Fifth Anniversary of "Mission Accomplished"
Five years ago today, George W. Bush got off a Navy jet on the USS Abraham Lincoln declaring "major combat operations over" in front of a pre-positioned banner declaring "Mission Accomplished". After it became clear that things were going south, White House aides responsible for the stage management attempted to blame the banner or the sailors themselves.
It's 2008 now and 4000+ dead American servicemen and $600+billion later, there appears no end in sight to military operations "major" or otherwise.
How has your view of the war, Bush, and our continued occupation of Iraq evolved over the last 5 years?
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
One of my best friends had this to say, 'The day he landed on a f*cking carrier and announced, 'Mission Accomplished,' I was fighting for my life in Baghdad.'
I think of that every time I see that picture.
And remember, the Japanese aren't commercially whaling. They're conducting "research". Like "researching how delicious this whale is". - Paleocon
It may surprise some to read this, but the further out we've gotten from "Mission Accomplished," the more indifferent I've become to the event. Can anyone honestly have predicted how events over the past five years would have unfolded? Sure, in hindsight, it's an incredibly bad statement to be making, but could any observer at the time have speculated that nothing would have changed in all this time? A lot of what's gone wrong in Iraq in the last five years has been due to mismanagement of the situation, not because of events beyond control. There are too many things that could have been done at the time to contain the chaos* that weren't done. Hell, how many people five years ago on this day were saying that the mission wasn't accomplished, no offense to Reaper's friend?
* - One of the thing I believes should have been done was to not summarily disband the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military. It's like what Patton said during the occupation of Germany; why completely destroy an already in-place system of governance only to rebuild it from scratch? When one company takes over another, do they fire all the employees and try to rehire all those positions in the hope that the subsidiary will somehow function as effectively as it did beforehand? No, of course not.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
If I weren't so inept I would find a link to the speech Chaney gave during the first Gulf War as to why not to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. About 12 years earlier he knew exactly what was going to happen if you tried to occupy Iraq.
Fletcher wrote:
As did Bush 41. All I'm saying is that there were certain actions that the current administration could have taken to mitigate the results we have now, which is par for the course with them in many situations. If the Iraqi army were left intact instead of sent home, wouldn't they, albeit under new management, have been able to clamp down on the insurgency? They managed to keep such activity in check under Saddam. Like I said, the problem was that certain officials in the Bush 43 government had the same aversion to using Baathists as did officials back in the 40s to using ex-Nazis in the new German government; only difference being that the tribal and ethnic divide in Iraq is so great that only a strong government/military/police entity could hope to have contained it. While the allies in WW2 were able to mostly contain German insurgence, they had the advantage that the land they were occupying was made up of a single people united in common goals and beliefs. Iraq clearly does not have that and thus the approach taken by the powers at be now, while apparently motivated in what happened in the past, clearly did not work now.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
YES. It's the sort of thing you would ponder for nine years and not come up with an answer to.
XBox Live|Tshirts|My Music|GameFly|xfire
I am pretty sure you are looking for this article by George H. W. Bush (the one without Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) and Brent Scowcroft.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Yup. I believe 127 servicemen lost their lives in the invasion of Iraq. Since then, nearly 4000 have been killed after the end of "major combat operations". This number does not include contractors -- American or otherwise or wounded.
To add insult to, well, injury, Bush's PR advanced team who set up the banner tried to claim that it was a spontaneous effort by the sailors on the Lincoln. Way to toss American servicemen and servicewomen under the bus.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
I know my unit's RFI didn't include a big-ass banner.
And remember, the Japanese aren't commercially whaling. They're conducting "research". Like "researching how delicious this whale is". - Paleocon
You know sailors, Reap, all that time on their hands, always sewing stuff... I mean, read Melville, right?
They are probably *crazy* for banners...
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
And the first thing Paul Bremer did on his tenure in Iraq was to fire 500,000 government workers.
