Grim milestone in Global War on Terror

[kurtyboy]

As of the time I write this post (16:51 PDT, 29 Aug 06), the US has lost 2,972 servicemen and women in the "Global War on Terror."

On September 11, 2001, there were 2,973 lives lost as a result of the attacks on the US.

Sometime today or tomorrow or the next day, our losses in the GWOT will exceed the losses of 911. Osama bin Laden is still at large. The anthrax terrorists are still at large. The world is less safe. The US is losing the support of its allies.

Lest I get accused of giving our allies the short shrift (as *Bush accused Kerry in the 2004 debates--Poland, y'know..), the total coalition casualties in the GWOT (so far) add up to 3,315, 343 of them from other nations. Our coalition partners account for about 10% of the lives lost (while in uniform) in the GWOT overall, and account for about 25% of the losses in Afghanistan.

Is it worth it, so far?

At current casualty rates:
US losses in Iraq alone will equal the 911 losses on January 31, 2007.
Coalition Iraq deaths = 911 deaths on October 12th, 2006.
US Iraq deaths = 4,000 on or about May 24, 2008.
Coalition GWOT deaths = 5,000 on or about June 1, 2008.
Election Day (Nov 4) 2008, US GWOT losses = 4,853.
Election Day (Nov 4) 2008, Coalition GWOT losses = 5,407.
Inauguration Day (Jan 20) 2009, US GWOT losses = 5,034.
Inauguration Day (Jan 20) 2009, Coalition GWOT losses = 5,608.

But, as Tony Snow points out, these are numbers.

Nothing. To. See. Here.

[Erika]

1. No, it's not worth it

Think of the innocent Iraqi losses also.

[Sydnie]

2. I've been dreading this day

:cry: Not one life more!

[democrank]

3. Worth it?

No. The invasion of Iraq will be recorded as the worst decision by the worst president in American history.

[Parisle]

4. Numbers Can Overcome Rhetoric

---- The democrats need to use numbers like this to their best effectiveness. The irony of the matching totals would be even more ironic when contrasted with Bush's confident assertion (to Pat Robertson) that there would be no significant US casualties in Iraq.

[tnlefty]

5. Sorry, but I absolutely refuse to consider Iraq as part of any GWOT.

I understand that the rwingnuts expect me to, but I won't no matter how many times they mention it or expect me to. I'll accept Afghanistan if the goal had actually been to capture Bin Forgotten and bring him to justice, however, considering how he was allowed to escape Torra Bora and Afghanistan is chaotic, it's rather difficult for me to truly buy into the intentions of the misadministration at all.

[Atman]

6. I agree. Iraq is part of Bush's Global War OF Terror.

'Nuff said.

[bvar22]

7. *

[niyad]

8. EXCELLENT!!

[BlueCentrist]

9. and no end to it in sight .

"As long as I'm President we're not leaving Iraq"

[gratuitous]

11. That's not what Cheney told the troops yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2803722

Unka Dick says that now it's up to the commanders to decide when the troops will be withdrawn.

It's a confusing melange of opinions flooding out of the White House. Difficult to know who's in charge or who's deciding things when so many contradictory statements are issued. Almost like they're all avoiding responsibility for this lethal fuck-up. But of course, the adults are in charge now, so we know that can't possibly be the reason for this little game.

[kurtyboy]

10. Update, August 30. US casualties in GWOT = 2,973

nt/