We had more military casualties during the Clinton than duirng Bush

[Predicto]

The statistics are accurate (check the link he posted). The Bush-Clinton conclusion might be hokey, but the statistics seem to be from a reputable source. :whoknows:

The numbers are accurate, but the asterixes change everything.

It is a perfectly good argument to say that we are fighting an active war with very few actual casualties. That assertion would be accurate and even compelling, as far as it goes.

However, Dumbsheet didn't do that. He attempted to make some sort of quantitive comparison between the use of the military under Clinton and under Bush. To do so, he had to compare apples to oranges.

Dumbsheet, you say that you analysis "speaks volumes." What does it tell you, in quick summary? If you are trying to say that our current military does a very good job of fighting wars without losing very many soldiers, I will agree with you. Somehow, I don't think that is what you are trying to say.

[Dumbsheet]

What does it say?

Read my furst post.

[Dumbsheet]

The numbers are accurate, but the asterixes change everything.

It is a perfectly good argument to say that we are fighting an active war with very few actual casualties. That assertion would be accurate and even compelling, as far as it goes.

However, Dumbsheet didn't do that. He attempted to make some sort of quantitive comparison between the use of the military under Clinton and under Bush. To do so, he had to compare apples to oranges.

Dumbsheet, you say that you analysis "speaks volumes." What does it tell you, in quick summary? If you are trying to say that our current military does a very good job of fighting wars without losing very many soldiers, I will agree with you. Somehow, I don't think that is what you are trying to say.

Well okay, my point is that if you hear the media and the media says its nothing but bloodsheed, but if you look at the statistics it is actually a low casualty war. But the media doesn't want to deliver that message. So I cmpare to the Clinton and show taht there were just as many casualties there but you neverr heard the media blame the Clinton. Just Bush. I just watned to point taht out.

[twa]

What does it say?

It says men and women die in the military in peace or in war.

The better comparison would be to other conflicts of course,but dead is dead.

[Mad Mike]

Here is the jist of it. . .

hostile action deaths under Bill Clinton . . . one

Hostile action deaths under George Bush - 3000+

Notice the footnote in the original post? *these numbers are only for OIF & OEF, in other words, the do not list the deaths for 2 years other than OIF and OEF :doh:

Here let me surmise this entire thread for you. . . Lets take a statistic, and see how we can manipulate it to make it look like Clinton had more military people die on his watch. We don't care that we know it is 100% false, and a boldface lie, because the majority of people won't bother to look up the statistic. All we have to do is put a footnote, leave out a few years of adding numbers up, and fudge things here and there, and tadaa there it is, more people died under Clinton that Bush :doh:

I can't believe people actually fall for this type of stuff, because it is soooooo transparent, and blatantly false. . . but there are people who actually believe this crap simply because they want to believe it. It makes it easier on their own inability to admit fault, and it is where the ego uses defense mechanisms to cushion the fall of the Id. These people will never look at the facts, because deep down they know that everything is BS, but they don't have the balls to admit it to themselves.

Yeah, that whole blackhawk down thing never happened. :doh:

But thanks for the demonstration of how to manipulate statistics to fit your personal agenda.

And BTW, how did that blakhawk down thing work out for us?...

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

Osama bin Laden

Yay Clinton.

[JMS]

Well, I don't think this table is very accurate, considering that some of the figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only. That will skew the numbers a bit, wouldn't you think?

I just think that this data is further missing some data - for example, I wonder if this includes casualties from national guard troops that are deployed as well in non-conflict regions?

Maybe I'm just reading this wrong.. but check out Table 11 on page 17....

Table 11. Operation Enduring Freedom,

Demographics of Military Deaths

(From October 7, 2001, Through June 2, 2007)

Is that table saying that we've had only 394 deaths in Iraq from 2001-2007 ? It's more like 10 time that just in Iraq not counting the military around the globe...

What am I missing here?

[tizzod]

I agree that this is a very low casualty war, and I sit on neither side of the aisle, but this was a pretty lame attempt I think.

[jpillian]

The numbers are accurate, but the asterixes change everything.

It is a perfectly good argument to say that we are fighting an active war with very few actual casualties. That assertion would be accurate and even compelling, as far as it goes.

