[bad_dad_brad]

I always was disturbed that Iraqi casualties during the Gulf War were not reported with any accuracy even after the war. I have heard, just now again, on the Fox News channel that there have already been 100,000 Iraqi military dead in this new war.

I go back and forth as to whether this war is just, or necessary. But regardless, I agree with this article's premise, and I do think the bodies should be counted, at least after the war.

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15545

Bring Back the Body Count

Ira Chernus, AlterNet
April 2, 2003
Viewed on April 4, 2003

"We don't do body counts," says America's soldier-in-chief, Tommy Franks. That's a damn shame.

During the Vietnam war, the body count was served up every day on the evening news. While Americans ate dinner, they watched a graphic visual scorecard: how many Americans had died that day, how many South Vietnamese and how many Communists. At the time, it seemed the height of dehumanized violence. Compared to Tommy Franks' new way of war, though, the old way looks very humane indeed.

True, the body count turned human beings into abstract numbers. But it required soldiers to say to the world, "I killed human beings today. This is exactly how many I killed. I am obliged to count each and every one." It demanded that the killers look at what they had done, think about it (however briefly), and acknowledge their deed. It was a way of taking responsibility.

Today's killers avoid that responsibility. They perpetuate the fiction so many Americans want to believe -- that no real people die in war, that it's just an exciting video game. It's not merely the dead who disappear; it's the act of killing itself. When the victim's family holds up a picture, U.S. soldiers or journalists can simply reply "Who's that? We have no record of such a person. In fact, we have no records at all."

This is not just a matter of new technology. There was plenty of long-distance impersonal killing in Vietnam too. But back then, the U.S. military at least went through the motions of going in to see what they had done. True, the investigations were often cursory and the numbers often fictional. No matter how inaccurate the numbers were, though, the message to the public every day was that each body should be counted. At some level, at least, each individual life seemed to matter.

The difference between Vietnam and Iraq lies partly in overall strategy. In Vietnam, there was no territory to be conquered and occupied. If U.S. forces seized an area, they knew that sooner or later the Viet Cong would take it back. The only way to measure "victory" was by killing more of them than they killed of us. In Iraq, the goal is control of place. U.S. forces can "take" Basra or Nassiriya and call it a victory, without ever thinking about how many Iraqis had to be killed in the process. So the body count matters less.

However, the end of body counts can not be explained simply by the difference in strategy. The old-fashioned body counts disappeared during the first war against Iraq, when the goal was still defined by territory: pushing Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

It's much more likely that "we don't do body counts" because Vietnam proved how embarrassing they could be. As the U.S. public turned against that war, the body count became a symbol of everything that was inhumane and irrational about that war. The Pentagon fears that the same might happen if the Iraq war bogs down. How much simpler to deny the inhumanity and irrationality of war by denying the obvious fact of slaughter.

What I fear is a world where thousands can be killed and no one is responsible, where deaths are erased from history as soon as they happen. The body count was more than an act of responsibility. It was a permanent record. It made each death a historical fact. You can go back and graph those Vietnam deaths from day to day, month to month, year to year. That turns the victims into nameless, faceless abstractions. But it least it confirms for ever and ever that they lived and died, because someone took the time to kill and count them.

In Iraq, it is as if the killing never happened. When a human being's death is erased from history, so is their life. Life and death together vanish without a trace.

The body count has one other virtue. It is enemy soldiers, not civilians, who are officially counted. Antiwar activists rightly warn about civilian slaughter and watch the toll rise at IraqBodyCount.org. It is easy to forget that the vast majority of Iraqi dead and wounded will be soldiers. Most of them were pressed into service, either by brute force or economic necessity. As the whole world has been telling us for months, there is no good reason for this war, no good reason for those hapless Iraqi foot-soldiers to die. They are victims of brutality -- inflicted by their own government and by ours -- just as much as the civilians. They deserve just as much to be counted.

So let us bring back the body count. If we must kill, let us kill as one human being to another, recognizing the full humanity of our victims. Without a body count, our nation becomes more of a robotic killing machine. As we dehumanize Iraqis, we slip even further into our own dehumanization. Let us bring back the body count, if only to recover our own sense of responsibility to the world's people, to history, to our own humanity.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

[bad_dad_brad]

Finger checked this one. Could the moderator move this post to Legal and Political. Thanks.

