WWII: $16 Trillion ; GWOT: $2 Trillion
I was going through my old saved e-mail and came across this comment I had e-mailed to myself to make into a blog post later. I don’t think that I ever did make that blog post. Oh well. I still think it is apt today, since the Left is *still* putting forth these tired memes against the war effort.
[This is a comment left at the military blog Blackfive. I haven’t Googled to get the URL yet, but I may put it into an update if I find it.]
Comment below written by: Rich Casebolt
Allan … you and I could find more common ground if …
1> … you didn’t start out every post with “Iraq is a debacle/Bush is an idiot” or words to that effect.
Chuck Z. pointed out some interesting statistics which IMO puts things in perspective:
As far as current casualties in Iraq goes, Looks like some of my detractors like to post casualty numbers. Here’s a number: ~4000. That’s roughly the number of US casualties in the European theater of operations after WWII ended. Too bad nobody pointed that out after all those 1945 “Mission accomplished” Parades down Broadway. Four thousand, after a war that lasted from 1938-1945, and cost $1,600,000,000; or, in Current money $16,790,400,000,000 (2004 dollars, adjusted using consumer price index calculator at http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html) Sixteen Trillion, for a war that we only fought for four years, versus two trillion for a war we’ve been in for going on five, hell, it’s a discount.
Add that to what Victor Davis Hanson wrote in “History’s Verdict”, and this President looks at least a little better in the light of history.
Could you name me one electable leader today, for whom you can reasonably make the case that they would do better than this President regarding this war … while still having the will to engage our enemy in Iraq and “stop the clock” on the machinations of Saddam & Sons before they could make a Baathist sequel to 911?
Or … is the mere fact that we did engage Iraq, the problem?
2> … you made it clear that your view of “more troops” is not an invocation of the Powell Doctrine.
In an asymetrical war, where the enemy is embedded in the midst of a noncombatant population, more troops does not necessarily mean a shorter war … unless your intent is to grind the people to powder, to get at the enemy.
Unless you are willing to do that, more American troops can mean more targets for the insurgents … and will almost certainly mean more “American Infidel Crusader” propaganda for the enemy.
We are increasing troop levels in-theater … Iraqi troop levels. You know that … and the “Crusader” label above doesn’t stick to them.
I am all for increases in American troop strength — modest-to-moderate increases in-theater, and a deeper “bench” to back them up and reduce rotation length and frequency.
I also vigorously support something equally important, in my view … The American and Iraqi leadership giving all the troops — American and Iraq — in-theater, a “hunting license” that is not restricted by political correctness or just plain politics.
Not doing that, is what I consider the most egregious error on the part of this President … and more significantly, an Iraqi Chief Executive who is more interested in pleasing the voting bloc that elected him, than in routing out some of the thugs that are killng his constituents.
Wtihout that, more troops WILL mean more targets … and not much more.
Now, how do we get there?
How about starting with some “sacrifice” that will not take this economy … whose strength and innovation contributes in a major way to our ability to wage this war … into the toilet with tax increases and (especially) a draft.
How about compensating our troops, not just for increases in the cost of living, but at a level equivalent to college and tech-school graduates in technology/engineering/the sciences …
… and paying for it by the Congresscritters sacrificing their pork — instead, treating the support of our professional military as the priority it is?
Maybe, when the Congresscritters can no longer “bring it home” to their constituents because they’re TRULY supporting the troops, the people will begin to understand …
… instead of trying to compel that understanding by imposing a draft that will degrade the professional military you serve, and push people to make the error of NOT supporting this necessary and just war in any way at all.
Now, there would be some “leadership” for you.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt | Nov 21, 2006 6:34:50 AM
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.