice arbritray range...) casualties from Desert Storm?

And it was PROVEN that in Desert Storm, casualties were SO LOW, that it was statistically safer to be in combat for an American soldier than it was for that soldier to be at home on base? (Thanks to the History Channel for that little gem).

Now that Saddam's military has already once been vanquished, with not a whole lot of rebuilding other than the air defenses, I believe this time around might be even safer still, so long as his pesky WMD's are destroyed in place or not used...

the reason Huffington and others want the estimates so badly is so they can make an issue of the casualty figures to argue against going to war.

I'm sure you're right. But even so, I'd still like to hear the numbers for the worst case scenario.

Some time ago, I perceived her as a smart person, but she keeps saying progressively more stupid things.

Bush Sr. did not go to Baghdad because he tried to avoid being on the soil of the Caliphate --- an act that would be remembered for centuries by the Arabs. At the time, the incremental gain semt to be outweighed by the costs.

She has to get over the Vietnam War syndrom: it's about time.

Nobody is asking for you or anyone else in the private sector to make an informed decision on the war. It is a matter of State.

Well, Bush has been asking (repeatedly) for the support of the American people in the upcoming war. And he's about to do it again tonight. But even if he hadn't, I would still consider it my right to question any government decision and demand answers too.

So then what about the point about war for oil? You really think that's justified constitutionally?

Apparently you have a different version of the constitution than I do. I don't see anything specifiying what reasons the president or congress needs to launch a war.

Apparently you have a different version of the constitution than I do. I don't see anything specifiying what reasons the president or congress needs to launch a war.

First of all the president doesn't have the authority to wage war, that belongs to the legislature.

In addition the government may only undertake action specifically authorized in the constitution. They are given authority to provide for our defense, not to provide for cheap oil.

question any government decision and demand answers too

Absolutely. Question everything the government says and does. Demand answers, too, not that you will ever get answers. If you need answers, you must furnish them yourself.

Fortunately for us now, the Internet is a great research and communication tool and we can all see there how bad third-quarter corporate profit estimates compared to reality, and likewise for casualty estimates, no doubt. Not something upon which a private citizen could base a meaningful decision. If you want a number, pick one. 20,000. Could be more, could be less. Based on this, should we stop Iraq before they kill millions?

Personally I don't think oil is enough of a reason. We don't have a God given right to cheap oil.

Boy that's the truth. As far as I can tell, here in LA, gas is way too cheap. Otherwise, when I pull up to an intersection I wouldn't see 500 cars waiting for the light to change (as happened to me recently). I'd like to see a $1.50/gallon tax increase on gasoline so gas pump sticker shock would discourage people from driving so much. Then to make sure the tax is revenue neutral everyone would get an equivalent reduction in income taxes. At the end of the year everyone would have the same amount of money in his pocket but when we drove up to intersections we wouldn't see 500 cars ahead of us.

I don't see anything specifiying what reasons the president or congress needs to launch a war.

That's right, Constitutionally speaking. Congress can declare war for any reason or for no reason at all if they so desire. The President can launch a temporary war on his own thanks to the War Powers Act, but there will be h*** to pay if he doesn't have a good reason.

Blabbering on about casualties at this point in the game is of no value whatsoever.

Given that it's the American people who will be fighting and dying in the upcoming Iraqi war, we have every right to ask of our leaders what casulties they expect. And I can't think a democracy why one would want to have it otherwise.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.