[Sir Galahad]

Professors of religious studies have all the expertise in military affairs as do professors of the arts: NONE. Now if this were John Keegan or Victor Davis Hanson saying this then, yes, there might be something to it. But this is from some hand-wringing "what about the cheeeldreeenn" milksop trying to lay all sorts of assorted sins at America's doorstep. Where are the "body counts" of innocents killed in decades of terrorism from such as Abu Nidal, Islamic Jihad, Red Army Faction, etc.? Where is the hand-wringing for them? If the kind "perfesser" would dislodge his head from his fourth point of contact long enough to actually READ a book on Vietnam, he'd know that "body counts" were often inflated to make it look "good". Blood trails were counted as kills (with no one able to know if it was really a kill or a bad papercut.) This pablum about feeling guilty for taking steps to defend the future of our country belongs in an office where people sit around and discuss their inner chldren so that they never have to make adult decisions in life and move on. The "perfesser" is closer to Gilligan in providing answers for questions no one has asked. He should stick to his studies of various religions that teach guilt as a matter of course and where he probably gets a host of his ideas. He's no "expert" and he's not even a layman. He should save his guilt for the guilty.

[Hkmp5sd]

Another problem with the Vietnam body count was that everyone knew it was inflated at all levels in the command structure. It was considered the score card for each unit and to look good, you needed more bodies.

I don't think it is a good idea in the present conflict. We get continuous updates on the dead/wounded on the US side of the war. They are estimating that there already over 100,000 KIA on the Iraqi side. That means we are killing roughly 2000 Iraqi soldiers for every one of ours killed. If they put the score of US vs. Iraq KIA on the ticker running below the newcasts, the leftist and anti-US types will start harping on the massacre being commited by US forces against the poor, conscripted, under trained, only protecting their country against invaders, using outdated Russian equipment, Iraqi military.

As for civilian body counts, first, there is no way to verify the numbers and whether they were actually killed by US forces or the otherside. Everyone in the free world knows we are doing everything possible to minimize civilian casualties, so providing body counts isn't needed for justification. No one in the Arab/muslim countries will hear about our efforts to minimize civilian losses or the true number of losses, so the statistic isn't needed there either.

[TallPine]

I dunno, bdb ... I think this is being one of the best wars in all of history.

After all, both sides are "winning" - how much better can it get? :D

[DMK]

There's a big problem with this guys reasoning in this case. We aren't there to kill Iraqi's. We're there to liberate the citizens from their oppressive government.

How many Iraqi's we kill or don't kill is no measure of our success there. All a bodycount would prove is how many Iraqi's are brainwashed by the regime and prefer death over life without their beloved Saddam.

Many, many Iraqi's have chosen that Saddams not worth it and will perhaps live to see their grandchildren live prosperiously in a democracy. That is where success is measured.

[bad_dad_brad]

I suppose the message of this essay is lost somehow, on war fever. If I kill you, yes, I guess you are liberated in a fashion. Those 100,000 Iraqi military dead are real people. They are brothers, fathers, sons, husbands, and they leave behind orphans, widows, and grieving mothers.

All the author is asking, is that you acknowledge that they were killed and not trivialize or hide the statistic of how many. If we do so, then we are believing the typical government war propaganda, that the enemy is sub-human.

War is a terrible thing. Let's not forget that by hiding the facts please.

[Mike Irwin]

"I always was disturbed that Iraqi casualties during the Gulf War were not reported with any accuracy even after the war."

Just how would you, or anyone else, determine an accurate body count?

43 days of repeated air strikes, followed by the bulldozing of trenches, would make an accurate body count speculative in the very least.

Something tells me that the Iraqis weren't exactly interested in finding out, or telling anyone, how many men never went home, either.

Quite frankly, I think the figure of 100,000 dead already after 2 weeks is HIGHLY suspect.

[jmbg29]

"We don't do body counts," says America's soldier-in-chief, Tommy Franks. That's a damn shame. Yep! Sure is a shame that ol' Ira Chernus has one less way to drag this country down to defeat. Real shame that. :rolleyes: :uhoh: :barf:

Well he can just go back to the red-diaper-doper-baby playbook and make a body count up. Say something that isn't so outrageous that even the hopelessly naive wouldn't believe it.

Around 100,000 ought to be about right.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :barf:

[Sergeant Bob]

I would like to see a body count! A body count of how many of his own people Saddam has killed. The problem with all these people who are suddenly concerned about innocent Iraqi's, is they never gave a CRAP!! about them before now!
True, the body count turned human beings into abstract numbers. But it required soldiers to say to the world, "I killed human beings today. This is exactly how many I killed. I am obliged to count each and every one." It demanded that the killers look at what they had done, think about it (however briefly), and acknowledge their deed. It was a way of taking responsibility.
So he just labels our soldiers "Killers". He was probably ones of the pussbags spitting on soldiers returning from Viet Nam. Our men in uniform have more honor in what they leave in the latrine than this scumbag will ever have!

[Pendragon]

It is ridiculous.

What is unfortunate is that some of the soldiers who are being killed probably do not want to be there.

Hide. Run away. Shoot your officers. Be creative and live.

That may not always be possible.

