Someone should set up a temporary news aggregator that tracks the number of stories that will be devoted to the 2000th American death in Iraq, and compare it to the amount of press given to this landmark achievement;
The vote on the constitution was 78.59 percent in favor of ratification and 21.41 percent against, the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (search ) said. The charter required a simple majority nationwide with the provision that if two-thirds of the voters in any three provinces rejected it, the constitution would be defeated.
The referendum results, announced after a 10-day audit following allegations of fraud, confirmed previous indications that Sunni Arabs (search) failed to produce the two-thirds “no” vote they would have needed in at least three of Iraq’s 18 provinces to defeat the constitution.
Turnout for the vote was slightly higher than that of the January elections, and paves the way to the election of a new, full-term Iraqi parliament in December.
Reaction. Heh.
Update – I’ve been keeping half an ear on the local Rawlco (news?-talk) Radio deathwatch coverage. Early this morning I caught one brief mention of how Sunnis “failed to stop” the passing of the new Iraq Constitution, but since then its fallen off the sheet. However, every hour the newscaster (Jeff Weiss -sp?) announces that the US military deaths have now reached 1999, “one short of 2,000”.
There is no other information volunteered as to what the significance of that number is, no historical perspective comparing the loss to those of past conflicts, no context in terms of the recent military successes. All we are told is that there is a number – as though a death marked by a 2 followed by three 0’s, represents a watershed that the one that began with a 1, followed by an 8, a 5 and a 3 – did not.
The reason we aren’t given that information is that it doesn’t exist. The report isn’t reporting, per se – it’s just the not-so-faint reek of “I told you so” editorializing of the news that is the hallmark of modern Canadian “journalism”, another low point in the quagmire of superficial, politicized pap that the Western media has trapped itself – and too many of its citizens – in.
That’s the best idea I’ve heard yet, aggregating the news stories.
When you factor in the free elections- a remarkable achievement on it’s own, the magnitude of the sacrifice is better understood.
Men and women died not for imperial reasons, but rather, for freedom.
America will leave Iraq one day- and the free press, freely elected government and all those things we take for granted, will be the result of the sacrifice of those that understood and were comitted to freedom.
Great idea, Kate. We know how the stats will line up though, don’t we?
But I am young and patient. I can afford to measure progress in decades.
chuckercanuck.blogspot.com
The toll is at 1999 dead soldiers in Iraq right now and you can bet that once the toll hits 2000, we’ll be hearing “quagmire, quagmire, quagmire, quagmire…” for the next month from the MSM.
National Post, Oct. 25, “One war, two plans”, by David Frum
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051025/npt/051025d1.htm
Excerpts:
‘Last week, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, delivered a blistering attack on the Iraq war and the Bush administration. To strengthen his case against the President, Wilkerson cited a new book, The Assassins’ Gate by George Packer.
You have to give Wilkerson credit for acute literary judgment. The Assassins’ Gate, published this very month, is the most vivid and sensitive account to date of the war and its aftermath. Packer, a college classmate of mine, spent months traveling and reporting in Iraq between 2003 and 2005. He kept traveling and reporting even after the insurgents began kidnapping and murdering Western journalists. He has much to say about what went wrong, and he harshly condemns the leading Iraq policymakers from the President on down.
Some of his criticisms seem clearly right in retrospect; others less so. Leave that aside for now. What I think will most surprise readers is the book’s conclusion: As fiercely critical as he is of the Bush administration, Packer was and remains a supporter of George Bush’s war.
“I came to believe that those in positions of highest responsibility for Iraq showed a carelessness about human life that amounted to criminal negligence,” he writes. “Swaddled in abstract ideas, convinced of their own righteousness, incapable of self-criticism, indifferent to accountability, they turned a difficult undertaking into a needlessly deadly one. When things went wrong, they found other people to blame.”
Searing words. Now listen to what comes next: “The Iraq war was always winnable; it still is.” ..
…Why did things go so wrong? Why weren’t there enough troops, why not enough planning, why so many mistakes?
Let me suggest an answer, based on my knowledge of the people involved. Many of them are my friends and colleagues, and I can attest that they are brilliant and deeply experienced people, seriously committed to American security.
It’s often said that America lacked a policy for postwar Iraq. The truth is worse: America had two policies for postwar Iraq.
One policy, advocated by the Pentagon and other war-planners, called for U.S. forces to install an Iraqi provisional government immediately. American forces would keep a low profile — and rapidly draw down their numbers — as the provisional government took control of the civil service and army. The Pentagon rebuffed attempts by other branches of government to engage in more detailed reconstruction planning: The last thing the Pentagon planners wanted was a prolonged American occupation, with all the risk of triggering Iraqi nationalism and Muslim resentment.
The other policy, advocated by the State Department and civilian agencies, argued against going to war at all — but insisted that if the President went ahead, he should plan for a lengthy and costly occupation. This view reflected the very genuine convictions of State Department and CIA experts. It was, however, also influenced by the loathing felt by many at the civilian agencies for Ahmed Chalabi, the exile Iraqi politician whom the Pentagon had in mind as the leader of a provisional government.
