I try not to get personal here, but there are times . . .
. . . when things really get under my craw.

I saw on Jeff Jarvis’ site a link to a site called, "Juan Cole * Informed Comment *" where the post concerned was headlined, Bush May be making Hurricanes Worse. It’s because Bush gutted the Kyoto protocol, you see. That means that Global Warming™ is getting worse day by day, and therefore, so are hurricanes. Really.

But Juan Cole is a history professor at the University of Michigan, so let us be charitable and grant him the sanctuary of ignorance about matters meteorological. But as a history professor, how can he write ridiculous stuff like this:

Guerrillas killed two US soldiers in the region west of Baghdad, and wounded 11 (yes, 11!) others on late Thursday through Friday. In addition, US soldiers mistook Iraqi auxiliary Facilities Protection Services personnel (our guys) in Falluja for guerrillas and killed 10 of them, along with a Jordanian guard. The situation in Falluja has been tense all summer, and the temperature just went up several notches.

At this rate we would have 2000 - 4000 wounded US troops a year, and several hundred dead. It seems to me a rate of casualties that is unsustainable and inexcusable.

I am not quite sure what to make of his exuberance in emphasizing, "yes, 11!" US soldiers were wounded. I hope he means, "gosh, 11, that’s a lot!" instead of, "hurrah, 11!"

Anyway, the point is that he thinks - a history perfesser, mind you, that 4,000 wounded and "several hundred dead" soldiers a year is "unsustainable and inexcusable." I would think, seriously, that a history professor would be aware of, or at least be able to look up, the casualties sustained in earlier wars, and not just by the US.

In the Civil War, both sides routinely suffered several hundred dead and many thousands wounded in a single afternoon - for four years, until Lee surrendered. But Lee did not surrender because of excessive casualties. He surrendered because his army was almost surrounded and had no food nor any prospect of getting any.

On campaign in Virginia, Gen U. S. Grant had famously remarked that he could swap the Confederates two killed for one and still win men to spare.

In the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union suffered 20 million dead, probably half of them civilians. The Soviet Army suffered 100,000 casualties just in its final advance on Berlin and the battle for the city.

The usual standard for Japanese forces in the Pacific was to suffer near-100-percent casualties, fighting literally to the last man. They exacted a heavy toll from American forces. US Marines, sailors and other service members suffered 25,851 casualties wresting Iwo Jima from imperial hands - in only 36 days, a casualty rate of about one-third of all Americans there. 6,825 Americans died, about one-fourth of the total casualties.

The cruel fact is, Professor Cole, that the casualty figure and the casualty rate among US troops in Iraq is really quite light. Each death is a tragedy for the soldier and soldier’s family, but as a matter of affecting military effectiveness on the ground, they don’t. They just don’t. "Unsustainable" is a wholly inapt word to use.

So is "inexcusable." Why are American casualties inexcusable? Every soldier knows that the enemy is trying to kill him. Are you accusing the commanders on the ground of ineptitude? On what basis, and with what expertise?

At first I thought that what you find inexcusable is the fact that US troops are in Iraq in the first place, not that they are being killed. Yet you wrote on March 19 that you,

. . . remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides. The rest of us have a responsibility to work to see that the lives lost are redeemed by the building of a genuinely democratic and independent Iraq in the coming years.

So what is "inexcusable" about suffering the sacrifices necessary to bring about that end? This sounds like a flip-flop to me.

"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." Believe it or not, there are almost 300 million Americans who still believe that down to the marrow of their bones. Here’s a progress report from the 82d Airborne Division:

Every hospital and clinic in Baghdad is now operating. The coalition is printing 5 million new textbooks, handing out school supplies to 1.2 million children and rehabilitating 1000 schools. Iraq is producing over 1 million barrels of oil a day. For the first time in history, Baghdad has a garbage collection service. Power production has jumped from 300 mega-watts per day after liberation to 3300 mega-watts per day. There are 1.3 million Iraqis drawing salaries, 92,000 receiving social security payments, and 90,000 working to clear irrigation canals of obstructions.

So the next time you listen to the presidential contenders and media - with their predictions of another Viet Nam, failure and hysteria, you know the real deal. Military campaigns are never easy - and replacing a tyrannical dictatorship with a democracy where one has never before existed is especially difficult. But, our troopers are making it happen and making it matter.

The Iraqis are better off because these men and women were there. Their sacrifices are not unsustainable, and shame on you, Prof. Cole, for saying they were inexcusable.

by Donald Sensing, 9/19/2003 08:30:47 PM. Permalink |