Understand that they are victims of Saddam as well.


Most of the Republican Guard do not fall into this category. It is worth killing 10,000 Elite Republican Guard to free 1 Iraqi like the one that helped our POW.

I believe that all men are created equally valuable. However, though our choices, we can devalue ourselves to the point where we "need killin".

No love lost for Saddam or his sons or the men who serve his regime. I know its controversial here, but I wish them the worst, and I will leave it at that - and I mean the worst of the worst.

[WonderNine]

I go back and forth as to whether this war is just, or necessary.

Well you know it's really just the Bush crime family vs. the Hussein crime family right? And it's just about oil. After all, North Korea doesn't have any oil, right? :D Oh wait they do, never mind :rolleyes:

I'm sure you'll be a big fan of Michael Moore's next mockumentary.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" or whatever.

"Saddam has sexy mustaches." - MM :D

(no he really didn't say that :rolleyes: )

http://bis.midco.net/cotlod/michael-moore.jpg

[edamon]

The author of that that article should bend over and shove his head up his.....

[JohnBT]

Having sat through year after year of watching the body counts reported on the nightly news, I can tell you that they should have been concentrating on whether or not they were achieving a meaningful objective with a focus on winning the war.

In the current news, and speaking of body counts, I just saw a tape on cable this morning. Looked like a warehouse full of wooden coffins. Hundreds of coffins stacked five high and a sea of empty ones lined up on the floor. The report said that the bodies appeared to have been shot once in the head and bagged before they were put in the coffins.

The Iraqis also cataloged each and every one of them - with pictures. Photo album hell.

They mentioned torture, but I didn't see any evidence.

John

[Waitone]

No, don't bring back the body count and don't do it for the same reasons it fell out of favor in Vietnam.

Having said that, I need to vent about the kind of coverage we are getting here stateside about the war. Embeds are great, no beef. The big beef is with top view work done by Centcom.

Every briefing is the same kind of BS.
"We're closer to victory today than yesterday."
"The outcome is inevitable."
"Here's the latest gun camera video on a target."
"We sufer virtually no deaths, but we really do feel sorry for the casualties we did suffer."

Those briefings are so scripted and stilted as to be useless.

Last night on an NBC affilitate cable channel (cnbc, msnbc, etc) they interviewed the commander of a unit of the 7th cav right after some action as they entered Baghdad. During the course of the extended interview I learned the following:
--the unit of the 7th cav consisted of 8 tanks and 2 Bradleys.
--They were travelling down a highway in staggered column formation.
--800+ meters to the side there was a dug in Iraqi armored unit consisting of 24 tanks (assumed to be T-72)
--engagement was initiated
--Box score US losses=0, Iraqi losses=24 tanks
--elapse time=10 minutes

What did I learn? Better equipment, better training, better tactics, better communications, better troops. 24 tanks destroyed. Armor combat is intense and lethal.

What did Centcom say about the engagement? Nothing!

Centcom briefings give reporters something to do. They do not provide information.

[Leatherneck]

It demanded that the killers look at what they had done, think about it (however briefly), and acknowledge their deed. It was a way of taking responsibility... Today's killers avoid that responsibility. They perpetuate the fiction so many Americans want to believe -- that no real people die in war, that it's just an exciting video game.
Brad,
That is so much crap I couldn't scrape it off my shoe! :barf:

What about this quote from the Cobra pilot I posted here http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=16923
After several uneventfull hours, small firefights and us shooting up some buildings that had been sniping at friendlies, we found a town with technicals, killing several with ZU-23's in the back and some with heavy MG's... JoJo killed a technical with a TOW, and I killed a ZU-23 with a HF. The ground troops had holes and trenches and opened up on us too. BT raked a trenchline with 20mm, killing a bunch. Maj B shot several with HE rockets as they tried to run.
Just because these guys don't wallow in it and tear their sleeves in public doesn't mean that they don't realize they're killing human beings. To do that, it's necessary to villianize them at the time of killing, but the knowledge of what you did never goes away. Never.

Sometimes life requires men (and women) to step up to the plate and do what's necessary. Hard stuff. Then you live with that knowledge. You dishonor our soldiers to say they don't realize what they are doing. Bad dad Brad indeed.:fire:

TC
TFL Survivor

[Stinger]

This aint sports, Brad, so why do you need to know the actual score. It is obvious that the visiting team is crushing the home team. Do we really need to add insult to injury? :p

Seriously, though, I don't guess I agree with the reasoning behind the argument. Any soldier who has killed another deals with it in his own way, and it effects them ALL. Media coverage of the war in Vietnam was the number one reason support went down. I don't think the troops need to lose our support during times of war.

