Exploiting The Dead

[fintstone]

New York Post
October 20, 2005

Exploiting The Dead

By Ralph Peters

We'll soon reach a total of 2,000 dead American troops in Iraq. You won't miss the day it happens. The media will pound it into you.

But no one will tell you what that number really means — and what it doesn't.

Unable to convince the Bush administration or our troops to cut and run, the American left is waging its campaign of support for Islamist terror through our all-too-cooperative media. And you're the duck in the anti-war movement's shooting gallery.

Breathless anchors and voice-of-God columnists will suggest that 2,000 dead is an exorbitant price to pay in wartime, that reaching such a threshold means we've failed and that it's time to "support our troops and bring them home."

All lies. Certainly, the life of every American service member matters to us. But the left's attempt to exploit dead soldiers and Marines for partisan purposes is worse than grave-robbing: Ghouls only take gold rings and decaying flesh; the left wants to rob our war dead of their sacrifices and their achievements, their honor and their pride.

Those who died in Iraq have not died in vain. Even should Iraq fail itself in the end, our courageous effort to give one Middle-Eastern Muslim population a chance to create a rule-of-law democracy has been worth the cost — for their sake, but also for ours. Without a transformation of the Middle East, we shall see no end of terror.

As a former soldier whose friends still serve under our flag, I'm especially disgusted by the pretense on the part of those who never served and who wouldn't dream of letting their own children serve that they speak for the men and women in uniform.

Our troops speak for themselves. By re-enlisting. And returning to Iraq, to complete the mission for which their comrades gave their lives or suffered life-altering wounds.

Two generations of politicians and pundits suffer from their avoidance of military service. They speak of war in ignorance and view our troops — whom they quietly despise — as nothing more than tools of their own ambitions. After deploring body counts during their Vietnam-era protest years, today our leftists revel in the American body count in Iraq.

The left has been infuriated by its inability to incite an anti-war movement in our military — forgetting that this is an all-volunteer force whose members believe in service to our country. The best the Democrats can do is to trot out poor Wes Clark, an ethically challenged retired general who will say anything, anywhere, anytime in return for five more seconds in the spotlight.

As for that "unacceptable" number of casualties, let's put it in perspective:

Our current loss rate in Iraq from combat and non-combat deaths is 765 per year. That's painful for individual families, but we would have to remain in Iraq, taking casualties at the same rate, for 76 years to rival our loss of more than 58,000 Americans in Indochina.

And Vietnam wasn't remotely as important to our national security. The terrorists we face today are more implacable than any of the enemies from our past. Even the Germans didn't dream of eradicating our entire population. The Japanese hoped to master Asia, not to massacre every man, woman and child in America.

We would need to continue our efforts in Iraq and the greater War on Terror for 532 years to suffer the 407,000 dead we lost in less than four years in World War II.

And what about our greatest struggle, the American Civil War? We would have to maintain the status quo in Iraq for 470 years just to rival the number of Union dead and for 729 years to equal our total losses, North and South.

Even our Revolutionary War, in which fewer than 5,000 Americans died in combat (many more, unrecorded, fell to disease) has to be judged in terms of the population at the time — just over 2 million. Equivalent losses today would be over 500,000 dead Americans.

The point isn't to play hocus-pocus with statistics. That's what the pro-terrorist left is trying to do — betting that you know nothing of military history. Two thousand dead isn't a magic number. Our first loss was as important as the last. We must not make a mockery of our fallen by treating them as political rag-dolls to be tossed around the media playroom. Great causes incur great costs.

In historical terms, our losses in Iraq have been remarkably light, given the magnitude of what we seek to achieve. The low casualty rate is a tribute to the skill and professionalism of our troops and their battlefield leaders. None of us should breathe a word that undercuts them while they're fighting our war.

If the American left and its media sympathizers want someone to blame for our combat losses, they should begin with themselves. Their irresponsible demands for troop withdrawals provide powerful encouragement to Muslim fanatics to keep on killing as many American service members as possible. On the worst days the terrorists suffer in Iraq, our "anti-war" fellow citizens keep the cause of Islamist fascism alive. Their support is worth far more to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi than any amount of Saudi money.

It would be wonderful to live in a world in which war was never necessary. But we don't live in such a world. And there are no bloodless wars. We should honor every fallen American. But we also must recognize that, on this maddened earth, only the blood of patriots shed abroad allows us to live in safety here at home.

[HardDrive]

Crass rubbish.

[2.7RACER]

That is the dumbest reasoning I have ever heard to justify staying in Iraq.
We want to know what the goal is and how does this administration plan on achieving it.
We want some real leadership. Not this slow trickle of how we might be there for awhile.
WE WANT THE TRUTH.
Then the American people can decide if our sons and fortune are worth it.
The rest of the world bears some resposibility here as well.
WHERE ARE THEIR SONS?

[bryanthompson]

Dancing on their graves...

[jim72911t]

Another piece of "objective" journalism?

Even should Iraq fail itself in the end, our courageous effort to give one Middle-Eastern Muslim population a chance to create a rule-of-law democracy has been worth the cost

So this is the new (latest) reason for the war in Iraq? We should be so proud.

