A brief history lesson

AP Asks: Why So Many Upset by Iraq Death Toll?


Published: January 01, 2007 10:04 PM ET

PHILADELPHIA The country largely kept the faith during World War II, even as about 400,000 U.S. forces died - 20,000 just in the month long Battle of the Bulge. Before turning against the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Americans tolerated thousands more deaths than in Iraq.

Has something changed? Do Americans somehow place higher value on the lives of their soldiers now? Do they expect success at lower cost? Or do most simply dismiss this particular war as the wrong one - hard to understand and harder to win - and so not worth the losses?

The Associated Press recently posed these questions to scholars, veterans, activists, and other Americans. Their comments suggest that the public does express more pain over the deaths of this war.

A death toll of 3,000 simply sounds higher to Americans in this war than it did in other prolonged conflicts of the past century, for a number of reasons, the interviews suggest.

"As fewer Americans die in war, their loss is more keenly felt, not necessarily at a personal level, but at a collective and public level," says historian Michael Allen at North Carolina State University.

Jeffrey Greenwood, 17, of Plymouth, Mass., though unsure of the exact number of Iraq war deaths, says, "I know it's enough to make people angry."

John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, calls this casualty sensitivity "the Iraq syndrome." He described it in an influential journal article last year: "Casualty for casualty, support has declined far more quickly than it did during either the Korean War or the Vietnam War."

In the weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, public backing was powerful. But opinion began to shift quickly once the Iraqi army was beaten, its leader was forced into hiding, and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were not found.
...................

"When is it going to stop? We're losing a lot of youngsters," says former tanker Ed Collins, 82, of Hicksville, N.Y., who survived the assault on Normandy's beaches in World War II. "I went in when I was 18; that was young, too. But we fought for something. Now we have no idea who we're fighting for and what we're fighting for."

First of all, colonial wars are unpopular. In all but name, this is our version of the Boer War or Algeria. Neither one of those wars were cheered on by their publics. One of the great hidden facts of British History is that most of the colonial wars were bitterly opposed by the public. Elections turned on ending them.

The idea that this should be compared to WWII is ridiculous. Our military is a fraction of the 12m man WWII Army or the 9m Vietnam War army. Each death in Iraq is disproportionally more important because of the size of the force, and would represent a much greater loss. If we were talking 27,000 dead and 180,000 wounded, people might understand why the war is so unpopular. This in a war with no regular army.

Second, while fewer Americans are fighting, the age and social status of those in combat have changed. With the large scale use of reserve and National Guard, those wounded and killed have a far more striking effect in their communities. When teachers and policemen, and other members of the middle class are wounded or killed, the effect of that is disproportionally higher than when teenage soldiers die.

Third, outside of the History Channel and the Military Channel, the pace and tempo of combat in Iraq has been hidden. Any episode of My War Diary or Shootout will show an Iraq war of frightening intensity. So the deaths have no context. Bush's lies about Iraq have so poisoned the well that people are shocked when they find out Iraq is extremely dangerous.

Charles Moskos lives in a fantasy world that if only the elite fought, Americans would accept higher losses. When have the elite fought? Most of the wealthy in WWII did not join the Rangers or Airborne, but sought the Navy or Army Air Force. The wealthy in America have never thought carrying a rifle was a sound option.

But the whole premise of the AP article is insane. We are losing this war, any chance we had to win it ended in April, 2003. Why should Americans accept 3,000 dead for a colonial war which we are losing? They shouldn't. This was is illegal and has failed to help US foriegn policy goals. One death is unacceptable, 3,000 should lead to impeachment and trial.

Iraq

Bush hasn't got a clue as to what to do.

More training only makes the Mahdi Army stronger.

The cuurent government seems to act as Sinn Fein to the Mahdi Army's IRA.

So who are we supposed to fight?

If Bush thinks we can crush the Mahdi Army to save the government, well we're way
past that. Because with Saddam's Mahdi Army sponsored execution, I think it should be clear
who is running the show.

Payback sucks

Democrats To Start Without GOP Input
Quick Passage of First Bills Sought

By Lyndsey Layton and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 2, 2007; Page A01

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in power. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation's problems. Yet in attempting to pass laws key to their prospects for winning reelection and expanding their majority, the Democrats may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years.

Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.

"There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress."

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

What slender majority? The Dems have 33 seats, the last congress had a 12 seat difference. Idiot reporters. The weak kneed, used to compromise, need to get their asses taught a lesson. No more grovelling.

Anyone who votes with the GOP needs to be reminded what they were elected to do. But I think those are few and far between.

22 Gia Long Street

Few Iraqis Are Gaining U.S. Sanctuary

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: January 2, 2007

BAGHDAD, Jan. 1 � With thousands of Iraqis desperately fleeing this country every day, advocates for refugees, and even some American officials, say there is an urgent need to allow more Iraqi refugees into the United States.

Until recently the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 Iraqis this year, a mere fraction of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who are now believed to be fleeing their country each month. State Department officials say they are open to admitting larger numbers, but are limited by a cumbersome and poorly financed United Nations referral system.