I hate to see innocents die, but it happens in war, and short of an end to all wars (which would be fantastic, but impossible) innocents will die. And as for their military...how does the saying go...shoot them all and let God figure it out!?!

Stinger

[Gmac]

People die in war,that's the way it is. If a soldier dwells on the number/face of the enemy he has killed he will eventually be driven to mental instability with the resulting consequences.So Brad, what could possibly be gained by reporting a body count? BTDT RVN 1969-70

[bad_dad_brad]

What is gained by remembering the body count? It quantifies war as a tragedy vis-a-vis the human suffering. At least to me anyway. Just because they are the enemy makes them no less human. I can assure you, that if it were 100,000 Americans dead, that the body count would concern you.

If anything, it is a mater of history to record the results of historic events. Nuff said!

As to estimates of the casualties from the first Gulf war, this has been studied. Here is a Business Week article on the subject published a few months ago:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2003/nf2003026_0167_db052.htm

FEBRUARY 6, 2003

NEWSMAKER Q&A

Toting the Casualties of War

Beth Osborne Daponte talks about how her estimates of Iraq's Gulf War dead got her in deep trouble with the White House
Beth Osborne Daponte was a 29-year-old Commerce Dept. demographer in 1992, when she publicly contradicted then-Defense Secretary Richard Cheney on the highly sensitive issue of Iraqi civilian casualties during the Gulf War. In short order, Daponte was told she was losing her job. She says her official report disappeared from her desk, and a new estimate, prepared by supervisors, greatly reduced the number of estimated civilian casualties.
Although Cheney said shortly after the 1991 Gulf War that "we have no way of knowing precisely how many casualties occurred" during the fighting "and may never know," Daponte had estimated otherwise: 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, she calculated.
In all, 40,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the conflict, she concluded, putting total Iraqi losses from the war and its aftermath at 158,000, including 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.
"FALSE INFORMATION"?_ Daponte was finishing her doctorate in sociology at the University of Chicago at the time and had been assigned to update an annual world-population survey by Commerce's Census Bureau of Foreign Countries. That required her to estimate how many Iraqis had died from the war and its aftermath, including the rebellion of Shiites in the South and Kurds in the North (an additional 30,000 deaths, she estimated). Daponte used a 1987 Iraqi census and U.N. figures as her base of comparison. (The Defense Intelligence Agency eventually estimated 100,000 Iraqi military were killed in the war, plus or minus 50,000.)
After a reporter called Daponte and included her estimates in a story about war casualties, her boss informed Daponte in writing that she was being dismissed for releasing "false information." A Commerce spokeswoman denied that the cause of Daponte's firing was retribution, saying the information had been released prematurely.
Daponte consulted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union and Covington & Burling. The American Statistical Assn. weighed in on behalf of her methodology. Eventually, the Census Bureau backed down, and Daponte continued her work until she left for Pittsburgh in 1992.
INDIRECT DEATHS._ She has since published two studies in scholarly journals about the effects of economic sanctions on Iraqi children, and casualties from the 1991 Gulf War and its aftermath. Her final estimates were higher than her original ones: 205,500 Iraqis died in the war and postwar period, she believes today.
"In modern warfare, postwar deaths from adverse health effects account for a large fraction of total deaths," she wrote, an inclusion that continues to be debated. "In the Gulf War, far more persons died from postwar health effects than from direct war effects." And casualties this time, while virtually impossible to predict, will depend on the kind of war the U.S. wages.
BusinessWeek Washington Correspondent Paul Magnusson recently reached Daponte at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, where she's a senior research scientist. Here are edited excerpts from their conversation:
Q: How, exactly, are war casualties estimated if you can't count all the bodies?
A: Demographers break a problem down into its components. One is civilian deaths from direct war effects, such as missed bombs and misdirected bombs. Indirect war effects come from the destruction of infrastructure.
There are direct casualties to the military as well. For Iraq, there was another category of casualties -- people killed after the war during the uprisings [by Shiites and Kurds]. The contribution I made was in looking at civilian casualties from indirect war effects. It was hard to separate some of these from the economic sanctions. But there was damage to the electrical grid, health-care facilities, roadways and the distribution system, and, most importantly, the sewage system. When you contaminate the water, you cause all kinds of health problems.
Relatively few bombs missed their targets. I went to different human-rights sources and created a database of death in each incidence of a missed bomb. Often there were reports on who died. That gave us figures for direct deaths. We calculated indirect deaths in part from age distributions.
Q: What's usually the greatest danger for civilians?
A: If it's a bombing war, being a refugee is the most dangerous aspect. Refugees are in tremendous danger. Refugees are exposed to the elements, bad sewage, cholera, outbreaks of diarrhea. The youngest and oldest are most vulnerable and generally don't have the strength to begin with.
Q: After you were fired, you appealed and won reinstatement. Whatever happened to your estimate of war casualties?
A: I took a leave of absence because I wasn't being given any worthwhile work to do. I went to Greenpeace, and they funded a follow-up study. I spent a whole summer redoing the estimates and submitted it to a professional publication for peer review and then went to Carnegie Mellon. What I had done at Census was the best that could have been done in a short time period. By the time I went to Greenpeace, more data was available.
Q: Was your estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths confirmed by later demographers?
A: The Commerce Dept. rewrote the report to the point that if you'd read it, you'd have thought it was impossible to make inferences about civilian deaths in war.
Q: Any idea whether the civilian casualties in a current war would be lesser or greater? What factors would be important?
A: There's no way to tell now. You'd need a crystal ball. If the allies target infrastructure like they did last time, civilians will suffer. The last time, we targeted the electrical grid and bridges. Even military targets can have an effect on civilians -- say a plant producing truck tires for the military is attacked. That can end up affecting civilians, too.
Q: Any views on the current crisis with Iraq?
A: I don't think we've exhausted effective diplomacy. It's very early. I don't think war should be on the table yet.
Q: What saved your job in 1992?
A: The lawyers were incredible, but so was the social-science community. Many professional academic people got involved and stood up for me. A lot of [Census] colleagues stood up for me and went in and protested, even though they were risking their jobs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Douglas Harbrecht

