Wednesday, Mar. 26, 2008
The Real Meaning of 4,000 Dead
By Lieut. Sean Walsh

The passing of the 4,000th service member in Iraq is a tragic milestone and a testament to the cost of this war, but for those of us who live and fight in Iraq, we measure that cost in smaller, but much more personal numbers. For me those numbers are 8, the number of friends and classmates killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 3, the number of soldiers from my unit killed in this deployment. I'm 25, yet I've received more notifications for funerals than invitations to weddings.

The number 4,000 is too great to grasp even for us that are here in Iraq. When we soldiers read the newspaper, the latest AP casualty figures are glanced over with the same casual interest as a box score for a sport you don't follow. I am certain that I am not alone when I open up the Stars and Stripes, the military's daily paper, and immediately search for the section with the names of the fallen to see if they include anyone I know. While in a combat outpost in southwest Baghdad, it was in that distinctive bold Arial print in a two-week-old copy of the Stars and Stripes that I read that my best friend had been killed in Afghanistan. No phone call from a mutual friend or a visit to his family. All that had come and gone by the time I had learned about his death. I sometimes wonder, if I hadn't picked up that paper, how much longer I would have gone by without knowing — perhaps another day, perhaps a week or longer until I could find the time and the means to check my e-mail to find my messages unanswered and a death notification from a West Point distro list in my inbox. The dead in Afghanistan don't seem to inspire the keeping of lists the same way that those in Iraq do, but even if they did it wouldn't matter; he could only be number 7 to me.

I'm not asking for pity, only understanding for the cost of this war. We did, after all, volunteer for the Army and that is the key distinction between this army and the army of the Vietnam War. But even as I ask for that understanding I'm almost certain that you won't be able to obtain it. Even Shakespeare, with his now overused notion of soldiers as a "band of brothers," fails to capture the bonds, the sense of responsibility to each other, among soldiers. In many ways, Iraq has become my home (by the time my deployment ends I will have spent more time here than anywhere else in the army) and the soldiers I share that home with have become my family. Between working, eating and sleeping within a few feet of the same soldiers every single day, I doubt I am away from them for more than two hours a day. I'm engaged to the love of my life, but it will take several years of marriage before I've spent as much time with her as I have with the men I serve with today.

For the vast majority of Americans who don't have a loved one overseas, the only number they have to attempt to grasp the Iraq War is 4,000. I would ask that when you see that number, try to remember that it is made up of over 1 million smaller numbers; that every one of the 1 million service members who have fought in Iraq has his or her own personal numbers. Over 1 million 8's and 3's. When you are evaluating the price of the war, weighing potential rewards versus cost in blood and treasure, I would ask you to consider what is worth the lives of three of your loved ones? Or eight? Or more? It would be a tragedy for my 8 and 3 to have died without us being able to complete our mission, but it maybe even more tragic for 8 and 3 to become anything higher.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1725642,00.html

Very touching article, Jester. Thanks for posting it.

:)
SMW

It is a very difficult thing to argue. Do we leave now and save all the lives that will be lost but throw away all those that we have already lost, or do we stay and lose more in an effort to make sure the ones we have lost did not die in vain? I think to people ewho have never served the choice is easy, get out now, save as many as you can. They do not understand the military way of thinking, where a whole unit will risk their lives to recover the body of a fallen friend.

I thought it was a kind hearted story.

So when does it end in Iraq?
So what happens if the if the United States leave, will Iran takes over in order to stop Iraq's different faith's from killing each other and then possibly claim Iraq.

I don't think anyone can put the Genie back in the bottle.

But for winning the war in Iraq I think that already happened.

What I found interesting about the article is how much it reflects my own views and experiences. It's the kind of thing I might have written myself.

I think the last paragraph is particularly relevant here on AllForums, since the Iraq war is so often discussed and debated here. You'll often see the number of casualties being cited during such debates: "4,000 soldiers have died. It's time to bring the troops home!" or "Only 4,000? That's not that much!".... or something to that effect. These may be valid points, and the number of casualties may be an important part of the discussion. But regardless of the point being made, I hope that people recognize and understand what is behind the number they're using, and don't view the number as just another statistic to support their arguments.

in the military EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY is expendable. plant, tillable soil, animals, insects, children, women, old, young, it doesn't matter.
but keep on warring, it's great for "the plan" of getting rid of this civilization.

Just a little something to help put things into perspective. Wonder how come nobody is foaming at the mouth over these numbers??

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

wonder what the stats are for fatass americans who eat too much mikey dees, and drives or rides more than they walk?

