Hi Neocon; While it's commendable that Bush isn't losing 6600 soldiers per month in Iraq, what you fail to mention is that US public support for the losses we are taking in Iraq is fairly low, as compared with WW2.
An example of a war where US army casualties were fairly light, but despite this, the public was frequently clamouring for peace through negotiation, is the Indian wars of the 19th century.
The war is now 20 months old and is still growing.
Maybe I should remind you that Vietnam began with casualties lighter than we're taking now:
1964: 137
1965: 1,369
1966: 5,008
1967: 9,378
1968: 14,592
1969: 9,414
1970: 4,221
1971: 1,380
1972: 300
I don't expect our casualties to reach the 5000 level next year, but that's only because our will to fight is so low. Your note that the Iraqis prevented us from cleaning up Falloujah last April is a case in point. Where there's no will, there's no war.
-- Carl |