However, Dumbsheet didn't do that. He attempted to make some sort of quantitive comparison between the use of the military under Clinton and under Bush. To do so, he had to compare apples to oranges.

Ah, I see -- very good point. I agree, I think the Bush-Clinton conclusion is pretty weak; and I think looking through the report that is even further confirmed. Check out hostile deaths on active duty from 92-00 (1) vs. 01-06 (2596).

Obviously Bush hates soldiers.

I posted earlier in the thread what I thought to be the more interesting comparision: OIF vs. Vietnam. To me, that seemed the most revealing aspect of these numbers.

[jpillian]

Maybe I'm just reading this wrong.. but check out Table 11 on page 17....

Table 11. Operation Enduring Freedom,

Demographics of Military Deaths

(From October 7, 2001, Through June 2, 2007)

Is that table saying that we've had only 394 deaths in Iraq from 2001-2007 ? It's more like 10 time that just in Iraq not counting the military around the globe...

What am I missing here?

You're missing that OEF refers to Afghanistan.

[edit] My mistake -- it also may refer to the wider WOT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom), but always seems to exclude OIF.

Who knows why.

[Predicto]

Well okay, my point is that if you hear the media and the media says its nothing but bloodsheed, but if you look at the statistics it is actually a low casualty war. But the media doesn't want to deliver that message. So I cmpare to the Clinton and show taht there were just as many casualties there but you neverr heard the media blame the Clinton. Just Bush. I just watned to point taht out.

I still don't get it. What should the media have been blaming Clinton for, exactly? Not starting a war? You are right that it is a low casualty war, especially on the American side. I don't think that message is being deliberately obscured.

As an opponent of this war, I can say that my biggest problem with it is not that there has been massive loss of American lives, but that there has been pointless and unproductive loss of American lives, in a war that has created terrorists rather than eradicated them, that has made us less safe, not more safe. I think I speak for a lot of people who feel that way.

The fact that it is a low casualty war from our side doesn't really change that.

[portisizzle]

The real point we are missing here is that we take these actions today so that we may not see another World War casualty count tomorrow.

[twa]

Predicto, we are seeing Muslims fighting against AQ in numbers unseen before ,so perhaps we are creating opposition as as well by exposing them for what they are.

When villagers are taking matters in their own hands and fighting to prevent AQ from coming into town it IS progress.

[Predicto]

Predicto, we are seeing Muslims fighting against AQ in numbers unseen before ,so perhaps we are creating opposition as as well by exposing them for what they are.

When villagers are taking matters in their own hands and fighting to prevent AQ from coming into town it IS progress.

Perhaps, perhaps. You know that I sincerely hope it all turns out as well as possible for us.

I can't escape the feeling that AQ wouldn't have taken off in Iraq at all if we hadn't invaded Iraq. AQ would be a few fools isolated in hills on the Afganistan-Pakistan border, being slowly mortared into nonexistence by us, and we would still be the good guys. The thousands of Iraqi AQ recruits would never have materialized.

Of course, there is no reason to go around and around about that broader question again.

Back to the original post - I guess I still just don't see the "telling point" being made there.

[Predicto]

The real point we are missing here is that we take these actions today so that we may not see another World War casualty count tomorrow.

We aren't missing that point. We just aren't buying it.

[portisizzle]

We aren't missing that point. We just aren't buying it.

Which is why it is so easy for people like you to dissect a report such as this. At what point do you sit back and realize that our country is doing a great job under very difficult circumstances? Will you ever?

[Predicto]

Which is why it is so easy for people like you to dissect a report such as this. At what point do you sit back and realize that our country is doing a great job under very difficult circumstances? Will you ever?

Our SOLDIERS are doing a great job under very difficult circumstances. I have never denied it. I have stated it many times. I come from a family with a long military history and I am proud of our Armed Forces.

On the other hand, this Administration has done an absolutely crappy job by starting this stupid war, and our brave soldiers should never have been put in this situation. That is a different matter from the above paragraph. I accepted your assertion - are you capable of considering mine?

