I've been going over the coalition casualty reports from Iraq, and I have to say, Operation Feed Halliburton may not be the next Vietnam, but it looks like it's already a lot closer to becoming the next Vietnam than I had realized. It would appear the U.S. Army is now caught in a classic war of attrition -- precisely the kind of war the Pentagon has tried to avoid for the past 30 years.
First, a look at the numbers. Then some rough comparisons with the American military experience in Vietnam.
The Butcher's Bill
According to the Iraq Coalition Casualties web site, Coalition casualties from the start of the war (March 20) through 9/12/03 totaled 181 killed in action and 165 "non-combat" deaths. Meanwhile, 1,178 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, and other 313 have been wounded in "non-hostile" incidents.
More than half of the total coalition deaths (198 out of 346) have come since the fall of Baghdad and the end of the most intensive part of the conventional war. That's an average of 1.27 per day.
I don't have a breakout of the wounded before/after the fall of Baghdad, but I do know from other sources that over the past week or so WIAs have been running at about 9-10 a day. Assuming the ratio between "hostile" and "non-hostile" casualties has remained roughly the same, that suggests the coalition has been suffering about 12 wounded per day, on average.
Consider how this would work out on an annual basis:
1.27 deaths x 365 days = 464 per year
12 wounded x 365 days = 4,380 per year
Now this is obviously way below the casualty rates experienced in Vietnam. According to the National Archives, a total of 58,193 U.S. military personnel were killed in Vietnam from 1961 through 1972 -- 47,406 by hostile action and 10,787 from non-hostile causes.
That's a little misleading, though, since US causualties were relatively modest prior to America's full entry into the war in late 1964. Looking at just the period 1965-72, U.S. military deaths (combat and non-combat) averaged about 7,000 per year.
According to figures published by the vietnamwall.org web site (and also taken from the National Archives) just under 339,000 soldiers were wounded in action in Vietnam from 1961-72. But again, the 1965-72 period is more relevant. During that time WIAs averaged about 35,000 a year.
The Vietnam force, however, was much, much bigger than the one currently in Iraq -- through most of the war, anyway. U.S. ground troop strength in Vietnam stood at roughly 184,000 at the end of 1965, expanded to a peak of 536,000 in 1968, then declined to something like 140,000 in 1972, the last year before the Paris Peace Accords were signed and America withdrew from the war.
Doing the Math
It seems useful, then, to look not at absolute casualty figures but at attrition rates -- that is, the total killed and wounded as a percentage of the total force.
If we assume the U.S. ground force in Iraq continues to number something like 130,000, and if casualties continue to run at average rates of 1.27 deaths and 12 wounded per day, the attrition rate works out to something like 3.7% per year.
In Vietnam, by way of comparison, the attrition rate was slightly less than 5% in 1965, rose to a peak of 19% in 1968 (the year of the Tet Offensive) and then declined gradually to about 3% in 1972.
(Those are my own back-of-the-envelope calculations, based on the casualty figures from the National Archives and year-by-year Vietnam force levels found at various places around the web. They're may not be precisely accurate, but I think they're well inside the ballpark, which is all I'm concerned about here.)
An attrition rate of just under 4% in Iraq may not seem all that serious (in a military sense) -- especially when compared to the peak of 19% in Vietnam. But we need to remember that the Vietnam Army was a draftee army -- with the selective service lottery providing a steady supply of unlucky young men to feed the cannons. There's a draftee born every minute, but volunteers can be harder to find.
The Army's overall force structure was also much larger back then, allowing a relatively rapid rotation of personnel into and out of the theatre. While this ultimately destroyed the fighting effectiveness of the Vietnam force as a whole, it did spread the casualties around, and kept units at something close to their full strength.
In Iraq, by contrast, units that go in together are supposed to leave together. This may preserve unit cohesion, but it also means the same guys are going to be taking casualties together, week after week. If the flow of replacements doesn't keep up, then the impact of attrition on unit strength could be magnified -- particularly given all the other non-combat ways (sickness, family emergency, my-daddy-knows-a-general, etc.) that troops can get out of theatre now.
