Come on, I've publicly stated that our death rate will be around 3 per day by the end of the year. Surely you can come up with a statement to the effect that I'm wrong. Or do you agree with me?
Why? Are you in charge of setting the quota and paying off the Iraqi snipers?
How can ANYONE, let alone you, know such a number? And what's the use of even making such projections? It doesn't fulfill the goal. It doesn't help resolve any humanitarian suffering. It doesn't accomplish anything remotely realistic except either set yourself up to play "I told you so" should you be right, or to offer a faint "I'm glad I was wrong", should you have the integrity to admit your error.
What I look at is mission. Will Iraq be a better place 6 months from now, with people working, making more money, pumping oil around the world, and seeing a return to a level of what we call "normalcy".
And that's the difference between me and you, obviously. I seek to avoid casualities on both sides, but don't let that deflect me from the ultimate objective that MUST be accomplished.
Your's in the same attitude that has haunted the US ever since Vietnam.. That we shouldn't attempt to pre-empt a situation which might call for even more bloodshed down the road. And that anything the US does militarily should be governed by casualty counts, not worthiness of the mission goal.
And I can only imagine how you would be should the US ever find itself invaded (however unlikely). "Well, NYC isn't worth defending if it's going to cost us more than 1 death per day".. And lord knows that SE Washington DC isnt' worth the life of any US soldier (and can probably defend itself.. :0)...
Don't do anything if it costs you too much... And even if worthwhile, should there be a setback that costs lives, then cut and run... And show the world that their impression of the US is true. We're just another paper tiger who can't stand to take casualities, no matter how strategic the victory might be.
Hawk |