Just a little something to help put things into perspective. Wonder how come nobody is foaming at the mouth over these numbers??

Uhhh.... probably because car accidents are, you know, accidents.

Invading and occupying a country that didn't invite you to do so is no accident, nor are the wounds/deaths of tens of thousands of soldiers we sent there to defend Georgie's hate-on for Saddam Hussein.

Hope that clears things up for you.

and doing nothing more than supporting and propping up saudi nazis, oil companies, and the war machine.

Just a little something to help put things into perspective. Wonder how come nobody is foaming at the mouth over these numbers??
___________________________________

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.
________________________________-

How many of these were volunteers??

Not one.

Just a little something to help put things into perspective. Wonder how come nobody is foaming at the mouth over these numbers??

This is comparing two completely different things. Yes, people die all the time from many different things, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that there are over 4,000 servicemen and servicewomen dead as a result of the invasion.

As I see it, even one soldier dead is too many, but I also don't agree with the rationale for the invasion. I know that the war supporters enter the argument from a different place and, therefore, have a different perspective on the significance of the deaths.

since most americans don't know the history, and fine points of middle eastern history, political manipulation, finance, oil, etc.,etc.,etc. they are dumb enough to keep on dieing there.

PM, that may have been the wrong choice of words. I would not classify the men and women of our military as "dumb" for dying the Middle East. Perhaps the government, for sending them to die there, could be called dumb more logically.

________________________________-

How many of these were volunteers??

Not one.
you're wrong, no one is conscripted to drive a car.:rolleyes:

Primitive man calling anyone dumb is a joke.

since most americans don't know the history, and fine points of middle eastern history, political manipulation, finance, oil, etc.,etc.,etc. they are dumb enough to keep on dieing there.
Why don't you enlighten us with your expertise on Middle Eastern history and polity, primitive-man-with-a-computer-and-internet-connection.

In World War 2 The US lost 418,000. The entire country stood behind our military action in those days, even after dropping 2 nukes on a country. Even after 3,000 innocent people were murdered on Sept 11th all the majority of this country can do is bitch about casualties that make up 1% of some other wars casualties.

I guess those people just don't have the same morals their parents and grandparents had.

Why don't you enlighten us with your expertise on Middle Eastern history and polity, primitive-man-with-a-computer-and-internet-connection.Ha ha!

It is a bit incongruous, isn't it?

Reminds me of Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. :)

In World War 2 The US lost 418,000. The entire country stood behind our military action in those days, even after dropping 2 nukes on a country. Even after 3,000 innocent people were murdered on Sept 11th all the majority of this country can do is bitch about casualties that make up 1% of some other wars casualties.

I guess those people just don't have the same morals their parents and grandparents had.
Yep, I'm immoral because I'm sad that 4,000 people died. Are you telling me you're happy that they died?

Yep, I'm immoral because I'm sad that 4,000 people died. Are you telling me you're happy that they died?

What do immoral and happy have to do with each other? Absolutely nothing. The points you have tried to make against me have never ever made one lick of sense.

On the first page of this thread you say the government is "dumb" for sending our troops to Iraq. That's what I call different morals than your grandparents. Not supporting your country. And I suppose you have all of the "smart" answers for fighting terrorism in the middle east.

At no point did I say being sad was immoral. Keep trying though. One day you might almost make sense.

In World War 2 The US lost 418,000. The entire country stood behind our military action in those days, even after dropping 2 nukes on a country..

there is a huge difference between WW2 and iraq. Germany was a very real threats as well as Japan. Our allies at the time need support.

iraq never threaten a single US live here at home,our allies this time around wanted nothing to do with us,and a system of nations set up to handle this exact situation (the UN) said more time was needed.

Even after 3,000 innocent people were murdered on Sept 11th all the majority of this country can do is bitch about casualties that make up 1% of some other wars casualties...

Are you daft? the 3000 plus lives lost from 9/11 have nothing to do what so ever with Iraq up until the liberation of the Iraqi people.

The deployment of the troops to Afghanistan to over throw a government that harbored terrorists organizations was a consequence from 9/11. and no one is complaining about the loss of lives there.

I agree currently in Iraq the US is battling terrorists forces,but that is a by product totally... Your argument there is invalid.

I guess those people just don't have the same morals their parents and grandparents had. Present a situation remotely close and we will see how this generation reacts VS our grandparents.


dont get me wrong I am very pro war. I think things were botch pre liberation and even handled worse in the direct aftermath.... but to me we did the right thing and an Iraqi state should be our goal no matter what... but your argument is totally off and not even close to relevant.

the history of the middle east, it's religious insanity, fights over money and power is all nothing but the perfect cauldron for war. let it destroy itself.
i'm not worried about alqueda comign over here and trying to take over. there's too many of us hillbillies with guns.
sticking your nose in the middle east is like sticking your hand into a dogfight.