�We�re not even meeting our basic obligation to the Iraqis who�ve been imperiled because they worked for the U.S. government,� said Kirk W. Johnson, who worked for the United States Agency for International Development in Falluja in 2005. �We could not have functioned without their hard work, and it�s shameful that we�ve nothing to offer them in their bleakest hour.�

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who is taking over the immigration, border security and refugee subcommittee, plans hearings this month on America�s responsibility to help vulnerable Iraqis. An estimated 1.8 million Iraqis are living outside Iraq. The pace of the exodus has quickened significantly in the past nine months.

Some critics say the Bush administration has been reluctant to create a significant refugee program because to do so would be tantamount to conceding failure in Iraq. They say a major change in policy could happen only as part of a broader White House shift on Iraq.

�I don�t know of anyone inside the administration who sees this as a priority area,� said Lavinia Lim�n, president of the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a nongovernmental refugee resettlement agency based in Washington. �If you think you�re winning, you think they�re going to go back soon.�

For Iraqis, a tie to the United States is a life-threatening liability, particularly in harder-line Sunni neighborhoods. In 2003, Laith, an Army interpreter who would allow only his first name to be used, got a note threatening his family if he did not quit his job. His neighborhood, Adhamiya, was full of Baath Party loyalists. A month later, his father opened the door to a stranger, who shot him dead.

Laith�s mother begged him to stop working, but his salary, $700 a month at the time, supported the entire family. Then someone threw a sound grenade at the house. Graffiti appeared on a wall in ugly black paint accusing Laith of selling information about insurgents to the military. Laith and his family moved out of the house. Soon after, it was broken into and photographs of him with American soldiers were found in a family photo album.

�They know me,� he said, sitting in one of Baghdad�s hotels, because his family would not allow a Western reporter inside the house. �They know when I come and go.�

Many Iraqis who worked for Americans have already fled the capital or the country, and many plead for help or asylum on a daily basis. Of some 40 nationalities seeking asylum in European countries in the first half of 2006, Iraqis ranked first with more than 8,100 applications, according to the United Nations.

Remarkably few apply for refugee status in the United States, mainly because most Iraqis, even those who have worked for the United States government here, simply assume that getting American status is all but impossible. Iraqis cannot apply directly for refugee status in the American Embassy in Baghdad.

Another interpreter, Amar, who did not want his full name used, went to at least 10 embassies during a trip to Jordan last fall, but found only blank faces. He counts his sacrifice for America in bones and skin. He is missing a finger, an eye and part of his skull, after a large bomb exploded next to his Humvee last year. He has received two threats to his life. Two bodyguards accompany him everywhere. He stays in three different houses to confuse potential attackers.

There will be no reeducation camps in Sadr's Iraq.

Because it's not just the Sunnis watching.

If these people are not evacuated to the US, they and their families will be murdered

Sacrifice

So, do I look like a ruler in this or what?

Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost'
By Justin Webb
BBC News, Washington

US President George W Bush intends to reveal a new Iraq strategy within days, the BBC has learnt.

The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces.

The move comes with figures from Iraqi ministries suggesting that deaths among civilians are at record highs.

The US president arrived back in Washington on Monday after a week-long holiday at his ranch in Texas.

The BBC has been told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.

Its central theme will be sacrifice.

The speech, the BBC has been told, involves increasing troop numbers.

The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion, according to officials, but it is likely to focus on providing security rather than training Iraqi forces.

No point in training Casey Sheehan's killers to kill more Americans.

This also means they want to go into Sadr City.

This is where the 110th Congress has got to do their job. No more Warners and Roberts covering Bush's ass. And Lieberman has been turned into a joke.

I know people don't believe me, but I don't think Bush's presidency survives a rejection of his Iraq plan. Because there will be hearings and hard questions and unlike the GOP, people will expect answers. If Terri Schaivo began the road to the end of the GOP domination of Congress, this will do the same for Bush.

Because he has no support for this and doesn't realize it.

I need a yes man

Gen. George Casey

Chaos Overran Iraq Plan in �06, Bush Team Says
By DAVID E. SANGER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and JOHN F. BURNS

............

Over the past 12 months, as optimism collided with reality, Mr. Bush increasingly found himself uneasy with General Casey�s strategy. And now, as the image of Saddam Hussein at the gallows recedes, Mr. Bush seems all but certain not only to reverse the strategy that General Casey championed, but also to accelerate the general�s departure from Iraq, according to senior military officials.

General Casey repeatedly argued that his plan offered the best prospect for reducing the perception that the United States remained an occupier � and it was a path he thought matched Mr. Bush�s wishes. Earlier in the year, it had.

But as Baghdad spun further out of control, some of the president�s advisers now say, Mr. Bush grew concerned that General Casey, among others, had become more fixated on withdrawal than victory.