[JMS]

Here is the jist of it. . .

hostile action deaths under Bill Clinton . . . one

Hostile action deaths under George Bush - 3000+

Notice the footnote in the original post? *these numbers are only for OIF & OEF, in other words, the do not list the deaths for 2 years other than OIF and OEF :doh:

Here let me surmise this entire thread for you. . . Lets take a statistic, and see how we can manipulate it to make it look like Clinton had more military people die on his watch. We don't care that we know it is 100% false, and a boldface lie, because the majority of people won't bother to look up the statistic. All we have to do is put a footnote, leave out a few years of adding numbers up, and fudge things here and there, and tadaa there it is, more people died under Clinton that Bush :doh:

I can't believe people actually fall for this type of stuff, because it is soooooo transparent, and blatantly false. . . but there are people who actually believe this crap simply because they want to believe it. It makes it easier on their own inability to admit fault, and it is where the ego uses defense mechanisms to cushion the fall of the Id. These people will never look at the facts, because deep down they know that everything is BS, but they don't have the balls to admit it to themselves.

Chomerics. I think you're missing the level of sophistication we're dealing with. This isn't an Enron case of sophisticated dishonesty, it's an MCI case of failing to add numbers correctly.

Clinton was in office for 8 years two terms 1993-2001. His biggest fatality year was 1993 where he inherited Somalia from the preceeding Bush administration, even so his total fatalities for all eight years in office were 8,391 deaths from 1993-2001. Largest reason for deaths accidental.

Bush has been in office from 2001-present. His largest fatality years shown are 2006, his largest fatality year in reality will be 2007 which isn't shown. Even so his total fatalities across the six years in office they have statistics for 2001-2006 is 8,792 deaths. More than Clinton not less. If we go ahead and add in the 2007 deaths which were not given an additional 775. We get a grand total of 9,567 fatalities during the Bush Administration with another 16 month of his highest casualty rate not even accounted for. post August 2007 through his end of term...

Was it Benjamin Disraeli, or Mark Twain who said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics"..

We are just dealing with lies here, the statistics don't even support the statement.

Clinton 1993-2001 8,392 deaths over eight years in office.

Bush 2001-2006 8,792 deaths over six years in office.

Note

(1) Iraq wars did not start until march 2003.

(2) Casualty numbers are not comparable, while we only have 3,732 deaths we've had over 27,000 casualties.

(3) Civilian casualies are not given. Johns hopkins a University without a winning football team estimated three years ago that more than 100,000 civilians have perished in the current Iraqi War. That's not shown in the statistics either.

[portisizzle]

Our SOLDIERS are doing a great job under very difficult circumstances. I have never denied it. I have stated it many times. I come from a family with a long military history and I am proud of our Armed Forces.

On the other hand, this Administration has done an absolutely crappy job by starting this stupid war, and our brave soldiers should never have been put in this situation. That is a different matter from the above paragraph. I accepted your assertion - are you capable of considering mine?

I am capable of recognizing that a "crappy" job starting the war is better than waiting until that part of the world reached the flash point.

[portisizzle]

# Level 1: more than 1,000,000 dead

* China

o Military:

+ Britannica: 1,310,224 (Nationalists, 1937-45)

+ Compton's: 1,310,224 (Nationalists, 1937-45)

+ HarperCollins: 1,324,000

+ Clodfelter

# KMT: 1,319,958 KIA

# Communists: admit to 500,000 d., but true toll probably 2M soldiers + civilians in Comm. areas.

# Total: 3M

+ Info. Please: 1,324,516 (Nationalists, 1937-45)

+ Ellis: 1,400,000

+ Eckhardt: 650,000 (1937-41, incl. Japanese), 1,350,000 (1941-45)

+ Small & Singer: 750,000 (1937-41), 1,350,000 (after Dec. 1941)

+ Wallechinsky: 2,219,958

# Nationalists (1937-45): 1,319,958

# Communists: 500,000

# non-Comm. guerrillas: 400,000

+ Urlanis: 2,500,000

+ Encarta: 3,500,000

+ Rummel: 3,832,000

# Nationalist + Communist battle: 1,900,000

# Disease: 1,500,000

# Japanese puppet Chinese: 432,000

+ Kinder: 6,400,000

+ MEDIAN: ca. 2,050,000 (2.0M-2.1M)

o Civilian:

+ Eckhardt: 1,150,000 (1937-41), 850,000 (1941-45)

+ Kinder: 4,500,000

+ Wallechinsky: 2-10M (1937-45)

