I've had a number of discussions with friends and coworkers about how our perceptions of "acceptable casualties" have changed since WWII. It's an interesting way of checking viewpoints. Here are some numbers that put the 1400 into some historical perspective:
Gulf War II (2002-present): 1400 deaths over 21 months = 67 dead/mo Vietnam War (1964-1975): 58000 deaths over 132 months = 439 dead/mo Korean War (1950-1953): 33000 deaths over 36 months = 917 dead/mo WWII (1941-1945): 405000 deaths over 46 months = 8805 dead/mo
My own feeling about it is that I think Saddam had to go just based on a basic human rights issue (whether that should have been done ten-odd years ago is another question, but hey...) I certainly wish that the plan had been cleaner, that there had been a way to conduct as bloodless a coup as possible. On the other hand, just taking the Hussein govt out and leaving a power vaccuum might have been inviting an equal bloodbath to the Iraqi people generally, I don't know. How do you solve that? It's a difficult and ugly decision, which would be the most humane way to go.
From:
no subject
Gulf War II (2002-present): 1400 deaths over 21 months = 67 dead/mo
Vietnam War (1964-1975): 58000 deaths over 132 months = 439 dead/mo
Korean War (1950-1953): 33000 deaths over 36 months = 917 dead/mo
WWII (1941-1945): 405000 deaths over 46 months = 8805 dead/mo
My own feeling about it is that I think Saddam had to go just based on a basic human rights issue (whether that should have been done ten-odd years ago is another question, but hey...) I certainly wish that the plan had been cleaner, that there had been a way to conduct as bloodless a coup as possible. On the other hand, just taking the Hussein govt out and leaving a power vaccuum might have been inviting an equal bloodbath to the Iraqi people generally, I don't know. How do you solve that? It's a difficult and ugly decision, which would be the most humane way to go.