Now, having ousted Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush sees a chance to bring in a new commander as he announces a new strategy, senior military officials say. General Casey was scheduled to shift out of Iraq in the summer. But now it appears that it may happen in February or March.

By mid-September, Mr. Bush was disappointed with the results in Iraq and signed off on a complete review of Iraq strategy � a review centered in Washington, not in Baghdad. Whatever form the new strategy takes, it seems almost certain to include a �surge� in forces, something that General Casey insisted earlier this year he did not need and which might even be counterproductive.

In a telephone interview on Friday, General Casey continued to caution against a lengthy expansion in the American military role. �The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq�s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias,� he said. �And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq�s problems, which are at base their problems.�

Yet if Mr. Bush does send in more American forces, historians may well ask why it took him so long. Some Bush officials argue that the administration erred by refusing to send in a bigger force in 2003, or by sufficiently bolstering it when the insurgency began to take hold.

If Casey retires in early February, and still opposes this plan, the hearings will be devestating.

Bush's main problem is a simple one: who is he backing? It is clear that Sadr now runs the government. All this talk of shoving him aside was Green Zone nonsense. One word from Sistani, and that was done.

The Mahdi Army is now, in effect, the government's main force. The uniformed units have only a nominal loyalty to the government

The Iraqis never delivered four of the six Iraqi Army battalions that they had committed to the effort. Some of the Iraqi police units proved to be so infiltrated by Shiite militias that they had to be pulled off duty for retraining.

Weaknesses in the Iraqi Forces

In the Sunni stronghold of Dora, in southwestern Baghdad, American troops were forced to clear thousands of homes twice: the Iraqi security forces who moved in behind them were too few, and too little dedicated to the task, to keep the insurgents from returning.

In neighborhoods like Baya, the Shiite-dominated Iraqi National Police set up menacing checkpoints on the routes Sunnis used to seek medical attention or buy fuel.

�They were trying to dominate the Sunni population and terrorize them to the point that they would leave Baghdad or leave the neighborhood,� recalled Lt. Col. James Danna, who had led the Second Battalion, Sixth Infantry Regiment, which oversaw those areas. He said that like the first Baghdad security operation, the second also failed. As the American elections approached, White House officials say, they believed it would amount to political suicide to announce a broad reassessment of Iraq strategy. But they recognized that unless they began such a review, they would be forced to accept the conclusions of the final report of the Iraq Study Group � headed by James A. Baker III, the former Republican secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman.

The effort started in September, around the time Mr. Bush decided to oust Mr. Rumsfeld. In the days before the election, Mr. Bush suggested during an interview that Mr. Rumsfeld could stay until the end of his term � a deliberately misleading statement that Mr. Bush said later was necessitated by the political season. Similarly, it was days after the election that the White House revealed that a major Iraq review was under way.

In public, Mr. Bush continues to insist that he and Mr. Maliki share the same vision. In private, one of his former aides said, �he questions whether Maliki has the will or the power� to make good on any commitments.

American military officers have also wondered if the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government and the Americans share the same vision. Were the Iraqis not pulling their weight because they did not have the capability to provide security and proceed with reconstruction? Or did the Iraqi authorities have a sectarian agenda?

It is only a matter of time before an Iraqi Army unit turns on the US forces. The US has no options, but it pretends it does.

Wow

Good Portents for 2007

By Jane Hamsher @ 4:45 pm

I just wanted to point out something that gave me a lot of hope today. Sue mentioned it in the FDL comments � over at the WaPo, in response to Joe Lieberman's Op-Ed calling for a "troop surge," there are 37 pages of negative responses. When the Deborah Howell incident happened, I recognized many of the names � Paul Lukasiak, Brad DeLong, TeddySanFran and other regulars at various and sundry blogs heavily populated the pages. But as I scanned through the 37 pages of people calling out Lieberman and his magical plan for "success" in Iraq for being the folly that it most assuredly is, I didn't recognize a one. No, people just spontaneously showed up and were appalled that anyone could be promoting this kind of lunacy. The response to Lieberman's call for escallation in the war was loud, forthright and agressive � no more.

Digby points us to Brilliant at Breakfast where Ned Lamont perches near the top of Jill's "Best of 2006" list, and I wholeheartedly agree. The Vietnam war lasted for over a decade and cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. I firmly believe that if Ned Lamont had not been willing to take on Joe Lieberman, the anti-war sentiment we are now seeing would never have achieved this kind of popular acceptance. Democrats were told it was "political suicide" to mention the war in the months before November, and Ned Lamont proved that wrong. There is not a politician on Capitol Hill who will look at those 37 pages of comments and not realize that precisely the opposite is true � continued support for this war could end a political career.

People who believe that victory is measured simply by chalk marks in a win/loss column have no idea how long-term battles are waged. If this war ends one day sooner or one less person has to die because 37 pages worth of Americans tell Joe Lieberman enough with his vanity war, every bit of effort that you, or I, or Ned Lamont, or anyone else expended toward that end was worth it.

Click on the Lieberman comments. It is really amazing how people hate his idea and this war