+ Urlanis: 7,500,000

+ Ellis: 8,000,000

+ HarperCollins: up to 10,000,000

+ Encarta: 10,000,000

+ Rummel: 15,608,000

# Civilian, non-democidal: 3,252,000

# Famine: 2,250,000

# Democide:

* by Japanese: 3,949,000

* by Nationalists: 5,907,000

* by Communists: 250,000

+ MEDIAN: ca. 7,750,000 (7.5M-8.0M)

o Total:

+ Messenger: 2.5M

+ Eckhardt: 4M

+ Wallechinsky: 4.2-12.2M

+ Ellis: 9.4M

+ Urlanis: 10M

+ Kinder: 10.9M

+ HarperCollins: < 11M

+ Encarta: 13.5M

+ Martin Gilbert A History of the Twentieth Century v.3 (citing Ho Ping-ti): 15-20M

+ Rummel: 20.44M

+ MEDIAN: ca. 10,450,000 (10.0M-10.9M)

* Germany

o Military:

+ HarperCollins: 2,850,000

+ Ellis: 3,250,000

+ Compton's: 3,250,000

+ Info. Please: 3,250,000 (all causes)

+ Clodfelter: 3,250,000 d. incl...

# 2,850,000 KIA

+ Britannica: 3,500,000 (incl. 1M missing. Not incl.: 250,000 dead of natural causes, suicide and execution)

+ Small & Singer: 3,500,000

+ Encarta: 3,500,000

+ Keegan: 4,000,000

+ Kinder: 4,000,000

+ Urlanis: 4,500,000

+ Eckhardt: 4,750,000

+ MEDIAN: 3.5M

o Civilian:

+ Compton's: 500,000

+ Britannica: 780,000

+ Wallechinsky: 780,000

+ Davies: 780,000

+ Clodfelter: 780,000

+ Eckhardt: 1,471,000

+ Keegan: 1,593,000

+ Urlanis: 2,000,000

+ HarperCollins: 2,300,000

+ Ellis: 2,050,000 (by Allies), 300,000 (by Germans)

+ Kinder: 3,800,000

+ Encarta: 3,800,000

+ MEDIAN: 1.6M

o All (undifferentiated):

+ Compton's: 3.75M

+ Wallechinsky: 4M

+ Britannica: 4.28M

+ Messenger: 5M

+ HarperCollins: 5.15M

+ Ellis: 5.55M

+ Keegan: 5.593M

+ Eckhardt: 6.221M

+ Urlanis: 6.5M

+ Encarta: 7.3M

+ Kinder: 7.8M

+ MEDIAN: 5.5M

* India

o Military:

+ Keegan: 24,000

+ Eckhardt: 24,000

+ Britannica: 24,338

+ Urlanis: 24,338 (KIA, officially)

+ Info. Please: 32,121

+ HarperCollins: 36,092

+ Ellis: 36,100

+ Clodfelter: 48,675 d. incl...

# 24,338 KIA

o Civilian

+ Eckhardt: 25,000

+ Bengal Famine (1943)

# Hammond: 1.5 to 3.0 million

# Stanley Wolpert, A New History of India, 4th ed.: 1-3M

# John Keay: India: A History: 2-4M

# [Letter]

o All (undifferentiated):

+ Messenger: 36,000

* Japan

o Military:

+ Clodfelter: 500,000 Japanese k. or d. in China (only)

+ Keegan: 1,200,000

+ Kinder: 1,200,000

+ Small & Singer: 250,000 (1937-41), 1,000,000 (after Dec. 1941)

+ Info. Please: 1,270,000

+ Britannica: 1,300,000 (not incl. 300,000 deaths not related to battle)

+ Eckhardt: 1,500,000

+ HarperCollins: 1,506,000

+ Encarta: 1,700,000

+ Ellis: 1,740,000 (from 1937)

+ Compton's: 1,862,499

+ Urlanis: 2,000,000

+ Clodfelter: 2,565,878 d. incl...

# 1,506,000 KIA

o Civilian:

+ Compton's: 250,000

+ HarperCollins: 300,000

+ Urlanis: 350,000

+ Encarta: 380,000

+ Ellis: 393,400

+ Eckhardt: 500,000

+ Clodfelter: 658,595 or 672,000 (incl. disease, malnutrition and 299,485 by bombing)

+ Britannica: 672,000

+ Wallechinsky: 700,000

o All (undifferentiated):

+ Messenger: 2,000,000

+ Wallechinsky: 3.2M

* Poland

o Military:

+ Ellis: 66,300 (1939 war), 4,500 (in W. Eur.)

