Bring Back the Body Count

[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. 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?

If they want to do something about their ing feeeeeeelings, then I suggest they get about the business of doing it. Meanwhile, 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?

 

[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.

 

[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.