I’m not sure why my tangential comments are considered less relevant or valid than anyone else’s. It seems more like a case of you not agreeing with me, which is fine, but do you really want to suggest that I shouldn’t take the conversation in different directions?

Taking the conversation in a different direction is certainly not off limits, but the manner in which you do it seems to be designed to make all arguments have equal value and thus stop the debate, and that’s not where I take issue. Just because somebody states their opinion doesn’t make it more relevant or true. If that’s what you consider moderate, that’s fine, but I don’t. Obviously, though, this blog welcomes all viewpoints, regardless of their logical efficacy. :-)

To provide an example of why this is frustrating, let’s again take a look at this latest debate. The idea that most of what we say are “assumptions” seeks to marginalize any debate because everything we say is supposedly based on things that we can’t know. So to me, the supposition there is that since none of us can predict the future, everything we say is virtually meaningless. I know this isn’t what you said, and my guess is that you’d position it as “because of assumptions all these arguments have equal value,” but the net outcome of your argument is that it shuts down debate, instead of promoting it.

To your other point on perspective, sure, it matters, but only for somebody who is trying to marginalize the impact of these deaths during the war as a valid point of debate and reason for withdrawal. And I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say on one hand “That doesn’t diminish…” and then call for us to put total Iraq deaths into a perspective that compares them to total Vietnam deaths. Those two viewpoints are opposed to one another, and this is especially frustrating because I never even brought up Vietnam in the first place (just like I never made an assumption). If I had said something to the effect of “Iraq is just as bad as Vietnam”, and you were saying, “Hey, let’s put this in perspective,” I would understand. But I didn’t and so…frustration.

Your tone is certainly welcome Christine, and do know I appreciate it, but the manner of debate you’re promoting isn’t necessarily something I look forward to engaging on a daily basis.

Thanks for your response.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq27mar27,1,3324261.story

On the assumption thing, you were the one who brought that up, here:

Dos…that’s fair. But as a libertarian, it surprises me to see you’re so eager to spend hundreds of billions we don’t have on a clearly faulty foreign policy strategy, while at the same time bemoaning the possibility of a Dem getting the White House because you only think it’ll cost you more money. Do you not see the inherent contradiction between those two things? Just because the money is going to the military, doesn’t mean it’s well spent. At least with government subsidized healthcare you’d actually get some measurable ROI.

I was only pointing out that Dos makes assumptions just as every one of us does- that’s the basis of every political position that each of us makes.

I’m not sure why my tangential comments are considered less relevant or valid than anyone else’s. It seems more like a case of you not agreeing with me, which is fine, but do you really want to suggest that I shouldn’t take the conversation in different directions? If so, will you also make sure every other commenter stays very specifically on point of the original post? Will your own comments do that as well? I kind of thought that one of the great things about moderate blogs is that all reasonable viewpoints were welcomed- even those that make tangential points in order to suggest that people look at an issue from a different perspective. But it’s your blog, so if you feel I’m violating a precept that you hold, you can tell me to get lost if you’d like.

As for the troop death numbers, it’s something I’ve seen quoted multiple times so I had to track down sources as you’ve challenged me. Here’s one blog that cited it:
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/military-casualties-during-the-bill-clinton-administration/

and when I look harder for a primary source of the stats, I found this:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_more_soldiers_die_during_bill_clintons.html
which debunks a false accounting of troop deaths under Clinton but provides actual numbers which are higher than what I quoted (total of 7500 during his eight years in office.) They also though give some background info which would support your side of the argument- that many or most of those deaths were routine and noncombat related. And as I’ve already conceded, I do think it’s relevant that you pointed out casualties include serious, permanent injuries, not just deaths (in fact part of the reason our death toll is low is that more casualties are saved by medical advances than they were during Viet Nam.) Even still, the point remains that the death toll AND total casualty rate of the Iraq War to date is far less than Viet Nam. That doesn’t diminish it, because every death and disabled veteran is very significant, but perspective also matters.

And the monthly trends that TomfromMD provides are also relevant, IMO.

Jan-07 1,802
Feb-07 3,014
Mar-07 2,977
Apr-07 1,821
May-07 1,980
Jun-07 1,345
Jul-07 1,690
Aug-07 1,674
Sep-07 848
Oct-07 679
Nov-07 560
Dec-07 548
Jan-08 554
Feb-08 674

Average coalition deaths (excludes Iraqi security) per day, Jan 07 – Feb 08:
Jan-07 2.77
Feb-07 3.04
Mar-07 2.65
Apr-07 3.9
May-07 4.23
Jun-07 3.6
Jul-07 2.81
Aug-07 2.84
Sep-07 2.3
Oct-07 1.29
Nov-07 1.33
Dec-07 0.77
Jan-08 1.29
Feb-08 1.03

Look – I agree that the war wasn’t worth it. It was a major screwup. But things have gotten SO much better in the last 6 months, and I don’t think pulling out right now makes much sense. Certainly it makes sense to come up with a plan to stabilize Iraq then and get out, but the goal should be success. After so much investment, I’d hate to see it fall apart.