There's already anecdotal evidence that this is happening:
Soldiers also said they should be given replacements to fill vacancies. The company, which left Orlando with 132 soldiers, now has 114. One soldier died in a Humvee accident, a second was shot to death in Baghdad, and others have been sent home with injuries, medical problems or family emergencies.
132-114 = 18, divided by 132 = a 13.6% attrition rate. And these guys shipped out on Jan 2, so the annual attrition rate is actually higher.
An Army of One
It's also important to remember that today's Army is a capital-intensive Army, which means a lot of it can't be run by unskilled labor. The amount of time and money it takes to recruit, train and equip a reasonably proficient combat soldier has grown considerably since Vietnam.
The payoff -- soldier for soldier -- is a more lethal force, but also a more leveraged force. Each individual cog in the machine is more important -- and harder to replace. So even a relatively modest attrition rate, sustained over a period of time, could raise hell with combat effectiveness.
And that's not including the impact of the constant attrition on the capital side of the ledger. The unexpectedly high tempo of operations is already beginning to wear down the war machines.
Finally, there's absolutely no guarantee the combat attrition rate in Iraq will stay as low as 4%, and many reasons to think it may go higher as the insurgents continue to refine their strategy and tactics.
Conclusions
This would appear to be a damned serious problem for the Pentagon, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious solution -- other than the Coalition's increasingly desperate attempts at "Iraqization." After three decades of swearing it would never allow itself to be dragged into another meat-grinding war of attrition, the military has allowed itself to be dragged into one.
The real question is what they're going to do about it.
My contemporaries, our feelings and sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?
Gen. Anthony C. Zinni (USMC, Ret.)
Speech
September 4, 2003
Update 9/14 6:45 PM ET: Fixed a rather dumb math error on my part, which inflated the death rate since the fall of Baghdad. This did, not, however, make a very big difference in the annual attrition rate in Iraq, which appears to be running at about 3.7%, instead of my original 4%.
I'm a big fan of yours, Billmon, and an ardent lefty -- but your attrition percentage looks off. According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count site, the average fatalities per day -- including non-hostile deaths -- is actually just under two (1.94), and the rate after May 1st is actually only 1.29.
That's a pretty big math gap, and you may want to adjust before the wingnuts jump screaming down your throat. Yes, the attrition rate is atrocious, especially considering that info on the wounded is hard to come by and almost certainly under-reported, but you know how the psychos are. They find one small, honest error, and then do the monkey-screech about the "evil lib-ruls."
Just trying to help,
(/) Roland X
Support Our Troops -- Bring Them Home
This adventure has clearly begun to pose devastating challenges to the American military. Perhaps the most stinging indictment of this war--even more than the cynical lies that led to it--is the fact that these supposed technocrats couldn't do the math behind this operation.
Only the very dopiest of right-wingers thinks we would be better off if we had let Rumsfeld have his original plans of a tiny force; current events are showing us that we have too few to last for any length. So clearly, Iraq couldn't have worked without serious ally support.
I don't think much of the way Americans have lazily assumed superiority in world affairs, with little or no regard for the arrogance of the proposition. But it does seem to be kind of a shame that we couldn't have learned to strike a deal with the rest of the world voluntarily, rather than wreck our ability to operate as a superpower and find ourselves forced to deal with our newly-created weakness.
Billmon,
Yes, there are indications that the situation in Iraq is worse than Pentagon propaganda would indicate. Minor points. By 1969 when I was in Viet Nam there was no rotation of units. It was strictly personnel. My company’s attrition rate was remarkably similar the National Guard unit. We were stationed around a valley edge protecting infiltration routes. No contact with NVA or charging up unnamed Hills. Still no one lasted a year out in the field. Either they moved to the rear or were evacuated with illness, injuries or wounds. If it’s a similar situation in Iraq, the Army has profound personnel problems that can only be solved by the Draft or turning the occupation over the Arab League.
our attrition percentage looks off.
I'm grateful for the catch, Roland. I fixed the math error, but it actually didn't change things that much -- a 3.7% attrition rate, instead of the original 4%.
"YOU GO GUY", to paraphrase "you go girl" for those of us who are black or worked in the black world.