PM, that may have been the wrong choice of words. I would not classify the men and women of our military as "dumb" for dying the Middle East. Perhaps the government, for sending them to die there, could be called dumb more logically.

ahem, not knowing the history, and the constitution is a recipe for using idiots for the rich mans means. all soldiers have a right to disobey an order they find wrong.
even though Bush and company later said, "we thought there were WMD" and grins and LAUGHS about it on televison in front of everyone is unexcusable. they knew they were never there, they lied, and they are USING the military to protect saudi nazis.
afghanistan is unconquerable. history has proven that.
it is time for the individual soldier to turn his weapon on the leaders of the american government. or just walk away.
you can do that, or continue the insanity and fail miserably. crack the economy. and piss off the everyday american individual. and possibly watch it all go up in flames.
your choice.

ahem, not knowing the history, and the constitution is a recipe for using idiots for the rich mans means. all soldiers have a right to disobey an order they find wrong.
even though Bush and company later said, "we thought there were WMD" and grins and LAUGHS about it on televison in front of everyone is unexcusable. they knew they were never there, they lied, and they are USING the military to protect saudi nazis.
afghanistan is unconquerable. history has proven that.
it is time for the individual soldier to turn his weapon on the leaders of the american government. or just walk away.
you can do that, or continue the insanity and fail miserably. crack the economy. and piss off the everyday american individual. and possibly watch it all go up in flames.
your choice.

I have to disagree with your statement about how all soldiers have a right to disobey an order they find wrong. They can disobey an illegal order, not one they merely disagree with. If that were the case, than nothing would ever happen in the military.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am against the war pretty much fully, but unfortunately, our deployment orders are legal in a de facto sense given that no one or no nation has challenged the invasion in courtroom. Maybe it is a cop out. But without discipline in our military ranks, we would be vulnerable.

Expecting the American soldier to turn his back on his government is a pretty tall order, to be sure. I don't think that would result in a positive ending.

In World War 2 The US lost 418,000. The entire country stood behind our military action in those days, even after dropping 2 nukes on a country. Even after 3,000 innocent people were murdered on Sept 11th all the majority of this country can do is bitch about casualties that make up 1% of some other wars casualties.

I guess those people just don't have the same morals their parents and grandparents had.

I understand your point, but the two wars have vast differences.

In WW II we were fighting an enemy we could SEE. This war we're in now is basically a war of guerilla warfare against an unseen enemy. The public dislikes such wars. (See England's reaction against Francis Marion during the Revolution.) There are no big tank battles, no flying sorties and dogfights, no taking of beachheads, no huge naval engagements. Too bad.:D

However, we were sneak -attacked in both Wars, but at least the Japanese chose a military target. Perhaps the rules of warfare have changed.

I understand your point, but the two wars have vast differences.

In WW II we were fighting an enemy we could SEE. This war we're in now is basically a war of guerilla warfare against an unseen enemy. The public dislikes such wars. (See England's reaction against Francis Marion during the Revolution.) There are no big tank battles, no flying sorties and dogfights, no taking of beachheads, no huge naval engagements. Too bad.:D

However, we were sneak -attacked in both Wars, but at least the Japanese chose a military target. Perhaps the rules of warfare have changed.

I think that one oft overlooked point regarding the Iraq war (and associated casualties) is that a good number of Americans (myself included) do not see a connection to Sept. 11, 2001 and Iraq. (Remember, Afghanistan was our response to that attack.) We have, in a sense, revised our rationale to connect Iraq and Sept. 11. When many don't see it that way, we get angry.

It is not so much the number of dead, but the need for the action that led to the deaths causing so much anger.

4000 dead.
You got to ask yourself one question here. WHY.

Why did 4000 young Americans die so far from home, fighting in a meaningless war, a war which doesnt make the United States one
iota safer than it was before the invasion.

The people in Washington need to be held to account for these deaths.

Its very sad.

I think that one oft overlooked point regarding the Iraq war (and associated casualties) is that a good number of Americans (myself included) do not see a connection to Sept. 11, 2001 and Iraq. (Remember, Afghanistan was our response to that attack.) We have, in a sense, revised our rationale to connect Iraq and Sept. 11. When many don't see it that way, we get angry.

It is not so much the number of dead, but the need for the action that led to the deaths causing so much anger.