+ Encarta: 120,000

+ Urlanis: 123,200 (from official report, 1947)

# 1939 War: 66,300

# 1st & 2nd Polish Armies in East: 13,900

# France & Norway, 1940: 2,100

# In British Army: 7,900

# 1944 Uprising: 13,000

# Resistance: 20,000

+ Britannica: 123,178

+ Davies: 123,178

+ Compton's: 125,000

+ Small & Singer: 320,000 (1939 war)

+ Eckhardt: 600,000

+ Info. Please: 664,000

+ HarperCollins: 850,000 (169,822 "as Allies")

o Civilian:

+ Kinder: 4,200,000

+ Urlanis: 4,877,000 within post-war boundaries

# According to the official 1947 report of the Polish govt.:

* Victims of concentration camps, executions, ghetto liquidations: 3,577,000

* Victims of prisons, camps and other places of confinement (death caused by epidemics, exhaustion, etc.): 1,286,000

* Outside camps - dead of wounds, injuries, overwork: 521,000

* TOTAL: 6,028,000 [within pre-war boundaries]

* Civilian losses as direct result of military operation: 521,000

+ Compton's: 5M

+ Ellis: 5,300,000

+ Encarta: 5,300,000

+ Britannica: 5,675,000

+ Wallechinsky: 5,700,000

+ Davies: 5,675,000 to 7,000,000

+ HarperCollins: 5,778,000

+ Eckhardt: 6,000,000

o All (undifferentiated):

+ Keegan: 6,000,000

+ Messenger: 6,000,000

+ Wallechinsky: 6.3M

* Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

o Military:

+ Info. Please: 6,115,000 (all causes)

+ Compton's: 6,750,000

+ Keegan: 7,000,000

+ Small & Singer: 7,500,000

+ Eckhardt: 7,500,000

+ Davies: 8,000,000 to 9,000,000

+ Barbarossa, the Axis and the Allies, by John Erickson and David Dilks

# KIA, Died of wounds, Accidents, Suicides: 6,885,1000 [sic]

# Dead and Missing: 8,668,400

# Mentions and dismisses other estimates of 23M and 26.4M.

+ Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997); also :

# KIA, DoW, etc.: 6,885,100

# Total Dead: 8,668,400

+ Mazower: 3M POWs through starvation + 6.5M in battle = 9.5M

+ Urlanis: 10,000,000

+ Volkogonov: 10,000,000

+ Ellis: 11,000,000

+ Britannica: 11,000,000

+ Encarta: 13,000,000

+ Kinder: 13,600,000

+ Wallechinsky: 13,600,000

+ HarperCollins: 14,500,000

+ 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 22M

+ Steven Shabad

# Sokolov's new calculations: 26.4M

# Gorbachev's official est.: 8,668,000 Red Army dead

+ MEDIAN: 10M

o Civilian:

+ Compton's: 6M

+ Ellis: 6,700,000

+ Britannica: 7,000,000

+ HarperCollins: 7,000,000

+ Encarta: 7,000,000

+ Kinder: 7,000,000

+ Keegan: 7,000,000

+ Eckhardt: 7,500,000

+ Mazower: 10M

+ Urlanis: 10,000,000

+ Steven Shabad (citing Sokolov): 16.9M

+ Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): "best estimate" 17M, citing

# Sokolov: 16,900,000

# Korol: 24,000,000

+ Davies: 16,000,000 to 19,000,000

+ 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 18M

+ MEDIAN: 7M

o Total:

+ Compton's: 12.75M

+ Keegan: 14M

+ Eckhardt: 15M

+ Ellis: 17.7M

+ Britannica: 18M

+ Mazower: 19.5M

+ Encarta: 20M

+ Messenger: 20M

+ Urlanis: 20M

+ Kinder: 20.6M

+ HarperCollins: 21.5M

+ Wallechinsky: 20-26M

+ Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 25M

+ Davies: 24M to 28M

+ Volkogonov, Dmitri, Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy (1991): 26-27M

+ Guiness World Records: 26.6M [http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=46251]

