Morbid Milestone: 3000th American KIA in Iraq

[Route66Kid]

How high does this number have to go before our illustrious leadership finally gets it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061231/ap_on_re_us/us_iraq_american_deaths

U.S. death toll in Iraq hits 3,000 BY PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
40 minutes ago



American deaths in the Iraq war reached the sobering milestone of 3,000 on Sunday even as the Bush administration sought to overhaul its strategy for an unpopular conflict that shows little sign of abating.

The latest death came during one of the most violent periods during which the Pentagon says hate and revenge killings between Iraq's sects are now a bigger security problem than ever.

The death of a Texas soldier, announced Sunday by the Pentagon, raised the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq to at least 3,000, according to an Associated Press count, since the war began in March 2003.

President Bush is struggling to salvage a military campaign that, more than three-and-a-half years after U.S. forces overran the country, has scant support from the American public. In large part because of that discontent, voters gave Democrats control of the new Congress that convenes this week. Democrats have pledged to focus on the war and Bush's conduct of it.

Three thousand deaths are tiny compared with casualties in other protracted wars America has fought in the last century. There were 58,000 Americans killed in the Vietnam War, 36,000 in the Korean conflict, 405,000 in World War II and 116,000 in World War I, according to Defense Department figures.

Even so, the steadily mounting toll underscores the relentless violence that the massive U.S. investment in lives and money — surpassing $350 billion — has yet to tame, and may in fact still be getting worse.

A Pentagon report on Iraq said in December that the conflict now is more a struggle between Sunni and Shiite armed groups "fighting for religious, political and economic influence," with the insurgency and foreign terrorist campaigns "a backdrop."

From mid-August to mid-November, the weekly average number of attacks in the country increased 22 percent from the previous three months. The worst violence was in Baghdad and in the western province of Anbar, long the focus of activity by Sunni insurgents, said a December report.

Though U.S.-led coalition forces remained the target of the majority of attacks, the overwhelming majority of casualties were suffered by Iraqis, the report said.

The American death toll was at 1,000 in September of 2004 and 2,000 by October 2005.

Bush told an end-of-the-year press conference that the deaths distress him.

"The most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives," Bush said.

Asked about the 3,000 figure, deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said Sunday that the president "will ensure their sacrifice was not made in vain."

"We will be fighting violent jihadists for peace and security of the civilized world for years to come. The brave men and women of the U.S. military are fighting extremists in order to stop them from attacking on our soil again," Stanzel said.

In a statement Bush released Sunday to wish the troops and all Americans a happy new year, the president said the nation depends on the men and women in the armed services and are mindful of their dedication and sacrifice.

"Last year, America continued its mission to fight and win the war on terror and promote liberty as an alternative to tyranny and despair," Bush said in the statement released from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he and first lady Laura Bush are spending New Year's Eve with friends.

"In the New Year, we will remain on the offensive against the enemies of freedom, advance the security of our country, and work toward a free and unified Iraq," he said. "Defeating terrorists and extremists is the challenge of our time, and we will answer history's call with confidence and fight for liberty without wavering."

In an interview on Dec. 21 with The Associated Press, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the war was "worth the investment" in American lives and dollars.

In his strategy reassessment, Bush has consulted Iraqis, his uniformed and civilian advisers, an outside bipartisan panel that studied the failing war, and other defense and foreign policy experts. New Defense Secretary Robert Gates journeyed to Iraq in his first week on the job in December to confer with American commanders and Iraqi leaders.

Among the president's options was a proposal to quickly add thousands of U.S. troops to the 140,000 already in Iraq to try to control escalating violence in Baghdad and elsewhere.

Others believe too much blood and money already have been sacrificed. Democrats have wanted Bush to move toward a phased drawdown of forces, while the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended removing most U.S. combat forces by early 2008 while shifting the U.S. role to advising and supporting Iraqi units.

Having launched the war against the advice of a number of nations, the Bush administration never got a huge international contribution of troops, meaning foreign forces helping the Iraqis are overwhelmingly American.

The death toll shows it. As of late December, the British military has reported 126 deaths in the war so far; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 18; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; and Denmark, six. Several other countries have had five or less.

___

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Breadburner]

Morbid Milestone: 3000th American KIA in Iraq

34 times that die from infections in Hospitals in the U.S every year......

[Route66Kid]

quote:34 times that die from infections in Hospitals in the U.S every year......

Real sound logic there, Bread....

[ky]

[]time for our troops to come enough is enough let them take care of themselves now.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

Morbid Milestone: 3000th American KIA in Iraq

34 times that die from infections in Hospitals in the U.S every year......

Hmmm.  Good point.  So, if I only kill a small fraction of that, say 300 . . . no big whoop at all.  Thanks for putting it all in perspective for me.

Hear that, TPD?  Now get off my back and find something real to worry about.

[rwarn17588]

Remember, Kiah, these are many of the same folks who profess to be pro-life.

[}:)]

[shadows]

Collateral damage of 3000 of  our young and thousands who will hobble to an early grave seems an extreme price to pay after two failures to control the Mideast.   Is it worth it?

