No Easy Way Out
Anne Applebaum, a columnist at Slate, wrote a dead-on-target article in regard to the Iraq War:
Hillary Clinton has a three-point plan; Barack Obama has a move-the-soldiers-from-Iraq-to-Afghanistan plan. House Democrats have a plan to take most troops out by next March; Senate Democrats have a plan to take them out by April. Some Senate Republicans want the president to shrink the size of the U.S. military in Iraq; other Senate Republicans want to let the surge run its course. Search the Web, listen to the radio, watch the news, and you can hear people arguing that if only we had more troops, fewer troops, or no troops at all, then everything would be OK again.
What is missing from this conversation is a dose of humility. More to the point, what is missing is the recognition that every single one of these plans contains the seeds of potential disaster, even catastrophe.
I do have my own plan to win the war (not that anyone is likely to listen), but it would entail radically changing the tactics we have been using so far. I will discuss it in a later article.
The bottom line is, it looks like too many people are living in the moment. The "get out now" crowd doesn't seem to want to think about the inevitable bloodbath after the US pulls out (although ironically, many of them are the same ones asking us to send troops to prevent mass killings in Darfur), and the "stay the course" crowd doesn't seem to acknowledge the unfortunate reality that US and UK public opinion is increasingly so opposed to the war that eventually "stay the course" will not be an option.
The irony is, as wars go, it isn't even that bad. According to the latest released data, 3909 coalition soldiers have been killed in Iraq as of today, 3622 of them Americans. Compare this to the 8,226 killed during the Battle of Iwo Jima alone, or the over 58,000 US dead from the Vietnam War. I'm not trying to minimize any tragedies here; in fact, some of these were men that I served with. But compared to other wars, less than 4000 in more than 4 years is incredible. Part of this is the guerrilla nature of the war, part of it advances in lifesaving technologies, but probably the biggest factor is the interceptor body armor which has saved countless American lives. Of course, besides the human casualties, you have the financial cost, which has been estimated at between $5-12 billion per month. It's the human cost, however, the produces the most outrage.
Machiavelli's "The Prince" has a relevant passage here:
Those can be called well used (if it is permissible to speak well of evil) that are done at a stroke, out of the necessity to secure oneself, and then are not persisted in but are turned to as much utility for the subjects as one can. Those cruelties are badly used which, though few in the beginning, rather grow with time.... Hence it should be noted that in taking hold of a state, he who seizes it should review all the offenses necessary for him to commit, and do them all at a stroke.... For injuries must be done all together, so that, being tasted less, they offend less
In other words, if those 3,909 soldiers were all killed during the short push to Baghdad in March 2003, and none at all during the long guerrilla war afterwards, the public outcry over the cost would actually be much less. But adding, on average, 2-3 war deaths every day for the past four years keeps the cost of the war ever fresh in the public's mind. Add to the mix that those doing the reporting are, in general, hostile to the war and love to report coalition failures, and you have a combination that is very hard to beat in the court of public opinion, no matter how much logic, reason, or facts you have to back up your case.
Like what you see? Click on any of the labels below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed
2 comments:
you said:
what is missing is the recognition that every single one of these plans contains the seeds of potential disaster, even catastrophe.
Sounds like the plan to invade Iraq in the first place.
I think your article is well put- it is quite true that though a devastating loss all at once is terrible, it is the slow bleeding which gets the public attention. the casualties of september 11th are a staggering blow, but now 6 years later (almost) the average american is more worried about the losses suffered in the iraq war. It is interesting to note that 270-330 military personel die in traffic accidents yearly. while only a little over a 1/3 of the iraq war death figure this is still a significant number of our soldiers dying- and yet there isnt much outcry to stop traffic accidents. everyone seems to see this as a fact of life.
compared with some of the worst battles in history this entire WAR has relatively few deaths (though i would wish none) for example in WWII 1.5 million people died in the battle of stalingrad. hell when the mongols invaded baghdad in 1258 between 140,000 people and 1,000,000 people died.
almost 43,000 americans died in the year the iraq war began from car accidents. yet people cant seem to wrap their minds around 4000 people being a low (albeit horrible number). We expected around 30 percent casualties from the initial invasion in urban conflict from what i've heard of average urban battles.
i just wish that people would realize that the world is better off without sadaam hussein despite our casualties- even if there were no WMD's this is the same person who killed hundreds of thousands of people- where was everyone to complain about those casualties?
Post a Comment