As a military person, what are your ideas about US troop strenght in Iraq in the future, tgrfan?

As a military person, what are your ideas about US troop strenght in Iraq in the future, tgrfan?

That's a very tough question, one that I've actually struggled with for a while. Ideally, the number would be 0, but I know that is realistically not possible.

The entering argument to the question of troop strength should not be boots on the ground, but desired end result. That may be a bit vague, but I'll try to explain a bit.

You see, we have this idea that there is a "magic number" of soldiers that will make everything ok, and that will simply not work. The issue at hand is the fact that no progress is being made with respect to infrastructure development and the establishment of rule of law within the country. We COULD maintain our presence in the hundreds of thousands for years to come and act as peacekeepers, but that is a waste. What we need to evaluate is what ACTUALLY needs to be done in order leave Iraq stable.

I don't know the correct answer, but I do know that more Stryker Brigades and more combat forces kicking in doors is not the answer. We have to start demanding results from our contracts and expecting civl progress to be made by the Iraqis themselves. As long as the policeman wears an American flag on his uniform, the insurgency will never go away. The Iraqi army MUST lead in quelling the ongoing civil war. So, I would say that a reduced presence of US forces could actually do more good than an increased. We would send in more support units in country to build bridges, roads, etc. with a combat contingent who is there ONLY to provide defense of those support units. So, the actual numbers may not go down too much, off the cuff I'd say we could scale back by 30k or so. But the character of the forces will change. You see, we are being viewed as occupiers because that is exactly who we are. Once we make the Iraqis responsible for their own security, the insurgents are now fighting their countrymen rather than the heathen Americans.

Unfortunately, Iraq will not accept responsibility for its defense until we force them. It is a sink or swim situation, but one we have to do.

So, sorry if my answer was longwinded. Hope it made some sense, at least.

And a very sensible response it is. Thanks. :)

it is illegal.
bush lied, C.I.A. lied,
and then bush openly MOCKS.
the WMD were gone, more likely destroyed.
the ONLY reason anything was done was because iraq was a PERCEIVED threat to the saudi nazis. and the oil companies needed it dealt with.
it was and still is a war over power, oil, and money.
that is not a legal reason for soldiers to obey anything.

it is illegal.
bush lied, C.I.A. lied,
and then bush openly MOCKS.
the WMD were gone, more likely destroyed.
the ONLY reason anything was done was because iraq was a PERCEIVED threat to the saudi nazis. and the oil companies needed it dealt with.
it was and still is a war over power, oil, and money.
that is not a legal reason for soldiers to obey anything.

I'm not in disagreement that the war is wrong, but if I'd disobeyed my deployment order, there's a good chance I would be in Leavenworth, a convicted felon. That doesn't do anyone any good at all. My refusal to go into combat would not have been championed by the public or used as motivation to follow suit. It would be a case of me in a jail cell with a wife and two daughters on the outside.

The reality is seldom as easy as the base ideological response. I guarantee that regardless of their personal feelings, the soldiers wouldn't be able to successfully disobey their superiors on a large enough scale to accomplish anything. And that goes back to an earlier point, a military without order and discipline is worthless to the nation it is defending.

and it doesn't do anyone any good by following bullshit orders to make rich men richer, and protect saudi nazis.
and soldiers who follow orders blindly and without thought are merely soldiers. cogs in a machine. NOT warriors.

and it doesn't do anyone any good by following bullshit orders to make rich men richer, and protect saudi nazis.
and soldiers who follow orders blindly and without thought are merely soldiers. cogs in a machine. NOT warriors.
Unlike you, who are a "true" warrior. Scared of his shadow and afraid of the "lurkers" that may find him on the internet.

Go smoke some more hemp and dodge those that are "after you". The fact that you claim to be part "native american" makes me sick to my stomach. You are a sad excuse for a man... much less a true indian. My Cherokee ancestors would say you are "like a weak female"... All talk and nothing to back it up.

and soldiers who follow orders blindly and without thought are merely soldiers. cogs in a machine. NOT warriors.

That's a pretty flippant thing to say. What would you have the soldiers do, then? I mean, to slide the blame for the war to the military member and question their courage and integrity is a pretty bold and, quite frankly, insulting thing to infer.

You insinuate that the soldier is to sacrifice his or her freedom for a perceived illegal order. Why is it worth the soldier's freedom, but not the freedom of the citizen who has every opportunity to engage in civil disobedience or outright insurrection if the war is such a horrible evil?