Two grim milestones over the last week – a five year anniversary and 4,000 American lives. Over the last week I have been reading through a variety of posts, articles and essays marking the anniversary and analyzing how we got here. Since 70% of Americ…

Getting back to my point…it was about the framing of the argument by the Republicans, where anything but a vague definition of what “victory” is would result in a “loss.” I made a point to say that we’ve already “won” the war, we just haven’t been able to secure the peace. Therefore, I think it’s irresponsible for Bush and McCain to continue to couch Iraq in such a way that it becomes a win/loss situation, when really it’s just a matter of differing foreign policy ideologies.

You see my point here, right? To them, there’s only ONE solution, and that’s “victory.” What’s victory? Well, they don’t know yet, but they’ll tell us when they know. Pretty intellectually shaky ground if you ask me, and they put America in a vulnerable situation either way.

By the way, where did you get the 4,000 Clinton number? I know you’re conceding the point, but I’d like to know what your source was nonetheless.

What’s driving gas up is two things: the value of our falling dollar and OPEC’s control over the production, which sets the value of a barrel of crude, which is priced in our dollars. This is why Saudia Arabia wanted to untie the value of crude from the dollar. Because they know if the value of our dollar continues to drop, a barrel of crude will have to continue to rise, and the psychological effect alone may have some countries turning to alternative fuels.

So, given those two factors, how about if we make moves to increase the value of the dollar instead?

One of the first and easiest ways to do this is stop borrowing hundreds of billions to execute on a disastrous foreign policy. Because the less money we borrow, the less we go into debt and less money we have to print to pay off that debt. At that point our currency may begin to start getting some parity with other countries and the price of a barrel will decrease.

I think your point about total casualties, rather than just deaths, is a very valid one that I will concede (though I don’t know the answer to how many there were under Clinton, I strongly doubt there would be any parity.)

To the point of going BACK into Iraq, well, they only said that if al Qaeda had established bases there, meaning public ties to the Iraqi government, as was the case in Afghanistan pre 9/11. They wouldn’t invade again if al Qaeda was IN Iraq, because al Qaeda is IN nearly every single country in the world.

That’s an interesting “fact” about the 4,000 troops deaths with Clinton, but when you make claims like that, please link them. However, to counter that, did tens of thousands of soldiers also have legs, arms, feet, hands and other assorted body parts blown off? Tens of thousands more get PTSD? Comparing 8 years of Bush and Clinton hardly seems apt.

Let’s talk about your own assumptions here for a moment…who said anything about a Dem’s foreign policy being less aggressive? The simple fact of the matter is it may be more aggressive, just not publicly sabre rattling as Bush’s. Read this piece to demonstrate how aggressiveness needn’t come in the form of invading countries.

And while you’re right, in theory, that a withdrawal from Iraq doesn’t mean that fewer Americans die, the immediate effect is that fewer soldiers will be dying. Also, tracing any future terrorist attack back to a withdrawal decision will be torturous at best. I’m sure you and your friends would try to do it if it happens, but the current track record on the right-wing for tracing things back isn’t so good right now so forgive me if I’m not too worried that pulling out or Iraq will result mostly in one thing: our soldiers coming home.

Both Dem candidates say they’ll end the Iraq War ASAP, so in the short term there it’s likely that we’d have fewer soldiers die in Iraq. But both have said that they’d redeploy if the situation deteriorates- which probably carries a higher risk than staying and defending the gains we’ve already made.

And then there’s the question of other deployments/incursions. Since Clinton is running largely on her husband’s record, and many people assume she’ll make similar decisions, should we assume that she’d send troops to various conflicts as frequently as Bill did? Because during his administration, though that was supposed to be a time of peace, we lost just as many troops as we now have in Iraq (just over 4000 troop deaths.)

All I’m trying to say is that your own assumptions aren’t necessarily true either. There’s also the concern that if we take a less aggressive tack on foreign policy, that it could lead to more domestic attacks or attacks on international bases/embassies, which would lead to civilian deaths. It’s not a zero sum game, where a withdrawal from Iraq means fewer Americans die.

Dos…that’s fair. But as a libertarian, it surprises me to see you’re so eager to spend hundreds of billions we don’t have on a clearly faulty foreign policy strategy, while at the same time bemoaning the possibility of a Dem getting the White House because you only think it’ll cost you more money. Do you not see the inherent contradiction between those two things?

Wow, well put.

Approximately 20% of those casualties died in training or transportation accidents, or other non-combat deaths typical of military service, even during peacetime. Thats what I meant.

Sure, but the result is the same. And it’s war time. So they’re casualties of war.

Dos…that’s fair. But as a libertarian, it surprises me to see you’re so eager to spend hundreds of billions we don’t have on a clearly faulty foreign policy strategy, while at the same time bemoaning the possibility of a Dem getting the White House because you only think it’ll cost you more money. Do you not see the inherent contradiction between those two things? Just because the money is going to the military, doesn’t mean it’s well spent. At least with government subsidized healthcare you’d actually get some measurable ROI.

Might this mean a troop reduction is already in the works?

Not so much a troop reduction as it is making sure they don’t wear soldiers out. And that’s certainly a good thing any way you look at it.

It’s time to reconsider some things.