Copyright 2000-2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use _ Privacy Policy

[jmbg29]

I can assure you, that if it were 100,000 Americans dead, that the body count would concern you.That would be because I am on their side. They are fighting to save me and my family! They are my brothers and sisters at arms! When you so much as imply that our troops aren't aware of what they are doing, you spit in their face! When you spit in their face, you spit in mine!

I kinda let your first thread on this subject blow over, but now that you have revealed your true colors by posting a POS marxist "professor" that characterizes our troops as "Today's killers (who) avoid that responsibility."

If I say anymore, I'll get kicked off this board, and frankly you aren't worth it.

:fire: :fire: :fire: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[Sir Galahad]

Now Brad cites an article that uses Greenpeace as a source. Yeah, no bias there.:rolleyes:

Since we're going to have to wallow in "body counts" to take responsibility for our collective actions, let's do it right:

1.) Let's publish daily body counts of how many people die on American highways in accidents. That'll make people quit using drive-thrus at the McDonald's. I hear 50,000 a year die in auto accidents in the U.S. Where is the moral outrage?? I am wringing my hands so fiercely that I have rubbed off my epidermis!

2.) Let's publish a body count of hw many people die doing stupid things glorified in movies like "Jackass". Then that will surely lead to enlightenment where people will only watch films like "The Postman".:rolleyes:

Which brings me to my final point. Brad, I am sure you are aware that the Brady Center uses a type of "body count" to show why banning firearms is necessary. And those numbers are often inflated to include criminals shot to death by police officers and killings between rival criminals. So, then, surely you see that ANY body count can be skewed to include people that should not be included. But your pals at Greenpeace will never admit that. Of course, they don't want you to own a gun, either. If people don't KNOW that people get killed in war, then they're idiots. Making a "body count" to prove it is the same ridiculous notion that puts warnings on circular saw blades that say, "Do not try to stop blade with fingers!" This idea that we need to send an entire army to therapy ( after, of course, the liberals tar them as "killers") so that a handful of religious professors and other fools who are NOT, again, military experts, can feel good about having lain the calumnies at America's doorstep, is folly. Hey, if they feel America doesn't take "responsibility" for the people we kill, tough. Move elsewhere. This is the same vile notion that led PETA to mock the Holocaust where 6 million human beings died by comparing that to animal slaughter for meat. And PETA did use a body count for that, too. In war, you kill an enemy. Guess what? It happens in nature. One ant hill will wipe out another, to include eating the larvae and young of the rival colony just because "those others" are black ants and they are red ants. We are part of the natural world. People who wouldn't survive the first week of an Ice Age are now here trying to lead an entire society down the path to a guilt-free mass suicide by ignoring terrorism lest we commit the unforgiveable "sin" of defending ourselves.

If some folks don't want to survive, feel free to not do so. But stay out of the way of those of us ho do.

[Mike Irwin]

Hum, my scholarly study, based on estimates I did with censurious data, actually indicate that the First Gulf War caused 8,273,032,992,390,940,048,293,959,028,930,102,482,192,820,884,544,784,883,679,290,328,688,284,092,001 casualties...

Roughtly 400 times that number are dying every second in the current Gulf conflict...

Quite frankly, though, blame for EVERY ONE of the Iraqi deaths can be laid on one person, Saddam Hussein.

He ordered the invasion of Kuwait.

He pursued nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (and used chems and possibly bios).