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
Military losses, 1980 through 2006
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider
the following statistics:
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 ......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 ......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year)
1994 ......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 ......... 1,040 ( Clinton Year)
1996 ......... 974 ( Clinton Year)
1997 .......... 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 ......... 827 ( Clinton Year)
1999 ......... 796 ( Clinton Year)
2000 .........758 ( Clinton Year)
2001 .......... 890(George W Year)
2002 ......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 ......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 .......... 919 (George W Year)
2006.......... 920 (George W Year)
2007..........899 (George W Year)
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him, than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on the wall of his cell.
-CS Lewis
Right. You can't get in car accidents when you're deployed.
And remember, the Japanese aren't commercially whaling. They're conducting "research". Like "researching how delicious this whale is". - Paleocon
That is weird. I get these numbers from snopes on Dubya's years. Odd that you combined the bogus numbers from Bush's years to the corrected numbers from Clinton's years in the same table. Why would you do that?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp
Xbox Live: JayhawkerGWJ
Last.FM: JayhawkerGWJ
Exactly.
Here are the numbers from the very report Nomad linked to, but failed to read, on deaths classified as "Hostile". This is where snopes got their numbers as well.
1989 23
1990 ZERO
1991 147
1992-1995 ZERO
1996 1
1997-2000 ZERO
2001 3
2002 18
2003 344
2004 739
2005 739
2006 753
Xbox Live: JayhawkerGWJ
Last.FM: JayhawkerGWJ
Thanks.
Beyond the lying with statistics, it appears also that there is the application of a double standard as well. If deaths of Americans resultant from hostile action are really of so little significance, why is he making such a big deal over 9-11?
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
The other area, where statistics are not being used to accurately describe the carnage of the Iraqi War would be in the area of injured soldiers. Today's standards are so different than in previous conflicts. Soldiers today not only have vastly superior armor, but our ability to treat wounds quickly, and with incredibly more advanced techniques means that soldiers that died in the field before, are now saved.
They are saved, but many have lives that are destroyed. From horrible burns, massive head injuries, and the loss of multiple limbs, it is sad that when releasing the reports of deaths in Iraq, these soldiers are ignored. The numbers compared to Vietnam probably would not look so good if we included the the numbers of soldiers no longer able to fight. Antiwar.com estimates this number at 23,000.
Xbox Live: JayhawkerGWJ
Last.FM: JayhawkerGWJ
I don't get it. Even with the skewed numbers its not like the war becomes justified or more acceptable. Soldiers are still getting horribly maimed like Jayhawker pointed out and who knows how many are coming back mentally scarred from what they saw. Its still costing huge amounts of money the American economy could be spending at home or paying off debt or cutting taxes or whatever you please. Most importantly when did Iraqis cease being people as they are bearing the worst of this all. I remember when this all first started I was in my first year of University and being Canadian there were huge grumblings but I was hopeful more for the sake of the world if anything that "Well if they find those WMD's this wont be so bad at least it will all make sense besides oil!" fast forward to now my optimism or hope has been well crushed and my pessimist friend on my floor who called it being Vietnam part two and a horrible mistake called it.
History is a underrated subject. Athens going to Sicily makes about as much sense in hindsight as Iraq, hopefully the last chapter is not the same.
Sorry, I thought I caught everything when I copy/pasted the short list. Even still the chart speaks volumes. It would seem that some people trumpet our 4000 casualties in Iraq as a horrendous loss of life in a war. Taken in context with the numbers from the chart, which was actually a report to Congress, the total deaths during the Iraq war are hardly more than the norm of a non combat year. Every life lost is regrettable, but its a bit tiring to hear all the Chicken Littles, and their "The sky is falling" rants.
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him, than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on the wall of his cell.
-CS Lewis
I'd love to see what you copy and pasted from that had mixed the bogus and legitimate numbers. If you look at the post, you just overlooked thousands of deaths. No biggie I guess.
But you are wrong. Soldiers killed in action during the war dwarfs the numbers we have seen previously. That is more than 3000 more deaths than would be normal. You also chose to ignore the nearly 30 thousand that have been seriously injured.
The easy way to shut up the Chicken Littles is to justify the deaths, not shrug them off. Playing games with statistics like this is just about as low and horrendous one can go. I think there are more than a few soldiers that would kick living snot out of you for your "perspective".
