Monday, June 04, 2007


Report on American War Dead

Based on Department of Defense releases, for the period May 4 , 2007 to June 3, 2007, 6 American soldiers died in Afghanistan, and 120 died in Iraq, which is another very bloody month (up over 20 from last month). Here are the breakdowns. In Afghanistan, one person died on a combat patrol, 4 from small arms and one from absolutely unknown causes. Too late for the dreaded Spring Offensive by the Taliban. It will have to be the dreaded Summer Offensive, if it comes at all this year.

In Iraq, the IED, as usual, killed the most--81 (which I think is the most by that tactic ever). Small arms was a distant second with 20. The generic term combat operations killed 11. There continues to be some real fighting going on with the surge. Only one was killed in an accident; four from non-combat causes; and, one each from indirect fire, non-hostile incident, and enemy action (without further information). I believe again no women died, unless they had absolutely masculine names.

There was one Colonel killed by small arms, in Afghanistan, and four first lieutenants and one major killed in Iraq.

I'm unsure why these unprecedentedly low casualty figures make the majority of Americans want to bring the boys and girls home before it's over, over there. And the fact that we're taking more casualties now that there are more men and women in the field trying hard to kill the enemy in no way tells the tale of success or failure. The tell tales in al Anbar and in Baghdad are in fact positive, with the surge finally just getting the full compliment to deploy.



Here's the deal. I am flashing on movies: "Chinatown" at the end when Jake's buddy tells him "Jake, it's Chinatown" and some other shoot-em-up--"Last Man Standing?"

It will never be over in Iraq, Roger, until there is only one guy left and eveyone else is pushing up daisies and you know what that one guy will do if he's a Sunni? Invade Iran.

What is the objective,R? Saddam and Udey and Quesay are dead and more of the former regime have or will join them but w/ no WMDs exactly what is the mission?

Provide security so that Iraq has a chance to set up a government friendly to the US and an ally against Islamic Jihadists (Fill the power vacuum we created by deposing Saddam et al). Oh, I saw Di Marino on the mall yesterday. He says hello.
"The tell tales in al Anbar and in Baghdad are in fact positive, with the surge finally just getting the full compliment to deploy"

The brass seems to disagree:

"Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal "
Could you please expand on the positive developments that have not been rolled back in Baghdad?

This sounds like a good plan. For it to work, Sunnis and Shias will have to put aside 1327 years of emnity and the Kurds will have to renounce their hopes for independence.

Not only those two things but a tribal society will have to renounce tribalism in favor of representative government.

Not only those three things, but somehow, we and the Iraq government will have to provide suffient security for Iraq's badly damaged infrastructure to be rebuilt.

Not only those four things but the security wil have to suffiecient to convince the Iraqi diaspora which consists of a significant portion of middle class; professionals; and the intellegencia to return to Iraq.

I probably omitted a fews things.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?