Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think they can or should. They need to call it a war to insure that we get money and troops for the operation. In addition, no one wants to hear that their son or daughter has died in a "minor military skirmish" in the Middle East.
But anyone with an IQ above six who comments on the war in the media or as a pundit (And especially those that like to see themselves as cutting through the spin and the political B.S.) should see that what is happening is a minor military skirmish and refer to it as such. We should hear over and over again from the pundits that the administration calls this a war, but for a war there are practically no deaths, and for a war this operation is incredibly cheap.
Instead the concept that this is a war is accepted yet everyone focuses on how expensive this war is and how many US military personnel have been lost. However, if you understand that the media is full of liberal morons who don’t understand how important it is that we prevail, and that staying the course is relatively inexpensive in terms of blood and treasure, you get what we have to day. Plus there is the added bonus if they mischaracterize what is happening that will encourage the US population to want to pull out, which they want, and although that will be disastrous for US foreign policy, it will make the Bush administration look bad, which is something they want so badly they are willing to sacrifice the interests of this country.
|
So the Admin should call it a war but no one else should? Interesting view.
This war is hardly cheap, in terms of either lives or money. In terms of money, the cost is approaching $400 billion -- more, in present dollars, than the Vietnam war (we can call that one a "war", right?)
Nor is the war cheap in terms of lives. To begin with, the suggestion that 3000 dead US soldiers (and 22,000 wounded) is "cheap" is offensive. But the relatively low casualty toll is due largely to the nature of the warfare. "Asymmetric" warfare always involves relatively low casualties on the side of the technologically advanced army. And the US power and manner of fighting limits casualties even more.
The Soviet Union fought a war in Afghanistan (we call that one a "war", right?) that left the nation mortally (and thankfully) wounded. How many soldiers do you think died there -- 100,000? It was only 15,000, about .1% of what the USSR lost in World War II. By your analysis, that wasn't just a minor skirmish, it was a Sunday drive with a flat tire.
Finally, the notion that a war that ties down 1/3 of the US Army is merely a "minor skirmish" ... well, let's just say that if anyone discussing this issue has an IQ of less than six, it's the person who made that claim.
The article Less cited was silly. Hank's response to that -- saying that comparing the deaths on 9/11 to the deaths in Iraq is silly -- was a sensible response. Your efforts to minimize the catastrophe in Iraq by pointing to traffic deaths, etc. is just continuing the silliness.
