Whenever you hear someone talk about 2500 deaths in Iraq over three years, recall (or learn about), almost ninety years ago, the Battle of the Somme:

The first day of the battle, codenamed Z-Day, was generally accepted to be the worst of them all, with some battalions suffering losses of more than 90 per cent.

The Battle of the Somme was supposed to be won by the Allies on that first day of July. It was partly thanks to this overconfidence that the generals allowed Malins access to the trenches. Instead, the battle lasted until November - long after the finished film had been screened at home. By the end of the offensive, there were more than one million casualties from both sides. After five months of bitter fighting, the Allies had advanced just five miles.

As horrific as the battle was for the British troops who suffered and died there, it cost hundreds of thousands of French and German lives as well. One German officer famously described the Somme as "the muddy grave of the German field army".

Among those to experience the horrors of the battle from within the trenches were a young JRR Tolkien, later to write the epic Lord of the Rings, the poets Robert Graves and Siegfried Sassoon, future British Prime Minister Anthony Eden - and an Austrian corporal named Adolf Hitler.

Yeah, but the Somme wasn't Iraq, and Iraq isn't the Somme. It doesn't matter if huge casualties were somehow "acceptable" 90 years ago.

Times have changed, and the American public is uneasy with much smaller numbers of casualties from a different kind of war. If they're unconvinced that the cause is right, or that the war is winnable, then they will complain about even a few casualties.

Which once again proves what whining bed wetters the lefty loopies are.

Not one of those young 2500 are conscripted. At this point of the war, many are in the military because of 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror. Cindy Sheehan and her ilk demean her son, and all that have died, by using the coffins of those brave people as soap boxes for their own beliefs.

Our country and the world are in a bad way right now, as many people really believe that NO death is worth dying, NO stand is worth the sacrifice of a life and that NO situation exists that can't be "talked out".

I refer everyone to the last name on the list of men who fought in WWI. That last guy, Corporal Hitler, could not be "talked out" of his plans of evil, nor could he be appeased. The only way to stop him was to kill his followers and try to kill him. The coward killed hinmself before we could get to him, but he DID NOT commit any more evil after he was dead.

Neither will Zarqawi, or any of the other insurgents, islamofascists, terrorists or their leaders who are dead. And we certainly are sending plenty of them to see Allah. I hope he is as happy with them as they think he is!

The numbers game on this war has been interesting. The only number that war supporters ever mention is the number of American military deaths. There's seldom any mention of losses suffered by other coalition members, civilian contractors we've outsourced a lot of work to, or the Iraqi military and police forces.

Nor do they mention the number of injured. U.S. military injuries alone are up at about 18,000. How many of them are coming home without limbs, eyes, or other body parts?

More to the point, the number of violent civilian deaths among the people we went over to liberate is rarely discussed. Over at www.iraqbodycount.net, the estimate ranges from 38,500 to nearly 43,000. A more detailed LA Times survey put the number at more than 50,000.

The reason for all this is clear. Keep the numbers limited and the human cost of the war becomes more reasonable. Look at the bigger picture and things get cloudy.

There's a big disconnect between the true believers on the right and the rest of the country, which has over the last year begun to realize the true cost of this war in human and financial terms.

Once again I have to ask, what happened to those liberal prognosticators who in the months and weeks leading up to the Iraqi invasion were predicting that US combat deaths would number in the thousands in the first month?

I’ll tell you what happened. Their predictions failed to materialize so now those same liberal loons have to act as if the loss of 2500 in 3 YEARS is indication of a huge defeat when in reality no Army in history has lost so FEW while engaged for so LONG and freeing so MANY.

Rove and his damn time machine are responsible for that tragedy (and subsequently putting Hitler in power) as well and you know it!!!!!

/end tinfoil

Wait - so does that mean that Hitler had absolute moral authority? I mean, he suffered in the trenches!

World War I was stupid and pointless. Both sides got into
a fight for reasons even they never understood, and felt
committed to press on for victory once blood was shed.

Is Rand arguing that because we fought one incredibly stupid
and pointless war, we should fight more of them?

Wow, somebody mentioned Hitler in the second post. Does Godwin's Law apply for blogs?

But what the heck, let's discuss for the heck of it:

"Which once again proves what whining bed wetters the lefty loopies are."

Who said anything about whining bed wetting lefties? Is it possible for somebody to believe this and _not_ be a whining lefty loopy? If one looks at the opinion polls, it seems that a significant percentage of the American population is concerned about the war--they don't see any evidence that we're "winning" and they see the casualty numbers rising. Here's a clue: not everybody who disagrees with you is evil.