Viet Nam
It was the body count, every night on TV; there were no computers (thank god there are - everything is speeded up so incredibly fast. We shouldn't have to lose 57K(plus or minus) men. And have men who have to sleep in closets, friend of a friend of mine, or someone I dated, who could only sleep on the floor and kicked and moaned and one night had a flashback and was pounding the pillow next to my head with rage in his eyes.
To back up what you are saying I posted to your "sorry about that": www.english.aljazeera.net/article/news/global/news/america+secret+casualties.htm
We need to bring our men/women home.
As I posted on another comment you had made to what purpose is this waste?
Great post. Keep up the good work. I would think it is safe to assume that we are not getting the full story on the impacts of casualties (of all sorts) on our "force levels."
We certainly havn't seen much of the wounded, and what it really means to be confined to a wheelchair or not have the use of a hand or leg or an eye.
To repeat, great post, keep up the good work.
According to The Observer (posted on Kos) the casuality rates are a lot higher.
6,000 dead and wounded US in Iraq
There's a reason the Pentagon is keeping the number of American wounded secret -- it's a way to hide the human toll of the war.
The true scale of American casualties in Iraq is revealed today by new figures obtained by The Observer, which show that more than 6,000 American servicemen have been evacuated for medical reasons since the beginning of the war, including more than 1,500 American soldiers who have been wounded, many seriously.
Now the article doesn't give the source of those figures which is a serious omission. But it includes 1,178 soldiers wounded in combat operations and nearly 300 dead. Throw in soldiers injured in non-combat situations, heat strokes, heart attacks, appendectomies, and other illnesses, as well as those evacuated for psychological reasons, and 6,000 is plausible.
Bush's ideal war? No US casualties with lots of Bradley vehicles being blown up (and thus needing replacing with purchases from "Poppy".) I expect this misadministration will offer free Bradleys (at American taxpayer expense) in exchange for troop commitments from other countries.
Just caught the latest NOW with Bill Myers. The segment called Unanswered Questions "focused on four 9/11 widows who have posed their questions about the terrorist attacks to Congress, the media, and the public." I think everyone should at least read the section 9/11 Questions.
All the questions blow me away but number 3 really got me "On September 9th the president had a war plan on his desk to go into Afghanistan. What was the origin of this plan? Why was this plan drawn up even before the September 11th attacks?" The more I hear, the more I can believe anything of the group of nuts running our country into the ground.
Must add:
The war continues on the streets of L.A.. Sister of Venus and Serena Williams killed in a confrontation in Compton.
There are children in L.A. who sleep in bathtubs and hear gun shots all night long like in Iraq.
Whoops! "Moyers" not "Myers" - sorry Bill!
I noticed this gem in the article about equipment costs of the Iraq occupation...
"This $87 billion is really just a down payment," said Scott Lilly, the Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and a military procurement expert.
Question: does anyone know what the Iraqi debacle is doing to US Army, Marine and National Guard recruitment and retention? Is it up, down or static? If down as I expect, who are bailing out? Fresh recruits or the NCOs?
A data point -- a friend of mine, a British Army long-service NCO re-upped two years ago for a further eleven years. He's a combat vet (Gulf War 1, Bosnia, Northern Ireland) and he was down to do six months blue beret peacekeeping in Cyprus when he was tagged to go somewhere sandier than a beach in the Med. He's now back in the UK and handing in his papers. A couple of months from now he'll be a civilian. I believe he's looking at doing high-risk high-pay ($200k plus p.a.) security work guarding an airport somewhere.
If the NCOs are bailing, the Army and Marines are in for a hard time.
The true scale of American casualties in Iraq is revealed today by new figures obtained by The Observer, which show that more than 6,000 American servicemen have been evacuated for medical reasons since the beginning of the war
I've also got the feeling that the official figures are ridiculously low balled. But who knows?
FYI, if 6,000 troops really have been evacuated since the war started, that would equal 34 a day, or an annual rate of 12,410 (34 x 365). Add the death rate (1.27 x 365 = 464) and divide by the original size of the force, and you get an annual attrition rate of almost 10%.