+ Hochschild: 27M

+ 30 Apr. 1994 Guardian: 40M

+ Steven Shabad

# Sokolov's new calculations: 43.3M

# Stalin's official public est.: 7M dead

# Khrushchev's official est.: 20M

# Gorbachev's official est.: 27M

+ Barbarossa, the Axis and the Allies, by John Erickson and David Dilks: 49M (acc2 book review: Agence France Presse, 16 June 1994)

+ MEDIAN: 20M

* Yugoslavia

o Military:

+ Small & Singer: 5,000 (1941 War)

+ Compton's: 75,000

+ Encarta: 300,000

+ Urlanis: 300,000

+ Britannica: 305,000

+ Davies: 305,000

+ Info. Please: 305,000

+ Eckhardt: 400,000

+ MEDIAN: 0.3M

o Civilian:

+ Eckhardt: 1,000,000

+ Britannica: 1,200,000

+ Davies: 1,200,000

+ Wallechinsky: 1,200,000

+ Encarta: 1,300,000

+ Urlanis: 1,400,000

+ MEDIAN: 1.2M

o Total:

+ Keegan: 1M

+ Eckhardt: 1.4M

+ Wallechinsky: 1.5M

+ Britannica: 1.505M

+ Davies: 1.505M

+ Encarta: 1.6M

+ Messenger: 1.6M

+ Urlanis: 1.7M

+ HarperCollins: 1.7M

+ Ellis: 1.7M

+ MEDIAN: 1.55M

_________________________________

Say what you will. This was a fight worth fighting.

[portisizzle]

The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 72 million people. The civilian toll was around 47 million, including about 20 million due to war related famine and disease. The military toll was about 25 million, including about 5 million prisoners of war. The Allies lost around 61 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million. As some Axis countries switched sides and reentered the war on the side of the Allies, those nations are included in the Allied count, regardless of when the deaths occurred. There was a disproportionate loss of life and property; some nations had a higher casualty rate than others, due to a number of factors including military tactics, crimes against humanity, economic preparedness and the level of technology.

[Predicto]

I am capable of recognizing that a "crappy" job starting the war is better than waiting until that part of the world reached the flash point.

Whatever you say. I think at least Dick Cheney can still say that with a straight face.

Do you usually put out fires by pouring gasoline on them?

[portisizzle]

Whatever you say. I think at least Dick Cheney can still say that with a straight face.

Do you usually put out fires by pouring gasoline on them?

Well you sure do not put fires out by ignoring them until they become a raging inferno. If you consider preemptive action = gasoline then I would say history would suggest a couple tanks.

Oh and try saying "72 million people dead during World War 2" with a straight face while complaining about our administrations actions.

[TMK9973]

I guess I'm thinking "So what".

Yes -The OP is really reaching with his statement, but it seems the arguement is "Hey - We are having a low casualty war!"

Ok - So what?

Didn't Vietnam prove that Body counts mean nothing?

[Air Force Cane]

1941-1945: 407,000 US dead

US Civil War: 618,000 US dead

Vietnam: 59,000 US dead

Iraq: 3,830 US dead

I always find it amusing when lib defeatists claim we can't win this war.

Would they rather go back in time and fight 112 Nazi infantry and armored divisions- or be winning in Iraq against a few thousand terrorists armed with AK-47s and IEDs?

[JMS]

Predicto, we are seeing Muslims fighting against AQ in numbers unseen before ,so perhaps we are creating opposition as as well by exposing them for what they are.

When villagers are taking matters in their own hands and fighting to prevent AQ from coming into town it IS progress.

Al Quada has never been the major threat in Iraq. They account for the smallest number of attacks of the three major combatant groups. Sunni's, Shia, and Al Quada. If we left today the Sunni and Shia would be fighting Al Quada tomorrow. What cooperation there was with Al Quada was only there because the Sunni's and Shia were fighting the occupation.

Now that we are arming both sides of this civil war; Sunni and Shia we have been able to focus both against Al Quada in our presents. Which is something, but not everything.

Everything is happening on the diplomatic front. Patraes and Bush both stated the goals of the surge was to provide breathing room for the Iraqi government to reach a political solution. That hasn't happened. Progress towards that hasn't happened. That's the over riding issue. It's not that the military hasn't done the best with the strategy they've been given. It's that the strategy has thus far failed.