He refused to abide by the UN sanctions after agreeing to them.

None of the Iraqi deaths would have occurred had he not acted on his territorial ambitions.

[Hkmp5sd]

Mike, I think you may of missed including the 2 Russians that were at their space station during the first Gulf War. Otherwise, your number looks fairly close.

[Russ]

It's funny how all the liberals think our incursion into Serbia and Kosovo was just but they are not sure about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Milosovic did not hold a candle to Hussein as far as evil goes. All this hand ringing makes me sick.

Saddam Hussein is Stalin re-incarnated. We cannot tolerate murderers like him on the planet. I think we should have intervened in Rwanda also but Bill Klintoon had no guts for that.

As far as body count goes, who cares as long as we destroy them and accomplish our goals. That what the military is for.

[DMK]

What is gained by remembering the body count? It quantifies war as a tragedy vis-a-vis the human suffering. At least to me anyway. Just because they are the enemy makes them no less human. I see it exactly the opposite way. The bodycount trivalizes human suffering.

In the Vietnam war bodycounts were used by the administration to micro-manage the conflict. Since they were sitting in their comfy chairs in DC, they had no real idea of the day to day progress of the small battles and since generally no ground was taken and held, the only way they could judge progress was to compare how many we killed vs. how many they killed.

This in my opinion, does not facilitate an appreciation that the enemy is made up of human beings. On the contrary it does the opposite, trivalizing human suffering by keeping tally and compiling it into a balance sheet like an IRS accountant.

Another thing to consider is regimes such as those that are now or used to be running Iraq, N Korea, China, the USSR, and N. Vietnam, do not or did not care about indiviuals. They will send wave upon wave of relatively unprepared soldiers (yes, humans with faces, families and parents) to be mowed down by an invading force. They do not care that they are sending thousands to certain death. They only care of the end result of the battle. The fact that we care about the life of individuals works in their favor, allowing them to wear down support for military action at home. The end result of that may cause our forces to be reduced or withdrawn compromising the intended outcome of the military action and wasting lives for nothing.

[bad_dad_brad]

Quote:

"That would be because I am on their side. They are fighting to save me and my family! They are my brothers and sisters at arms!"

Exactly my point. Average Iraqi's apparently don't have feelings about dying or having their loved ones die?

"When you so much as imply that our troops aren't aware of what they are doing, you spit in their face! When you spit in their face, you spit in mine!"

I am not sure how this was inferred. I posted a food for thought article. I didn't write the article, nor do I agree with all of it.

I simple believe, that the after the smoke clears, it is important from a historical and moral standpoint, to count the loss of life, and the loss of property, and I don't think that was really done after the first Gulf war, nor will I think it will be in this one either.

[DMK]

I simple believe, that the after the smoke clears, it is important from a historical and moral standpoint, to count the loss of life, and the loss of property, and I don't think that was really done after the first Gulf war, nor will I think it will be in this one either. Yes, but at that point does it really matter who's side they were on?

[Sir Galahad]

It is important from a historical standpoint? How so? As I said, if that were so, John Keegan and Victor Davis Hanson would be discussing it. Does anyone really know how many people were killed at the Battle of Thermopylae or Marathon? Yet, these were two important battles in Western Civilization. Further, the defeat of the Persians by the Greeks is what kept Western Civilization Western and not Eastern. Yet, no one knows a precise count of how many died. History records the results of conflict, not the amount of dead soldiers. The only cases where numbers become relevant is in cases of outright genocide such as the Holocaust. And even then, no one really knows a concrete number of exactly how many people were killed in the Final Solution. The Einsatzgruppen alone probably shot more people than they accurately counted. The reason numbers become relevant in genocide is to see the extent of the crime. War, in and of itself, is not a crime. Back to history. Does anyone know how many died in the Peloponnesian War? If we did, would it teach us the dangers of such wars? Would it teach us not to fight Syracuse? How about the wars of the Romans? Anyone know how many Gauls they killed? Does it matter? No, of course it doesn't. Do you suppose the Roman populace carried signs saying "No Blood For Grain!"? History, in cases of wars, is not concerned with exactly how many soldiers died. The concern is who won and what the consequences were. To concern oneself about how many people were killed in defense of one's nation is simply farcical, to say the very least. One can imagine a home invasion robbery where five armed men break in and our homeowners says to himself, "Well, if I kill all five, I'll look bloodthirsty. Besides, what if four are just following orders from the leader? I'll have needlessly killed those poor souls! And the newspaper will mention that I killed five men and it'll make me feel bad." No, the question is not HOW MANY are killed, but this: What will it take to defeat this nation and cause surrender on OUR terms, and not theirs. THAT is what is important. One can try to limit the amount of civilian casualties as we are doing now. But that's still not enough to people who think that living under the yoke of a tyrant is preferable to having a little blood on our hands. War is not for the weak of mind, nor is it something to yearn for. But once you fight it, you should fight to win and ignore the bleatings of thse who are too weak to defend themselves, to say nothing of an entire nation. As I said, if they don't want to survive, no one is forcing them to do so. They can make decisions that ensure the termination of their lives. But the rest of us will not willingly become victims to assuage the consciences of people who would live by the leave of tyrants and beg bread and peace of criminals. I do not imagine for a moment that the Jewish defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto were concerned with how many Germans they were killing. I am sure there are Iraqis who are soldiers killed in what they feel is a defense of their country. So what? There were members of the Waffen SS who felt the same way.