"Once again I have to ask, what happened to those liberal prognosticators who in the months and weeks leading up to the Iraqi invasion were predicting that US combat deaths would number in the thousands in the first month?"

Two can play at that game: what happened to those conservative prognosticators who predicted that the war would be over, er, a few years ago? We're three years into this thing and US forces are still scared to venture out of the Green Zone and bombings are a daily occurrence.

But that's also diverting the issue. Why is it that you think that the only people who are concerned about the direction of the war are "liberals"? Isn't it possible for somebody to have concerns about the war and not be the stereotype that you paint them as being?

Over his twenty-four year rule, Saddam Hussein's government was directly linked to the deaths of between 600,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis, and the deaths of over 700,000 Iranians and Kuwaitis.[8] The monthly mortality rate during the insurgency that followed the regime change is a 90% decline from the mortality rate that Iraqis experienced under Saddam Hussein's Government.[9] The deaths that the U.S. military is directly responsible for is about 3.8% of fatalities reported.

Two can play at that game: what happened to those conservative prognosticators who predicted that the war would be over, er, a few years ago?

Who were those people? Can you provide a citation?

From SOTU 2002:
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

I remember that line very well. It left the impression that we were not going to just bomb a few buildings in Afghanistan, call it a war, and go home.

Interesting stats there, John. Just a few questions:

How many of these deaths took place during a time when Reagan and Bush the First were backing this madman?

Didn't we back him in his war with Iran? Weren't the Iranian deaths were considered a good thing at the time?

How many of these deaths can be traced to the weaponry we sold him during the 1980s?

The recent LA Times analysis indicates that the Iraq Body Count stats are probably very low. What's your analysis of that?

Can you provide a citation?

Perle: days or weeks -- this will be a short war
Mar. 25, 2003Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board
I can't tell you exactly how many days or how many weeks. But by
historical standards, this will be a short war. (more)

Rumsfeld: I Doubt Six Months
Feb. 7, 2003Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." —to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: (more)

Adelman: Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk
Feb. 13, 2002Ken Adelman
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” - Washington Post

Of course, now I expect some whines about this from Rand concerning how these quotes were about the invasion, or they are taken out of context etc...

Mistakes were made. The occupation has been botched Afganistan has been fumbled (hopefully, not critically yet, but the signs are not good); while there hasn't been another 9/11, I notice that you're now finding cells of home grown, good old, American extremists in your country.

The blinkered attitude is astounding.

I expect some whines about this from Rand concerning how these quotes were about the invasion

Because they were.

I notice that you're now finding cells of home grown, good old, American extremists in your country.

There is nothing surprising about this. There are many more homegrown Islamists in Britain.

Because they were.

No, that is how you chose to believe them. Besides which, that was a small selection I googled for in a couple of minutes - there are plenty of similar from the governments and pro-war blogging community that post-date the hot "war" and into what we are now calling the insurrection.

There are many more homegrown Islamists in Britain.

There are?

Good, glad that's settled. When did you start working for the security forces and should you be sharing this kind of information?

I'm prepared to believe that is the case, but I've not the hubris to state it as fact. Certainly numerically, the number of Muslim immigrants to the UK from poor countries with extreme varieties of Islam is certainly higher than to the US. With something like 1.3% of the population from Pakistan alone. So it is likely that this will be a stronger breeding ground for islamic terrorists.

No, that is how you chose to believe them.

Because that is what they meant. I find it amusing that you talk about "similar comments" about the insurrection but don't produce any.

When did you start working for the security forces and should you be sharing this kind of information?

<laughing out loud at asininity of this question>

quote from anonymous: "Nor do they mention the number of injured. U.S. military injuries alone are up at about 18,000."

Yes it is hard to see the devastating injuries these guys and gals are enduring. However, there is a victory to gather from this terrible loss when you really analyze the numbers. The percentage of killed/wounded displays the incredible proficiency of our Armed Services medical corp. This indicates that our superior communication systems enable units to communicate the needs of a victim in trouble. Our enhanced emergency medical transportation resources quickly get that victim into the hands of a trained medical professional who can asses and begin to treat a victim's injuries within the golden hour of initial trauma. This translate into such a high rate of survival that the overall morale of all the troops is improved. After all, once can fall back on the belief that if one is hurt that they stand a good chance of being rescued and treated. This is a vast improvement over WWII type medical treatment where soldiers that were gravely wounded on the battlefield would get a couple of syrettes of morphine and a compassionate soldier to hold their hand and hope for the best.

Because that is what they meant.

You are a mind reader too now? Gosh.

I find it amusing that you talk about "similar comments" about the insurrection but don't produce any.

Don't have to.