Billmon,
Do you have figures on total troops who served 'in theatre'? That is, the total number of indiviuals who saw service in Southeast Asia or some comparable geographic space from 1961(or5?) through 1975? The reason I ask is that if, at any given point in time, we compare total casualties to total indivduals served or serving, I'll bet this relative burn rate is a lot hotter in Iraq.
The potential Viet Nam draft pool was by definition a lot larger than the Iraq voluteer pool. And the disparity gets much worse as the unpopular wars grind on, because bad news brings down replacement numbers in a vounteer army. In a draft army recruitment remains relatively constant.
Thus each volunteer casualty brings you exponentially faster to final collapse because the potential replacement pool is already less, and is further accelerated by the fact of the casualty. Or to put it another way, the attrition sword hits harder and strikes bone a lot sooner.
We may already be in bone land. Replacement rates are in negative territory for the year (less there now than before) and I would assume not a lot more signing up. Doesn't look like many foreign troops are coming either. After six months were out of gas with no station in sight.
What idiot told Wolfowitz he could do empire with a volunteer army? We're in this less than six months and our army already looks like Germany's circa Summer 1918.
Thank you for doing all of this work. Your informative posts, in spite of the grim topics, are a bright spot of hope. Inspirational. I have made three links to your blog from our university website. Difficult to think that so many of our fellow countrymen/women just don't seem to care at all. Some do. Let's just keep going. Thanks again.
Mavin - I believe the Pentagon has contingency plans for everything - invading Canada, bombing Switzerland, Aliens landing, meteors hitting the earth, you name it. I'm serious; it's just something the bureaucrats do IN CASE the President should ever demand an invasion plan for, say, Grenada or Panama, the Pentagon can say: "Yup! Got that one over here somewhere. Here it is! We're ready!"
I'd love to drop Wolfie, Perle, Rummy and all the neocons in the Pentagon and AEI into Falluja. Then tell the locals 'here are the people who brought you this war and all its misery'.
Either that or let our troops use them as tools to vent their anger on. Either way it would make a few people happy.
The last I read, a few days ago, the army has met it's recruitment goals and the guard is actually ahead. But I haven't read anything about retention rates. Intel Dump says there's been an increase in ROTC applications. I don't think this means much because officers have always been more enthusiastic about 'combat'. It really helps with officer promotions.
The last I read, a few days ago, the army has met it's recruitment goals
Somebody else mentioned this to me -- but the economy is punk and jobs are hard to find, so maybe that offsets the threat of getting shipped to Iraq.
You also have to wonder how low the Army is dropping the bar to hit its numbers. Hell, even Shrub could probably get in now if he tried...
Vietnam is the wrong analogy. In Vietnam, you had other countries (North Vietnam and the USSR) supplying and supporting the VC guerillas. The next step in that kind of war would be large (company and battalion sized) engagements. That is highly unlikely to occur in Iraq.
A more accurate analogy would be Belfast.
you are all clueless
Marvin,
After the attack on the USS Cole, the Clinton administration prepared plans to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. The outgoing Clinton national securtiy team gave the plans to the incoming Bush administration and urged action but the plans took eight months to reach President Bush's desk. At least that is how Al Franken tells it in his chapter "Operation Ignore" (read also pages 112 and 114) in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.
CH,
I believe that the Badr brigade has Iranian sponsorship. Saudi Arabia seems to be flushing its radicals out...(unintentionally?) sending them to Iraq. Turkey might be providing aid to Iraq's Turkmen minority, who seem to be going against the kurds...And if Iraq falls into civil war, the temptation to grab the northern oil fields would be overwhelming.
The next step in that kind of war would be large (company and battalion sized) engagements. That is highly unlikely to occur in Iraq.
I think my point is that even without company and battalion sized engagements, we're seeing attrition rates comparable to what we saw in the opening and closing years of the Vietnam War.
Iraq may be a smaller war than Vietnam, but it's already looking to be quite a bit bigger than Northern Ireland.
you are all clueless
Well we're not military experts and that's for sure. But if want clueless, anonymous, try whitehouse.gov.
