Quote:
Originally Posted by Superman
Even if no progress is made, military operations get more efficient over time. More careful too. so.....a decrease in American casualties is going to happen no matter what. The graph sucks, and I'm not going to take the time to reload the data into a linear graph or some other graph that makes more intuitive sense.
So....bottom line is.......I would like to believe we are achieving success in Iraq. This article made me think I might be able to adopt that belief. But it fell short of that goal. Help me. Help me draw the conclusion this article suggests.
|
I'm still waiting.
Again, I would like to see some good news. Military operations get better at avoiding casualties, so a small drop in that rate is not entirely conclusive. But I would like to see some good news. I have teased you guys several times here about pursuing a strategy where our goal must be to either exterminate terrorists, or scare them into not hating us any more. But clearly, this kind of operation obviously pursues the goal of crushing or crippling or reducing the numbers of active terrorists. And so......in a strategy like we are pursuing, success is shaped like this: A waning of terrorist acts. Without a decline in terrorist attacks, success is obviously not achieved.
I'm waiting. I want to see terrorist acts decline.