Don't judge a man's actions until you have to deal with his life.

and it doesn't do anyone any good by following bullshit orders to make rich men richer, and protect saudi nazis.
and soldiers who follow orders blindly and without thought are merely soldiers. cogs in a machine. NOT warriors.
as soon as you're any of the above, feel free to comment:thumbs:

as soon as you're any of the above, feel free to comment:thumbs:
/crickets

still waiting...

I guess he's to busy looking for a new "woman" to answer his herb-induced call. I feel sorry for any gal that would stoop to allowing this NDBF to even get near her.

you're wrong, no one is conscripted to drive a car.:rolleyes: _______________________________-
I was reffering to servicemen who volenteered to defend America. Where there 4000 killed on US roads and if there is then servicemen that die in Iraq arn't important?

and it doesn't do anyone any good by following bullshit orders to make rich men richer, and protect saudi nazis.
and soldiers who follow orders blindly and without thought are merely soldiers. cogs in a machine. NOT warriors.

It appears Primitive Man is calling for a military overthrow of

the military


and then the government.
PM will lead the charge. ...just like Teddy Roosevelt up San Juan Hill.

_______________________________-
I was reffering to servicemen who volenteered to defend America. Where there 4000 killed on US roads and if there is then servicemen that die in Iraq arn't important?
anyone that gets behind the wheel of a car knows there's a chance of death or dismemberment. if they don't, they're an idiot.

their death is no less a tragedy, but they're still and idiot.

i've never been real keen on doing things halfway and having to go back and do it over again, capiche?

BWAHAHAHAHA
i can comment what i like on the mlitary , i spent 8 years in that bunch of bullshit.
then i woke up.

then i woke up.
that's the first thing you've said that makes sense...ever!:@@:

anyone that gets behind the wheel of a car knows there's a chance of death or dismemberment. if they don't, they're an idiot.

their death is no less a tragedy, but they're still and idiot.

i've never been real keen on doing things halfway and having to go back and do it over again, capiche?
__________________________________________________ ___

I think comparing car crashes inside the USA to wounded or the dead US servicemen in Iraq is not correct. And I also feel everyone who agree's with a statement like that should mow the lawn of a well publicized drunk driver instead of a wounded solider's lawn to prove there point, and explain it again.

Not everyone who dies in car crashes is a drunk driver. In fact, because cars are made to protect the driver, passengers die at a MUCH higher rate.

Not everyone who dies in car crashes is a drunk driver. In fact, because cars are made to protect the driver, passengers die at a MUCH higher rate.
Do you have a citation for this? I Googled around a bit and couldn't find one. If you leave out single-occupant crashes, I can't believe there would be any distinction in mortality rate between driver and passenger. Modern passenger vehicles are designed to protect all occupants--all cars of model year 1998 and later are required to have a passenger air bag. Most new cars also come with side impact air bags. And that the front of the car is designed to sacrifice its integrity in order to absorb the energy of a crash would be beneficial to all passengers equally, not just the driver.

NO I guess not but no one demanded anyone to drive a car. But we have demands on the military.

Do you have a citation for this? I Googled around a bit and couldn't find one. If you leave out single-occupant crashes, I can't believe there would be any distinction in mortality rate between driver and passenger. Modern passenger vehicles are designed to protect all occupants--all cars of model year 1998 and later are required to have a passenger air bag. Most new cars also come with side impact air bags. And that the front of the car is designed to sacrifice its integrity in order to absorb the energy of a crash would be beneficial to all passengers equally, not just the driver.
I dunno, that's just what they told me in driver's ed class.

BorgHunter
I can't believe there would be any distinction in mortality rate between driver and passenger

~Do you not think the steering wheel could make the difference?

Do you not think the steering wheel could make the difference?
How would it? Might give you something to brace yourself against, but otherwise it'd just be in the way.
I dunno, that's just what they told me in driver's ed class.
It's possible that they're saying this based on old data. I'd like to see a recent study before I believe that.

I've heard it said that a drunk's body is looser and doesn't receive as much trauma from an accident as a sober person's.

Do you have a citation for this? I Googled around a bit and couldn't find one. If you leave out single-occupant crashes, I can't believe there would be any distinction in mortality rate between driver and passenger. Modern passenger vehicles are designed to protect all occupants--all cars of model year 1998 and later are required to have a passenger air bag. Most new cars also come with side impact air bags. And that the front of the car is designed to sacrifice its integrity in order to absorb the energy of a crash would be beneficial to all passengers equally, not just the driver.

I just sold my 1993 car - it had only a driver's side airbag. There are probably lots of people still driving these sorts of vehicles, hence the different mortality rates.

zzzzz my car has one airbag, as long as its in front of me I dont really care.

I turn the thing off.