The WaPo published the 6000 figure
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12096-2003Sep1.html
I dug around and found the figures for the Army's 2003 recruitment goals: 73,800 active, 26,400 reserve. However, I don't know when the closing date is or what the current sign-ups have totaled.
However, it isn't just a matter of numbers. It is a matter of expertise. If the doctors and medical personnel, for example, decide not to continue their reserve or National Guard status, that can leave us without sufficient medical staff. We need our specialized personnel, such as engineers in all fields, pilots (rotary and fixed-wing), computer programmers, MPs, etc. These are the people who it is very expensive and time-consuming to replace, and all of whom have good-paying jobs back home. This area may be the straw which breaks the camel's back. I hope.
FYI, the doctors and medical personnel, etc. cannot decide not to continue their reserve or National Guard status. There's currently a stop loss order in effect, which means those serving in the reserves or National Guard cannot leave for 10 years (or until the order is rescinded). Heard about this on NPR and was shocked.
"I think tourism (in Iraq) is going to be something important in that country as soon as the security situation is resolved, and I think that will be resolved as the Iraqis take over more and more responsibility for their own government."
Donald Rumsfeld
National Press Club Speech
September 10, 2003 <---- !!
Is there any doubt this man is RAT F'ING INSANE!?
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday he does not know when the U.S. military presence in Iraq will end and hinted the Bush administration would seek MORE MONEY <--- !! than the $87 billion already requested to cover U.S. costs there (for Operation Robber Halliburton).
"How long does it take? I don't know. I can't say. I don't think anybody can say with absolute certainty at this point,'' Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030906 (Bush's Operation Flypaper)
Vote this insane clown posse out in 2004!!!!!!
Just a quick brainstorm after reading CH's post.
War, war, war and all the time is what the Bushies want. Therefore, wouldn't it be in their best interest to prolong it, no matter what the costs? If this thing goes on like it is, what are the chances that they'd decide to lob a great big bombshell onto the American populous? And by that, centcom announces that a direct link has been uncovered between the governments of either Iran or Syria funneling arms to the dead-ender Saddam Loyalists. Like anything else this administration has done, the breaking-news/announcement would come. Then they'd give it a day or two for it to sink in and be bandied about on Fox News et al, then they'd launch, thus making it physically impossible for the opponents to ever get a word in edgewise. And again we find ourselves living again, in yet another world we need to comprehend.
I think there is just enough visceral fear of Muslims in this country that they could pull it off. I mean, is this not just a slow progression into a full fledged war between civilizations? It would take next to nothing for the bored American populous' cork to pop.
(Sorry. I've just had a bad day. At least I hope that's all it is.)
If that link is ever found, it means 2000 years of espionage has gone down the drain.
Mavin and CMike,
"US 'planned attack on Taleban'":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
Billmon--Your comment about "the Coalition's increasingly desperate attempts at 'Iraqization'" begs the question: If we do help Iraq to reconstitute an army, who will that army be fighting for? U.S./Halliburton interests? I doubt it. It seems more likely that they would turn on us, and on each other, as we decrease the size of our own force. Everything I read makes me believe we must get out sooner rather than later. There is an antiwar march scheduled for October 25 in D.C.; I will be interested to see how many show up.
After three decades of swearing it would never allow itself to be dragged into another meat-grinding war of attrition, the military has allowed itself to be dragged into one.
The military leaders who refused to go along were fired or transferred. The military leaders who remained -- we've seen them on TV all the time -- did not have guts to tell Congressional oversight committees the truth about what BushCo was doing.
The same goes for George Tenet, who didn't have the guts to go to intelligence oversight committees or resign, once it was clear BushCo was pushing for sexier intelligence.
And the same goes for Colin Powell. He may be the only adult in the place, but he didn't have the guts to resign and tell the truth about the incompetent ideologues running the show.
I suspect most officers who learned the lessons of Vietnam understood that the Iraq war was a mistake. But the ones remaining at the top did not have the courage to back their opinions with actions which might better protect our country, but would threaten their careers.
I suspect most officers who learned the lessons of Vietnam understood that the Iraq war was a mistake. But the ones remaining at the top did not have the courage to back their opinions with actions which might better protect our country, but would threaten their careers.
