David Flanagan mentions an outbreak of blogging by Iraqis as a positive sign of political progress in Iraq.
This brings up a point I haven't seen discussed much: casualties are a bitter pill and should stick in the craw of every one of us. And there is a point beyond which a given military decision has to be rethought and/or changed due to too many casualties - certainly Vietnam comes to mind.
BUT it is illogical to point to the number of casualties at any given time and compare that to a single perceived "good" achieved by the military action, as Shark does in his comment to the post (not trying to pick on Shark, many people do it, especially those opposed to the war).
Was the newfound freedom of Iraqis to blog "worth" 900 American lives? Most would say no. But that isn't the point. The point is that despite all best efforts to predict and manage, war is exceedingly unpredictable and ultimately you simply hope for the best regarding casualties despite all your best efforts.
And yes, this knowledge should serve as a brake against military action in general, but you have to make decisions on military action based upon the big picture - does it further strategic goals? does it have a good chance of making your country or the world a better place to live? what are the long-term effects and consequences? - and all of these questions must be answered before reasonable judgment can be made on a given military action. Based upon this, I would say 900 American casualties in over a year is within the bounds of acceptability IF OUR LONG-TERM GOALS ARE EVENTUALLY MET.
Though the apparent lack of WMD - at least in anything like the volume we were led to believe we there (despite this report) - certainly reduces my own certainty about the appropriateness of the military action in Iraq, I still see the big picture postives as outweighing the negatives - #1 negative being casualties - although it will be YEARS before anything approaching a definitive judgment can be made.
Therefore blogging by Iraqis, while appearing absurd as a counterweight against the death of 900 (so far) Americans, is really just a sign, a symptom of much more fundamental changes that DO appear to be happening in Iraq as a result of our military action, and a very positive sign at that.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Shark
Maybe Iraqi conversations have turned to 'blogging' because they can't leave the house.
2 - Eric Olsen
Inevitably with relative freedom comes security issues
3 - Mark Edward Manning
Eric: "I would say 900 American casualties in over a year is within the bounds of acceptability IF OUR LONG-TERM GOALS ARE EVENTUALLY MET."
I heartily second that. Cheers, Eric!
4 - Eric Olsen
Thanks MEM, let us hope we are on the right path
5 - Mark Edward Manning
I do hope, and I've felt scared at times that this war could go horribly wrong - BUT that's second to what I feel and have always felt since the war began: that we are doing the right thing. WMDs or no WMDs, that is irrelevant; we freed a long-suffering people. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. The people out there complaining, "we were lied to!" are very petty in my opinion.
Being anti-war in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq (and not forgetting Bosnia), it's irresponsible and ignores the reality of the world we're living in. In fact, it would be great if we could intervene in the Sudan, but of course, we can't as our military is stretched to the limit and even if it wasn't, it would be looked upon by the whole world as yet another imperialist, aggressive war motivated by greed and racism.
6 - boomcrashbaby
Eric, your instapundit link about WMD found has an update on it, that Reuters, the American and Iraqi government are all denying it's validity.
7 - Eric Olsen
no one put much stock in it, not a surprise
8 - Hal Pawluk
Eric: "I would say 900 American casualties in over a year is within the bounds of acceptability IF OUR LONG-TERM GOALS ARE EVENTUALLY MET."
MEM: I heartily second that. Cheers, Eric!
There were more than 900 casualties:
There were 900 lives lost, around 20,000 injured soldiers taken out of the country, and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's killed, uncounted numbers injured.
But I guess it's different when it's not your own life.
Personally, I see nothing to cheer about.
9 - SFC SKI
I am sure that no matter the war, the number of casualties has always been hurtful to the survivors, and I am very sure that very few people in past wars refused to grieve for those killed by saying "They died for a good cause".
Having been in Iraq, I can only say I was prepared to give my life if need be, and I am very glad that I did not have to.
2 things hurt those in uniform more than anything the enemty can do to us;
the idea that the politicians will spend our lives for no tangible gain of stability and the end of the conflict, and the idea that the American public will not allow us to finish what needs to be correctly finished.