Instead of choosing between the two policies, the Bush administration tried to fuse them both together. There would be a light, fast invasion — followed by a heavy, prolonged occupation. The result … well, we can all see the result…’
Mark
Ottawa
Let’s see, one successful war and two and half years of successful, constructive occupation, all accomplished at a cost of… casualties that would have been acceptable on the first day of the war… yep, those damned Yankees have fucked up again, all right. Time to teach the parakeet to squawk “quagmire”.
The death of the 2000th American soldier in Iraq has occurred and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), the former klansman, and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), aka. Sen. Chappaquiddick, are on the floor of the U.S. Senate as I write repeating their same old talking points ad nauseum. I guess after 2000 Americans died in Europe during WW2, these same people were on the floor of the U.S. Senate (let’s face it, they’ve been there forever) sqwaking “quagmire, quagmire…” and advocating withdrawl. I guess they’re argument would have been: “Hitler isn’t such a bad guy.”
How short indeed are memories are. The inspection regime in Iraq ceased when the UNSCOM inspector’s were withdrawn in December 1998 just before Clinton’s and the UK’s large scale cruise missile and aircraft attacks on Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq (“Operation Desert Fox”).
‘”Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said [Dec. 16, 1998] from the Oval Office. Clinton said he decided weeks ago to give Hussein one last chance to cooperate. But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate — and had in fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the attack, named Operation Desert Fox, was necessary because Hussein never intended to abide by his pledge to give unconditional access to U.N. inspectors trying to determine if Iraq has dismantled its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
“He is a serial breaker of promises,” Blair said of the Iraqi president.’
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/
Sound familiar?
Mark
Ottawa
You’re right Kate! It’s terrible how the media provides no comparisons to other wars. Or maybe they do. Well, looky there, Iraq compares unfavourably to Vietnam.
Further, and I hope not heretical thoughts:
When Hans Blix resumed inspections in Iraq in 2002 four years had elapsed since UNSCOM left. More than enough time to hide things so they would certainly almost never be found. And remember when UNSCOM left in 1998 there probably no WMDs left even then. Yet Iraq’s obstructive behaviour–as in the case of Blix–gave good reason to believe the contrary.
Whatever the real motivation for invading, and however incompetent the post-war planning (see the Frum piece I posted above), the fact remains that before Bush decided to take action it was getting close to impossible to keep sanctions on Iraq–France and Russia leading the charge to end them (these were Iraq’s leading arms suppliers, along with China, during the Iraq/Iran war, and both had major oil interests there, neither thing true of the US).
Had sanctions been lifted, or even flouted to a considerable degree–increasingly likely, does anyone really doubt Saddam would almost immediately have been back in the WMD game, and without inspections?
I believe the invasion was for that reason justified. Whether the US has bungled irredemably the post-war is another issue, something which may indeed end very badly. And for which Bush et al. are culpable. One can but hope.
Mark
Ottawa
And as I have pointed out before Canada at Dieppe in 1942 suffered 907 killed in one day from a population of almost 12 million. The US population is now almost 300 million. Do the math.
Mark
Ottawa
God Bless America.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
“Grim Milestone” Watch 6
Currently the cover story at MSNBC.com:
via LGF
Buzz,
Isserman is an admitted neo-Marxist and was part of the anti-war movement of the 1960s while in university. His comparisons are misleading. First, the U.S. was not officially “in combat” in Vietnam before 1965. The U.S. did not take the offensive, and send substantial ground forces, until the Gulf of Tonkin incident, therefore it’s inappropriate to make a comparison with soldiers who died in Iraq who were actually engaged in a war. Second, the next set of statistics he provides are for when the U.S. troops were pulling out of Vietnam. Very misleading. Why not compare the most intense periods of fighting — 1965-1971 — oh, that’s because the numbers would be over 40,000. Also, why do these “experts” never mention the Korean war? Did you know that over 56,000 U.S. soldiers died in that *3* year conflict? Why not compare the post-war occupation of Iraq with the post-war occupation of Japan? Did you know that the U.S. military forces of occupation didn’t leave until 1952? That’s SEVEN years. It took Seven years to get things on track in Japan, a highly organized homogenous society. Do you think such success can be achieved in Iraq, a somewhat disconnected and heterogenous society, in only 2 years? Real reconstruction takes time. The focus on military deaths is irresponsible and harmful to the transition of Iraq into a peaceful and democratic society, and merely plays into Al Quaeda’s hands, emboldening them to escalate violence.
Lastly, for “context” and “nuance” compare these numbers:
“The average monthly death toll for US soldiers in Iraq is 55.6 deaths per month while the average reported murders per month in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City are 48.7, 51.9 and 49.3 deaths per month respectively. The murder stats in the US cities are for hostile deaths only — whereas the death toll in Iraq includes both hostile and accidental deaths.”
http://www.aim.org/guest_column/A1968_0_6_0_C/