Which is why this war may end up trashing the Army -- again.
And the same goes for Colin Powell. He may be the only adult in the place, but he didn't have the guts to resign and tell the truth about the incompetent ideologues running the show.
Actually, Colin Powell's has an interesting history of gutless cover-ups. He was the first investigator of the My Lai massacre, and he recommended that no further investigation be taken.
"I didn't see anything here, did you boys?"
Actually, Colin Powell's has an interesting history of gutless cover-ups. He was the first investigator of the My Lai massacre, and he recommended that no further investigation be taken.
-David Y.
I hadn't heard this! Can you point me to some good reading?
Powell sent a memo to his superior, the adjutant general, positioning that the young soldier had not given enough specifics upon which to base an inquiry. Powell said the soldier's charges were false except for "isolated instances." He wrote that "relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese are excellent."
----------------------------
In 1968, he was charged with responding to a letter by Tom Glen, a soldier in the Americal division. The letter charged American soldiers with indiscriminately shooting into people’s homes and with severe beatings and torture of civilians. Without interviewing Glen, Powell wrote a response denying the allegations, claiming that "relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." (The New Republic, 4/17/95). Given his involvement in the "strategic hamlet" program and the knowledge expressed in his memoirs of the brutal practices of American soldiers in Vietnam, he had to know his report was false. The report came out shortly after the My Lai massacre, in which hundreds of unarmed men, women and children were murdered and many women raped (Four Hours in My Lai: Penguin, 1993) – an atrocity committed by that same Americal division.
--------------------------------
"My Lai: Nobody suggests that Powell, who wasn't even in Vietnam on March 16, 1968, had any responsibility for the massacre itself. But as deputy operations officer of the Americal Division eight months later, the then Major Powell drafted its first official response to rumors that U.S. troops had run amok -- and his denial of the event, in which up to 400 Vietnamese civilians died at the hands of U. S. soldiers, is part of what investigators concluded was a cover-up."
---------------------
google is your friend
then Major Powell drafted its first official response to rumors that U.S. troops had run amok -- and his denial of the event, in which up to 400 Vietnamese civilians died at the hands of U. S. soldiers, is part of what investigators concluded was a cover-up."
I wonder if this is the real reason he's never run for President -- I mean for the media to ignore the fact that one of the candidates is a Vietnam-era deserter is one thing. Ignoring the fact that one of the candidates is a Vietnam-era war criminal would be another.
Quite certainly, Billmon.
And that is my fascination ( If you want to call it that. I believe, it's just sick humour ) with Colin as a greek tragic figure. So many wrong decisions, so much acceptance of what shouldn't be accepted, so much believe for greater good that turns to folly.
Not truly evil. But product of a time and mirror of evil forces. An Aristophane example of tradgedy.
Yet, the story hasn't ended - will he write me the ending that I need?
Forgot to include:
Good intentions pave the way....
If you understand the Viet Cong as Soviet or N. Vietnamese agents, you're re-fighting the Pentagon's imaginary war in Vietnam. You may win the war in your head, but you'll lose in the real world. N. Vietnam was merely a previously liberated zone in a nationalist/anti-colonial struggle. The Americans never understood that the Vietnamese didn't want them or anyone else running their country. Americans still don't get this, which is why they're repeating the same mistake in Iraq. Expect similar results.
There is, for me, a bright light in all this, if I take a longer-term perspective. I'm a dedicated liberal, but firstly a pragmatist, and am in favor of having a reasonably able defense, at least until we breed the violence gene out of ourselves as a species (no progress yet on that account). Force projection around the planet is another issue entirely, and I question both its necessity, and moreso its efficacy.
The upside is that the current fiasco demonstrates the real-world limits of our military might, even as the world's unchallenged super-power. A couple months ago, we were worried that the Bush Crime Family was deciding which "rogue nation" to steamroll next, Iran or Syria (of course we can't touch N. Korea because they'll incinerate Tokyo). The ease with which we became bogged down in Iraq, and the strain that is posing on our resources along with all our other involvements, shows that Bushco. won't likely be able to entertain any additional adventures for the duration.
Whew!
google is your friend
so is www.dogpile.com
;-)
Joanna,
good one.