It all depends on whether it involves one's family or just a statistic printed in a news paper?  Is it justified in trying to change traditions centuries old?  Many of our allies in this war are pulling out.

The old saying that "That it is better to fight over there than on our soil" is being discarded more each day as "Star Wars" are becoming a reality.

We are able to win wars after they have been underway long enough for the enemy to deplete their resources.  We have not been able to be victorious in the wars we started in the last century.  It is time to set a withdrawal date and let them go on with their civil war we have got started for them?   How about starting the withdrawal tomorrow and save another thousand lives of those from this bankrupt country?    


 

[truth4freedom]

More are killed every day in the US by illegal invaders than are killed in Iraq every day, but somehow the MSM and the talking heads in DC prefer to focus on whatever gives them more political edge. Which would be easier to fix?

Iraq was our necessary footprint in the ME, and while I would have preferred we just built a large military base in Kurdistan instead of toppling the dictatorship, and then fought a shadow war, I can't say I'm sorry to see Saddam dead either.

The mistake we continue to make in the ME is trying to set up democracy there in countries that don't want it, instead of supporting those that have willingly embraced it, or a form of it on their own, working with them to topple vile leadership in places such as Iran through internal strife and information war.  

We had a good hold in the ME at one time with Iran, but we can thank Carter and his moronic impulses for the loss of that. Now we have to do some dirty work to gain it back and no one said it was going to be pretty!

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by truth4freedom

We had a good hold in the ME at one time with Iran,

Iran is in Maine?

Believe it was ole Ike that signed off on overthrowing the democratically elected Shah, installing a puppet gov't, and preventing Iran from nationalizing it's oil.  Carter just happened to be around when the proverbial pooh hit the fan 26 years later.

[truth4freedom]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by truth4freedom

We had a good hold in the ME at one time with Iran,

Iran is in Maine?

Believe it was ole Ike that signed off on overthrowing the democratically elected Shah, installing a puppet gov't, and preventing Iran from nationalizing it's oil.  Carter just happened to be around when the proverbial pooh hit the fan 26 years later.

Middle East my sarcastic little friend.

I bet it was democratically elected, just like all of Carters 'supervised' elections are. I'm all for toppled dictatorships and puppet governments in the interest of saving our future generation from sharia law. I suppose you would prefer your daughter in a burkah and having her sexual organs sliced off at a ripe young age?

[MichaelC]

I'd prefer the that US avoid situations which lay stink bombs for future generations.   1979 would not have been remotely possible, without 1953.  Iranian-US relations have never recovered.  

Our intervention in 1953 brought about the rise to power of the Mullahs and the Ayatollah.  It wasn't the other way around.

[truth4freedom]

Ignoring an islamo fascist ticking time bomb seems a much larger burden to place upon future generations than what you refer to here. Thanks for the research topic though, I'll get back to you with my thoughts. I wonder what inspired our intervention in the 50's?

OK, did my research. Oil and the Cold War.

Unfortunately our economy and livelihood depends on availability of oil. It should be different by now as technology blossoms, but the simple fact is that it's not. If we have to topple a government that is threatening to withhold that resource, than I'm all for a coup or two. At least it was not open war and the savages haven't withheld it since except for a short period.

During the Cold War either we set up a puppet government, or the USSR would. It was a nasty game, but that's how it was. I suppose you would have had us sit back and let the Commie's take all the action for themselves and then ask them nicely to please leave us alone? It's a dirty game, but we're playing with dirty adversaries who don't play fair. That's life.

On the flip side, Carter let a good thing go when he let the Shah be overthrown. Did the Shah pull some evil crap? Yes. Would the USSR have been any kinder with their puppet government? Not by a long shot.

[MichaelC]

An election.  Iranians elected a Prime Minister (sorry, I always say Shah) whose platform included nationalizing oil.  The election happened in 1951 during the Truman administration.  Truman balked at the idea of toppeling the Iranian gov't over something so simple as oil nationalization.  Ike picked up the ball.

Operation Ajax.

[MichaelC]

They weren't threatening to withhold oil.  They were planning to nationalize their oil.  There's a big difference, and nationalization of resources was a serious trend in virtually all of the Middle East at that time.  US and British oil companies wouldn't make nearly as much money if the oil had been nationalized.  If the oil is off the market completely (which may have been assumed, not threatened.), there were in that time plenty of places for US oil to make money.  Its counter to all logic that Iran would actually withhold its oil from markets.  At the time, it wouldn't have made much of a difference other than to drain their own treasury.  Nationalization is a different story.  Iran benefitting more from its oil resources, equals a loss for US Oil.

quote:Originally posted by truth4freedom

On the flip side, Carter let a good thing go when he let the Shah be overthrown. Did the Shah pull some evil crap? Yes.

And thus, the Iranian Revolution.  We toppled the first ever democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran.  And in several ways, life in Iran got exponentially worse.  

Nothing short of an all out invasion of Iran would have stopped the revolution.  And that probably would have delayed the inevitable.  Toppling the Prime Minister, pushed back democratic elections in that country for 46 years, until 1999.

[truth4freedom]

And the Cold War?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a littel oil crisis occur in the 70's involving Iran...contrary to all logic...