I think that losing over 100 soldiers a month in Iraq is a clear failure

[bigtree]

I don't know why the debate goes anywhere beyond that stunning result. There's nothing at all that the administration can point to which would justify that level of sacrifice of life and limb.

[BOSSHOG]

1. And if it were not for incredible advances

in medical care the number would be a lot higher then that.

[firefox_fan]

2. That not even counting the wounded

and disabled soldiers, right? Those are going to be a "burden" for society for the rest of their life. When I say "burden" I don't mean to imply it's their fault, obviously.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Roger that Teammate

It is a sad conundrum of sorts, a lot less dead, a lot more wounded, some severely that we will be caring for long after bush flees justice to Paraguay. But those injured troops shouldn't worry because all the flag wavers just can't wait to support them.

[EFerrari]

3. bigtree, I watched a program the other night (maybe on PBS)

and the interviewees were retired Pentagon folks. They said the surge was a dribble. :(

[bigtree]

6. I know more than a few folks in districts all around the US

who would like a word with those Pentagon folks

[EFerrari]

9. I can't help but think that our service people are being tasked

to hold open a dangerous window for profiteers. :(

[babylonsister]

5. Bingo. That should be more than enough for Congress to want to take

a different course.

[endarkenment]

7. Just for the sake of argument: would 50 be acceptable?

Suppose that the next move is to pull back to bases and hunker down. Still occupying Iraq, still preventing any real sovereignty or resolution of the governmental crisis in Iraq, and still firmly camped out over that huge mesopotamian oil puddle. Casualties, hypothetically, go from 100/m to 50/m. Success? Stay the course? Refund the mess?

[muffin1]

8. Just one soldier

dying for this war based on lies is too many. BRING THEM HOME NOW. Impeach the criminals that took us there. :evilfrown:

[bigtree]

11. obviously there are many more reasons, not the least of which are the Iraqi lives

which have been lost and disrupted.

Then you have the issues of the imperialism, the theft of resources, the tortures and imprisonments . . .

But, I'll put our soldiers' lives first in my concern. I agree with the poster who said that one life lost for this fiasco is too many.

[endarkenment]

13. Fine but using arguments like 100/m is failure opens the door

to some other metric of body counts being 'success'. The war was wrong from the start and the occupation is criminal. The body count is irrelevant to those facts.

Our leadership has in the past, both recent and oh say 2004ish, framed its oppostion in terms of 'bad management' and 'poor outcomes'. It is a lousy framing, one that assumes that good management and/or good outcomes would be acceptable.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Come on now. Our soldiers have guns that can shoot around corners these days

We own the air 24/7 with everything from Drones with Sidewinder missiles attached to B-1 bombers. We have big honking tanks that are nearly indestructible. V-shaped troop carriers that resemble row boats for desert use. We even have humongous helicopters with wings on them.

I want my money back for this all this high-tech stuff that couldn't beat a few dead enders.

We was robbed.

Don

[bigtree]

12. those weapons appear to have actually created combatants

not eliminated 'em as promised