We are in an era where some liberals think moral victory is in being a victim. They have made a cult of victimhood. "Oh, there are 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli!" So, the Israelis must lose one person to every Palestinian they kill in self-defense to be morally justified in defending themselves? Great. The next time someone assaults you, make sure they strike a mortal blow against you before you strike back. That way, you'll be morally correct. :rolleyes: Well, that's not how a smart nation fights a war.

[JohnBT]

A small request paragraphs please.

I am trying to read it all.

John

[bad_dad_brad]

Sir Galahad,

I agree with you for the most part.

I still think that quantification is necessary however.

Interesting that you bring up the subject of the Einsatzgruppen SS. Recently I have read Richard Rhodes latest book "The Masters of Death" which documents the event that you mention. I recommend it highly. For me it put things in perspective regarding quantification.

This book got me to thinking about the personal horrific consequences of war on non-combatants. We can call it genocide, but genocide often is a consequence of war, that is, war often provides the excuse, and the opportunity.

The book then goes on to quantify this monsterous tragedy of man's inhumanity to man that was the beginning of the holocaust. The historian, Rhodes, gives numbers. And numbers, for me, re-inforce the personal stories, because I know that this happened not just for one person, but for millions.

http://www.militaryink.com/books/2002/may/0375409009.html

Is one horrible death less horrible than a million? Yes, very much so.

I know our troops are doing all they can to avoid civilian Iraqi casualties, and to treat any Iraqi POW humanely. But our technology is so overwhelming.

I work with a man that was an Army officer in the Gulf War. He commanded infantry. He was disturbed by the slaughter he saw of the average Iraqi soldier. He is disturbed by the current slaughter as well. He felt it was and is not necessary. He felt that encirclement and capture was just as effective.

Well we are all armchair generals aren't we?

I have read most of Keegan's books. He is not big on statistics. But that is okay. He does a good job of trying to describe war as a historian.

Victor Davis Hanson's works are good stuff as well, but he does not dwell on statistics either. He was a big fan of Sherman's march to the sea, because it involved avoidance of conflict and casualties, but rather, destruction of the ability of the enemy to make war. And so, I think, although the numbers are not quantified in his works, I agree with his philosophy of winning a war.

If you can find this work: Elliot, G. (1973) The 20th Century Book of the Dead. New York: Ballantine, it does an eye opening look at the quantification of death in the 20th century caused by man's inhumanity to man.

[jmbg29]

Exactly my point. Average Iraqi's apparently don't have feelings about dying or having their loved ones die? *** do I care what they think when we are at war? :fire: :fire: :fire:

If they want to do something about their :cuss:ing feeeeeeelings, then I suggest they get about the business of doing it. Meanwhile, :cuss: them!I am not sure how this was inferred. Well gee, Brad! You seem to know so much about what's going to happen after this war, I figured you could figure out, or forsee just about anything!I posted a food for thought article. I didn't write the article, nor do I agree with all of it.Food for thought? :barf: :barf:

[Art Eatman]

Stinger touched on my objection to the body count deal: It tends to make the whole deal into a sports event. In and of itself, keeping track of casualties gives a picture of the remaining strength of an enemy. But, nightly-news nattering about it trivializes something that is not at all trivial. "As long as the score is in our favor, all's well with the world." Sorry, I just don't see it that way.

This war in Iraq ain't the Final Four.

Question: Given how we're working like crazy to avoid non-military targets, how do you keep score of civilians not killed? That arena seems to of greater importance to all our leadership than the number of dead Iraqi soldiers...

Art

[AR-10]

I know our troops are doing all they can to avoid civilian Iraqi casualties, and to treat any Iraqi POW humanely. But our technology is so overwhelming.

I work with a man that was an Army officer in the Gulf War. He commanded infantry. He was disturbed by the slaughter he saw of the average Iraqi soldier. He is disturbed by the current slaughter as well. He felt it was and is not necessary. He felt that encirclement and capture was just as effective.