Xbox Live: JayhawkerGWJ
Last.FM: JayhawkerGWJ
One could just as easily say that the events of 9-11 didn't significantly increase the numbers of transportation related deaths in the USA. And it would be equally meaningless.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Showing the low number of wartime casualties compared to the normal peacetime ones is a far cry from writing off the terrorist attack on 9-11, but if one's main concern is only inflammatory rhetoric, it really doesn't matter.
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him, than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on the wall of his cell.
-CS Lewis
But it isn't true. Just because you are comfortable lying about the numbers, doesn't mean wartime casualty rate is not significant. You are still blowing off the whole casualty total, which includes the severely injured. That ups the number to closer to 30,000+. It's enough that we are having severe problems treating the wounded here in the states, and the administration is playing games to keep from paying for all of it.
The point you are trying to make is only inflammatory rhetoric.
Xbox Live: JayhawkerGWJ
Last.FM: JayhawkerGWJ
I had a big response about the numbers, but we face the same problem here that we do with the evolution discussions - evidence is not actually the deciding factor.
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Jay, if you read my post above I apologized for the errors in the short list. I did my best to correct it before I posted it. You fail to mention that I did post a link to the ENTIRE report. If my motive were intentional deception, that probably would not have been the best strategy. Thanks for continuing to call me a liar though. =)
Even with the accurate numbers the death count still remains very low. Interesting source for your severely wounded count. Antiwar.com? I'd probably get a better idea of the benefits of the Republican party from the moveon.org site. =)
Let me be clear. I in no way devalue the brave men and women spilling their blood in Iraq, but too many who sit on the sidelines stateside seem to be trying to inflate the number of casualties in order to promote a specific agenda.
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him, than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on the wall of his cell.
-CS Lewis
Documented civilian deaths from violence
83,336 – 90,897
wait lemme guess these numbers are not acceptable because the website is www.iraqbodycount.org and they obviously have another nefarious agenda.
And too many who are also on the sidelines are happy to conflate casualties with success, thus drawing attention away from all the other egregious malfeasance involved in the war. This is really the final argument, since the other ones in favor of the war have evaporated.
But I am curious. Given that the evidence you thought was good, was not, does that in any way affect your conclusion? Does it make you think that perhaps you've been misled? I mean, you apologize for the mistake, but does it go any further than that?
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Here's a Pentagon casualty count from 4/30/2008. It gives casualties to that point as 29.911, if I read correctly. Close enough to 30,000 for our purposes.
Note that antiwar.com discloses their sources. The statement for American casualty counts is as follows:
“Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.” Atty Gen'l John Ashcroft, on secret NSC torture guideline discussions.
Funny, it sounded to me a whole lot like "4000 deaths is no big deal". Your "explanation" doesn't make it sound any less so.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Further to that:
Post-War Suicides May Exceed Combat Deaths
This has a deep personal meaning to me. A husband of a close friend of mine is a medic with 10th Mountain. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, he's been on three tours combined, and is about to go on his fourth to Iraq later this year. Sustaining lifelong-effect injuries and having lost many comrades over these years, he's messed up big time. The quality of treatment he gets even in active service is despicable. God help him after he's discharged.
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
1) Any loss of life is a tragedy.
2) If you're suggesting that we aren't losing many more than the norm, you're suggesting very few people are dying in Iraq since we're still conducting normal military operations outside of Iraq. Reading the daily DoD casualty reports would suggest this is not the case.
3) You fail to account for changes in how the DoD is recording and accounting for deaths over those years.
4) You fail to account for changes in medical technology that has made more serious injuries survivable... even if that soldier's life is effectively over.
5) Arguing that this war is less expensive in lives than some might suggest is completely irrelevant as to whether it's a just war.
6) You also fail to account for your claims in other threads that unnatural death is caused by sin and divine retribution.
As Paleocon noted, there's also a psychological cost. A friend of mine went to South Korea for a tour, then Iraq. When he left, he was a friendly guy, fairly idealistic... good person. When he came back, all it took was a few beers to get him to start talking about genocide as a solution to the Iraq problem, and while he got out of the army he's going back as a mercenary because he honestly believes all he's good at is shooting people. He is not the same person. Was the guy that I knew a casualty of the war too?
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
BF2142 Stats