Are you referring to the Iraqi war? If so, how do you refute that (as far as wars go) this one has gone pretty well? Are you referring to Bush’s claims that intelligence showed Saddam had WMDs? If so, how do you square that with Clinton’s similar claims, and Kerry’s similar claims, and Edwards’s similar claims?
]]>Clinton also had no qualms about flexing military muscle as long as no Americans got hurt. Yes, I used that policy as an example of how Clinton ran things, and perhaps I shouldn’t have. Then again, when Clinton had good reason to attack US enemies, I don’t remember him being ridiculed for it. I am aware of one time Republicans criticized Clinton’s missile strikes, and that was an attack on an Iraqi “WMD research facility.” The ridicule came from the timing of the attack — the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Could you point me to other examples?
As a country, we have avoided deadly actions since Viet Nam. That isn’t Clinton’s fault. But I’m not so sure Bush deserves criticism for the death toll in Iraq, if you recognize that the American desire for “only clean wars” was “was unrealistic” and “hampered the military.”
My point about the death toll is simple: the death toll from the current war isn’t enough, by itself, to call the action a mess. As far as a war can go, this one is going relativley well. Our enemies in Iraq have effectively nickle-and-dimed us for 18 months, so the numbers eventually added up. But, the numbers are much lower than even the most optimistic planners expected.
If you have other reasons the situation is a mess, I would like to hear them.
On the other hand, I don’t consider the Administration’s positive claims Orwellian, because (if you recall), the Administration doesn’t own the media. Any positive claims it makes should be vetted by the media before they are reported, and it appears that’s how things are going (aside from CBS’s poor record of repeating stories instead of reporting them).
So, when the Administration reports that there are now enough Iraqis to retake Samarra, and that other cities are next on the list, the media can confirm this. This appears to support the Administrations view that Iraqi forces are getting decent training and will be able to (one day) take over the country’s security concerns. When the Administration can point to large sections (i.e., 14 out of 18 provinces) where there is little or no terrorism, the media can verify this report. That isn’t Orwellian, unless you can point to something I’m missing.
And, no, I’m not missing the negative reporting. I know that the media reports negative stories as well. Americans then have the chance to look at both angles, and decide for themselves if they feel safer. This isn’t Orwellian, either.
]]>I notice that you mentioned Orwellian twice. I
want to point out that the Democratic Party employs
the same strategy. The Democratic Party would love
to mislead…oops…lead the Americans to believe
that its way – the Democratic Way – is the right
way, the only way, the truth. Kerry is trying to
tell the Americans that they will be much safer
when Kerry becomes president. Of course, it is
easier said than done. The bottom line is that all
what the Democratic Party wants is the power and
it does not give a damn about the truth.
In other words, the Democratic Party, as well as
the Republican Party, is not immune to the
Orwellian thinking.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
I agree that you cannot compare wars. Different circumstances and all. My point was that there is no need to compare them. Just deal with the current one. The administration says things are going better than they actually are. You cannot get more Orwellian than that — that tactic is right out of the book.
]]>If we look only at the first month of Iraqi Freedom, we had 130(+/-) deaths, and that was the actual invasion part. All of Desert Storm was invasion, and we lost about 200 people per month (or 300 [+/-] for the six week invasion). After the actual invasion, our casualties have dropped considerably, and we are now losing 60 people a month.
Of course that means 60 families lose a spouse, child and/or parent. But as wars go, that’s about as good as you can hope for.
My point is that Desert Storm had widespread public support (largely because it lasted “days”), and Iraqi Freedom has been labeled a quagmire (largely because it has lasted 18 months) although it is going better in some respects than Desert Storm.
Regarding terrorism, the reason 2001 had such a large American death toll is because of the previous policy of only reacting to attacks by launching missiles. That atmosphere made it possible to plan the largest terrorist attacks in history.
Going after terrorists where they live will obviously lead to short-term increases in terrorism. Over time the idea of being a jihadist will lose some of its appeal. Cheney made an interesting comment last night that Palestinian suicide bombers are starting to dwindle, partly because their families no longer get checks from Saddam Hussein. Even Arabian terrorists think rationally and can be deterred if the cost-benefit analysis doesn’t work out.
]]>Americans are not safer today because terrorism is on the rise around the world, and more Americans have died in the last year in terrorist attacks than in any year other than 2001.
]]>