In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels,
That is all I need to read to know the author of this piece, George Packer, is an ignorant fool. And if I know that, why should I bother to read the rest of his piece?
How do I know he is a fool?
Well, in February 2007, we had lost around 3300 troops in four years of combat operations, for an average of 69 per month. You can call that a lot of things, but calling it "apocalyptic" is, from an historical perspective, so wrongheaded its practically retarded.
I have noted before this utter lack of historical knowledge back in January 2007:
I also have a problem with it because it minimizes the enormity of the WWII sacrifice. Even what were considered minor combat operations at the time produced what would be considered today massive casualties. For example, seven days worth of fighting in the Kasserine Pass produced over 6000 casualties. In Italy in 1945 (Jan 6th to May 2nd,) hardly a focal point of the war, the 10th Mountain Division alone had nearly 5000 casualties. Indeed most individual divisions to see combat in WWII suffered more than the entire US Army has in this war.
Notice, we are 17 further months along, and we still have not had as many casualties in Iraq (now at 4113) as we did for the WWII forces I talked about. At current rates it would still take three more years until we equaled the casualty list from those seven days in North Africa in 1942.
Every soldier lost is a source of sadness, but to call it the moral equivalent of the Apocalypse is simply stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment