U.S. military death toll not ‘artificial mark’

[struggle4progress]

The Pentagon reported the 2,000th death of a U.S. service member in the occupation of Iraq on Wednesday, and another grim milestone was reached. Unless, of course, it was not a milestone at all. That was the position of Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, the spokesman for the American-led coalition, who called it "an artificial mark on the wall.

"I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq," he wrote to reporters. "The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas or ulterior motives."

Boylan’s insinuation that keeping track of the number of dead military personnel is somehow an attack on anyone who’s ever worn the uniform is insulting. It’s insulting not only to members of the press, and to those who oppose the war, who are used to insults, but to those who have put themselves in harm’s way and to those who love them on the homefront.

Are we simply to forget their sacrifices, or remember them only in a way a Pentagon spokesman suggests? <snip>

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15479639&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18168&rfi=6

[Qanisqineq]

1. sounds like something Rumsfeld would say

only a little more coherent.

"Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

[LiberalPartisan]

2. And 2000++ dead

is not a high price to pay compared to previous wars. At least that's the repellent argument made on numerous right wing talk shows in the last few days.

I disagree - 1 death is too high a price to pay for this illegal war of folly.

Can the RepubliKKKans and their apologists get any more disgusting?

[pretzel4gore]

3. boylan is a bushevik, a traitor to the flag and country.

if that sunofabitch opened his eyes and looked at what bush did: was the invasion/occupation of iraq in the interest of the usa? if it was, was it worth the estimated price tag? WHAT IS the estimated price? Was saddam a US secret agent? was he working for the cia (the rogue cia, the one that murders in the night, then lies about it using prepared false government document etc)?
if saddam was a secret cia agent, is that him in the bagdad jail, or an actor? is the news coverage of the saddam story compromised? who's compromising it, if it is? who ordered the wtc rubble hauled away before the police could examine it, iow destroyed the 'cime scene' that was the hinge that the 'war' in iraq was later on to hang on?
these questions, even the silly ones, would provoke a true adult to at least reassure himself, knowing bushinc as he would....