>As for the on going debate about the desirability of US military losses, it
>seems to me obvious that if there are serious US casualties, the USG is
>not as
>likely to pursue this sort of thing again in even more heavily armed and
>easily
>defensible countries like Iran or Syria. It's not pretty but Iraqis have a
>right to kill US troops, who are the aggressors in this. The more effective
>they are at that, the more the cost to be an aggressor. (Assuming that
>Bush and
>Co. are rational, which might be a stretch.) If you are not happy about
>that -
>I am not - let's work towards putting the bastards who sent these people over
>there in jail. Save your compassion for the gallows.
Thiago,
My objections to the claim that heavy troop losses will make the US cool their heels are as follows:
1. Research prior to A day revealed that, of those who support the war, support for a ground battle was higher than support for an air war alone. Translation help: they believe that this war is going to be costly on the US side and that war supporters are fine by that. They are willing to risk troop deaths in the thousands. This is not a small faction. of those who support war, 48% supported ground troops. when asked if they supported air war _only_, only 38% supported war.
This is different. This is another reason why Rummy felt entirely comfortable telling Franks not to be a pussy.
2. Like Ford, the Pentagon has no compunctions about risking the lives of their troops. They sit around and weigh the costs and benefits. War is the health of the State.
2 a. Given opposition abroad and at home, they have an incentive
to take heavy losses. Why? Because we were perceived as a
bully throwing our weight around against a defenseless people.
If they fight back, and we still kick ass, this will send a
clear message that the US will do whatever it takes in the ME.
Bring it on, says the Pentagon!
3. It is unlikely that people are going to start protesting--people who weren't before--because troop deaths are high. See 1. In my observation--I hope others will share theirs--protesters weren't as worried about troop deaths as they were about numerous other things, such as blowback, feeding terrism (tm), the lives of Iraqis, etc. There wasn't a great deal of literature or peace signs or sentiments expressed about the fear of lost US lives in any of the local peace movement. (I call this the 9.11 effect which has, tentatively, three strands.
4. Without a serious, massive upheaval in this country over the loss of US (and Iraqi lives, on my view), the US gubmint will not suffer from a new, improved Viet Nam War syndrome.
This si for all the reasons above. And, of course, they have all kinds of propaganda tactics that will clinch it for them. E.g., Not only will they lie about lost lives, they have in every single action we've engaged in in my lifetime, even if the lies indicate that thousands die, people are prepared for this. Not only are they prepared for it, the hardcore war mongers support the use of ground troops (higher troop death rates) than air war (low troop death rates).
kelley