I especially like the part: "Even should Iraq fail itself in the end."

Kind of takes the heat off, eh?

Fint, I normally don't respond to your cut and paste propaganda. However, this one is completely over the top, and frankly, I expect better from you.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by jim72911t
Another piece of "objective" journalism?



So this is the new (latest) reason for the war in Iraq? We should be so proud.

I especially like the part: "Even should Iraq fail itself in the end."

Kind of takes the heat off, eh?

Fint, I normally don't respond to your cut and paste propaganda. However, this one is completely over the top, and frankly, I expect better from you.

Yes Jim, I had to rally dig deeply into the conservative blogs for this little jewel...The NY Post is known for its conservative influence....not. If your definition of "objective journalism" is only a piece that condemns our country or military...or mischaracterizes what they have done....you would be right. Otherwise, you are just irate that the truth is so obvious... For one, I am very proud of our accomplishments in Iraq. Never in history have the actions/deaths of so few...accomplished so much...for so many people...it makes detractors seem like the shallow fools that they are. Yes, it seems that the article pretty well predicted the staged response of you leftys tend to evoke to discount any accomplishment this country makes in an attempt use it to your political advantage.. No wonder it makes you angry. Like looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Shame.
I especially like the part about "Even should Iraq fail itself in the end." That is exactly the case! It could have easily been said about this country during our Constitutional Congress by the French who sided with us during our own revolution (we were ultimately successful in building a fine, honorable nation)...or it could have been said by our soldiers/nation after liberating France in WW2 (clearly unsuccessful at the same) or the eastern block countries after the cold war (presently a mixed bag). Obviously, the birth of a nation is like that of a child. You can provide life..then mentoring and opportunity...but eventually they go/choose their own way.
Glad you could respond to my "cut and paste propaganda" with a "well thought out" bumper sticker one-liner. Move-on.org would be proud. Frankly, I did not expect any better.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by 2.7RACER
That is the dumbest reasoning I have ever heard to justify staying in Iraq.
We want to know what the goal is and how does this administration plan on achieving it.
We want some real leadership. Not this slow trickle of how we might be there for awhile.
WE WANT THE TRUTH.
Then the American people can decide if our sons and fortune are worth it.
The rest of the world bears some resposibility here as well.
WHERE ARE THEIR SONS?

The goal is pretty obvious and has been reiterated many times...as well the plan on achieving it. How long it will take would require a crystal ball, but the current progress is nothing short of amazing.
As far as the rest of the world...quite a few countries are also there...standing tall beside us....and similarly grieve the loss of their sons and daughters.....others are cowering in fear, are outright backing our enemies, or attempting to use the war to advance their own pathetic anti-American political causes......it has always been the case...and always will be....just as people in our own country do the same. It make the success and the sacrifice no less.

[gavinlit]

2000 deaths would be worthwhile if it was a necessary cause. But it's not. It's a waste of perfectly good people and a crpload of money. It was a dmbass call from the start and the waste of lives, both American and others (which I'd guess would far exceed 2000) just makes it a tragedy.

[techweenie]

But they died saving us from Saddam's immediate threat of WMD attacks. What could be more worthwhile?

[techweenie]

Kool-Aid drinkers might not want to read this:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html

[RoninLB]

The NY Post goes after every color politician if there is a screw up.

The point of the article is that "the American left is waging its campaign of support for Islamist terror through our all-too-cooperative media. "

the good news is that there is still just under 500 homicides/yr in NYC. That's much better than the 1,400+/yr at it's heyday in the early 70's.

[rrpjr]

Great stuff, fintstone. Thanks.

[Hugh R]

I used to support the war, but now, **** those ragheads. I don't want my 17 year old son signing up for that bull**** in Iraq. Its high time for them to fight their own civil war.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

I hate the Grateful Dead

[juanbenae]

when was the last time dubya used 9/11 to justify his position?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
Kool-Aid drinkers might not want to read this:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html

Why not? It was clearly written for them.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by gavinlit
2000 deaths would be worthwhile if it was a necessary cause. But it's not. It's a waste of perfectly good people and a crpload of money. It was a dmbass call from the start and the waste of lives, both American and others (which I'd guess would far exceed 2000) just makes it a tragedy.

I guess that would depend on how you define "necessary cause." I guess that adding a democracy in the Middle East and liberating millions is not high on everyone's agenda. Especially if it costs the lives of 2000 volunteers. It makes you wonder how they ever "sold" the liberation of France in the '40s at the cost of 10's of thousands of conscripts....Or the Battle of the Coral Sea for that matter.

[Nathans_Dad]

How many Marines died for a small volcanic island in the middle of the ocean called Iwo Jima?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

This article can be summed up in one word: desperation.

[fintstone]

I agree! The liberal media are desperate to spin the war the other way since their attempts to portray the elections and the constitution have failed miserably...as well as their attempts to generate support for a weak antiwar movement consisting mostly of freaks and nut bags. even with all their efforts, the President's approval rating (although at it's low) are still above the lows reached by that liberal favorite, Bill Clinton in spite of their efforts to prop him up.