Most of you here are not involved in the war in Iraq or Afghanistan in any direct way, you only know what you read in the papers, and many of you have made your decisions long before the 900th casualty was announced. Talk to real Soldiers and Marines, groundpounders, likely you will recieve a variety of opinion, but few will tell you the cause is lost, or it wasn't worth the attempt. Personally, I am glad to be away from the heat, the barren wastes, the poverty, the danger, but I believe it had to be done, and I will go back again next year when it is time, because I believe in seeing this mission through to completion.
I hope those of you who will throw out casualty figures will be equally vocal in pressuring your representatives to fully supporting the Veteran's Administration when the time comes, there will be a lot of veterans who will need a lot of help.
10 - Eric Olsen
Thnaks very much for your perspective SFC SKI, I am humbled to hear it.
11 - boomcrashbaby
David Flanagan mentions an outbreak of blogging by Iraqis as a positive sign of political progress in Iraq.
This is odd. And in his example of the freedom of Iraqi blogging, it's filled with nothing but Iraqis who think Bush majorly fucked up.
Any comments on that from anybody on either blog? Not so far.
(let's rejoice that they can now speak freely! We just aren't going to listen...)
12 - Phillip Winn
BCB (#11) The fact that people can use Blogcritics.org to complain about the war strikes me as an important indicator of our freedom here, so why should Iraq be different?
I understand why the coalition shut down Sadr's newspaper, for example, but it sent the wrong message. Despite the fact that it is now open to continue to "incite violence," I'm glad that they have the freedom to speak their minds. Freedom is important in and of itself, is it not? Is it important for us only, or for only some of us?
13 - boomcrashbaby
response here
14 - Corinna Hasofferett
SFC Ski:
1.
It took the mother in Michael Moore's film several months to grasp reality.
2.
It takes soldiers a much longer time. No USA soldier was killed in action for the liberation of the Russians, Roumanians, etc. An intelligent USA leadership could have helped the same dynamics over there as well.
3.
If your job was to liberate the Iraqi people, your job should have been declared finished, once it was begun, the day Saddam Hussein was captured.
4.
Many of us here in Israel have hoped that since we cannot solve the conflict between us, USA will be our mediator. But how can a country and leadership exercising occupation, help terminate Occupation elsewhere?
There are so many excellent Iranian bloggers I've come to read and converse with. Does this delete Iran from Bush's "have to" list?
David Flanagan, Eric:
There are so many excellent Iranian bloggers I've come to read and converse with. Does this delete Iran from Bush's "have to" list?
15 - RJ
SFC:
Please feel free to ignore this is you like, but I'm curious:
Is there a major difference in feeling between that of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds "on the street"? It sure seems, from the news, that Sunnis hate us, Shia are mixed, and Kurds are happy with us. Is that an accurate assessment, in general?
Thank you for your service,
RJ
16 - MCH
"Army Sgt. Frank T. Carvill, 51, was killed on June 4 (with four others) when his convoy was attacked by improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades in Baghdad. Carvill, of Carlstadt, NJ, was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 112th Field Artillery."
(from the "Honor the Fallen" website, militarycity.com)
The 51-year old Carvill, with pure motives, paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. A lifelong Democrat, he enlisted in the National Guards in 1984 at the age of 31. Frank, who received the Robert F. Kennedy Award in high school for his work on social issues, was a voracious reader and enjoyed politics, Greenwich Village jazz clubs, St. Patrick's Day Parades, snow-skiing and kayaking.
Sgt. Carvill "supported the war in Afghansitan but thought it was a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq." (Rutgers Alumni website) On the day he was scheduled to return stateside for leave, he relinquished his plane seat to another soldier with a family emergency. Frank was killed later that day.
Sgt. Carvill is survived by his mother, Mary; his sister, Peggy; his brother, Dan; and his longtime girlfriend, Monlisa Forde.
The "Friends of Frank Carvill" foundation has been established to collect funds for the many civic organizations that Frank worked with throughout his life. Donations may be sent to Peggy Carvill-Ligouri, 98 S. Glenn Rd., Kinnelon, NJ, 07405.
"Some gave all...all gave some" (VVA slogan)
- MCH, Vietnam era vet