BTW, just put the www.dogpile.com into the 'Linked Text HTML Tags reference sample', instead of 'www.url.com'.
(smaller than sign)a href="http://www.dogpile.com"(larger than sign)DOGPILE(smaller than sign)/a(larger than sign)
I cannot display (smaller than sign) as the actual symbol - it won't display once posted or previewed from the Comments box.
So, just replace the italic sympol descriptions
ie:(smaller than sign)
with the actual symbol, and you have build a Hyperlink, like this:
DOGPILE
Oh, and drop the brackets around the descriptions.
Raiderette comes from RAIDERS, I guess? LA, Oakland, wherever they are these days?
I don't know why everybody seems to ignore this other ugly war going on, but I think the war in Columbia better suits the Vietnam analogy than Iraq. The US is bogged down in the jungle supporting one side in what is a long-running civil war, and which is gradually moving into the neighboring countries. Pretty much the same as Nam. I have no idea what the American casualties have been down there, you really never hear anything about it in the media. Or even in the blogosphere.
Billmon writes:
"The true scale of American casualties in Iraq is revealed today by new figures obtained by The Observer, which show that more than 6,000 American servicemen have been evacuated for medical reasons since the beginning of the war
I've also got the feeling that the official figures are ridiculously low balled. But who knows?"
A month ago I flew from NYC to Seattle and happened to sit next to an Army reserve officer. He'd just retired from the FCC, but was very active with the reserves (not entirely out of choice). We got to talking, and he proved to be very anti-Bush and thought that the present situation in Iraq was a rather obscene disaster. When we discussed casualties (at that point I had read reports of approximately 1,200), he told me that it was closer to 5,000 and that the military brass were really playing down casualties, both qualitatively (lots of amputations among the wounded) and quantitatively (not counting soliders breaking down emotionally and mentally). When I told him that I'd been hearing and reading a lot online that sounded very bad compared to what was appearing in the mainstream press, he told me: "you can probably believe the worst you hear."
Our conversation was, obviously, unsettling, but to the extent that I was able to talk to a very reasonable, concerned and pissed-off military man, it was also reassuring. I don't know how much weight such anecdotal evidence carries, but it made it clear enough to me that the Bush administration's support in the ranks of the military is far from guaranteed and that anti-war civilians and skeptical military personnel have a lot in common (though, of course, the liklihood of civilians dying as a result of a terror attack--perhaps greater now than before Iraq was invaded and occupied--is far less than a soldier's chance of severe injury or death on the streets of Baghdad or Fallujah).
Down with Bush.
A couple months ago, we were worried that the Bush Crime Family was deciding which "rogue nation" to steamroll next, Iran or Syria (of course we can't touch N. Korea because they'll incinerate Tokyo). The ease with which we became bogged down in Iraq, and the strain that is posing on our resources along with all our other involvements, shows that Bushco. won't likely be able to entertain any additional adventures for the duration.
thanks tencentlife-well said. One of the real tragedies of this war is the very vulnerable position in dealing with actual threats it has left our military. (Iran building nuclear weapons)I beleive it gives potential enemies the impetus to build nuclear programs now while we are unable to do anything about it. I am not opposed to doing what we need to do to protect our borders and interests, this fiasco never came close to filling the bill. Will we now be relegated to using foul language for a real crisis requiring force?
That's EXACTLY why no one else in the international community will come to Bush's aid now, and why we will be paying the full bill for Iraq for generations to come.
The European and middle-east countries who have the resources to pull Bush's balls out of the fire are not stupid. They know from their experience leading up to Iraq that they do not have the means to restrain this Administration's ambitions and unilateral tendencies.
What better way to bottle-up US ambitions in say Syria or Iran than to leave the US military stuck in Iraq? This has nothing to do with passing a new UN resolition. It has everything to do with restraining American ambitions in the middle east.
There's only one country in the world that would really benefit from an increase of American influence in the middle east: Israel. And coincidently, that's the only country that Bush can't go to for military help on this one.
guys,
just in case you wonder, you have posted in an old 'Trackback' thread.
The active, new thread is here
vietRAQ