To me, this seems to be the crux of your angst. You seem to be saying that it is unfair that the two opposing forces are unevenly matched. In this thread as well of the other two threads you posted. Am I supposed to feel guilty because of this fact? If that is the aim of your threads, you are just going to have to bear this guilt yourself.

I am quite pleased that our armed forces can acomplish the goals our government has set in this matter without 200,000 body bags coming back to American soil. If enemy casualties run that high before our foe capitulates, that is on their heads, not ours.

The truth of the matter is that anyone truely loyal to Sadam will continue to be our enemy for decades to come and might as well be eliminated right now, before they can foment more evil against us. Whether that number is 100 or 5,000 or 150,000 does not matter in the end, as long as they are rendered unable to commit acts against us or their fellow countrymen.

[George Dickel]

Brad, get some proof from your co-worker to verify his claim he was an officer and a commander of infantry during the gulf war. I'll bet he was a Ranger or Special Forces too. :rolleyes:

[TheMariner]

THIS IS WAR


AND WE ARE WINNING


QUIT COMPLAINING


THE FREED IRAQUIS AREN'T



nuff said.

[Sir Galahad]

Brad, did you think that many of those civilians would die anyway if they lived under Saddam? The difference is we offer the vast majority of civilian survivors a future afterwards.

I disagree that genocide is a result of war. The SS took priority in requistition of ammo, fuel, food, and rail transport to continue the work of the Final Solution. That meant that some Wehrmacht snuffy in Stalingrad did without ammo so that ammo could be used to shoot Jews. The Final Solution was not a result of WW2. It started before WW2. You'll note that the Third Reich racial laws began before WW2 started. Those laws began the framework for the Final Solution. Regardless, genocides happen whether there are wars or not. Look at Rwanda. It could be argued that it was a civil war, but not when the idea was to wipe out "those others" to include the whole of the clans and moieties of the rival tribe. If the U.S. was in this business to kill people by the ton, we could have used nuclear weapons right after 9/11 and had justification for doing so (i.e. the instant response to an attack and prevention of another from nations we knew or suspected to be involved.) Yes, we could have turned Kabul, Damascus and Bagdad into smoking, radioactive craters. We could have done as the Romans did to the Temple and turned Mecca into a smoking crater as a warning to the rest of the Islamic militants not to trifle with us. But we ddn't. And you know why? Because we're the United States and we show power in our restraint in use of force. We use what is necessary. But we don't do all we are capable of doing, either. That is why you will not see body counts. We're not in this to kill everyone we see. We're in this to kill the people who need killing, and, yes,there are people on this planet who need killing. If you don't believe that, please, sell your personal defense firearms before some intruder takes them away from you, kills you with them, and uses them against the rest of us. Yes, civilians do die in war. But that's a part of war. Can't do anything about that.

What I'd like you to do now is to ask your officer friend if he would be willing to entertain these "non-lethal" methods of fighting if it was his butt on the line and he wasn't holed up in some pogue's office conex in the rear. Or how long he'd keep at it after a few platoons get wiped out trying to play nice and "capture" guys loaded for bear with AKs and RPGs. Very nice of him to volunteer the lives of men to play police officer when they should be soldiers. Most cops are not going to keep trying to capture a suspect when that suspect starts spraying the ol' 7.62 people-repellant around the place. Sorry, but the purpose is to kill enemy soldiers unless they surrender. If they want to be captured, they lay down their arms and wave the white flag and say, "MMmmm!! I like Amereecan cigarette please!" Trying to capture guys firing AKs is like trying to catch fire ants for your ant farm with your bare fingers. Seems easy til you do it. Tell your officer freind to be sure and "capture" any intruders in his house so he doesn't kill them needlessly.

[buttrap]

well I do recall what Patton said on the subject. "its not a solders duty to die for his country but to make some other poor SOB die for his".

[bad_dad_brad]

George,

"Brad, get some proof from your co-worker to verify his claim he was an officer and a commander of infantry during the gulf war. I'll bet he was a Ranger or Special Forces too. "

Oh yea, he was in the Army all right. And an officer. And commanded infantry. He worked with me before he joined, went to OCS (he was just under the max age), he was gone for over 6 years, fought in the Gulf War, planned on making the Army a career, but then became ill with what we all thought was a type of Gulf War syndrome (diagnosed as Grave's Disease), was hospitalised in Germany, and then came home and returned to his old job.

We all thought he was nuts for joining since he had a really good job and career, but his father and grandfather were Army officers, and he felt obligated to serve his country. He is an intelligent and sensitive person and I trust his judgement and admire him for his choice.

I know him, his family, his wife, and kids. Recently we both bought ARs and plan on shooting them together sometime.

[Sir Galahad]

Brad, the opinions of one army officer do not a strategy make. Read history. Some of the most spectacular military defeats in history were caused by the blunder of ONE officer.