Inspired by two (seemingly) unrelated pieces I read online this morning.

1- Should Women be allowed in Combat?
I just heard on the news this week that women will now be officially allowed combat roles for the first time in the U.S. Military. This is because in the past 10 years of the "War on Terror", there have been woman who had to take on combat roles by necessity, even if that wasn't their primary role.

In response, Rick Santorum just re-articulated the two basic and traditional arguments against it:

As one reason, Santorum cites “the emotions of men.’’ The White House hopeful says there is the potential that men will not be focused on their combat mission but on what he calls a “natural instinct’’ to protect a woman.

Santorum also questions having women in combat roles because of what he says are “all sorts of physical issues’’ relating to the capabilities of men and women.

I include this quote from him not because I want to discuss Santorum on this thread, but because I expect, for the first time, these two traditional arguments to be mocked and scoffed. He had the audacity to say them out loud and to many these arguments will seem outdated and sexist.

I don't think they are. I think these are timeless and timely arguments. I have never served in the military, but for various reasons I've been blessed with many, many close relationships with those who have. And every soldier I've ever talked to about it re-articulates the two arguments above.

I remember in particular my Junior ROTC instructor, an army ranger who voluntarily served two tours of duty in Vietnam say, "Combat is bad enough with men, your brothers, dying all around you. But still it is a totally different experience to see a woman with her face blown off. There's just something naturally ingrained into men. You have to protect her...and then you will compromise the mission. You won't be able to focus on what you need to do."

It's been over 20 years...and I still remember the soft tone that this very tough man took and the horror I felt, when he said, "woman with her face blown off".

Combat is ugly, ugly business. And yes, it's far uglier when women are a part of it.


2- Why are Hollywood portrayals of women in the role of men always tragic?

From the Plugged-In review of the new movie "Albert Nobbs" about a woman who spends her life pretending to be a man.

A postscript: While addressing the issue of historical gender disparity so profoundly illustrated in Albert Nobbs, I feel compelled to make an observation about its modern incarnation in movies. What happens when one gender plays the other? When men put on a dress and lipstick, the intended effect is almost always laughter. Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie. Tyler Perry's turns as Madea. Adam Sandler as brother and sister twins in Jack and Jill. John Travolta as Edna Turnblad in Hairspray.

When women play men, however, the outcome is more often tragic. Sooner or later, we've been taught to anticipate, these vulnerable women's well-cloaked secret—usually under layers of femininity-disguising clothes—will be revealed. And their worlds will explode. Or end. The most prominent example of this (before Albert Nobbs)? The story of Brandon Teena (played by Hilary Swank), horrifically illustrated in 1999's Boys Don't Cry.

I thought of a couple more examples that the reviewer, Adam Holz, didn't mention.

Men as women: Tom Hanks' TV sitcom - Bosom Buddies, Tony Curtis in "Some Like it Hot", Martin Lawrence in "Big Momma's House", Two Wayans brothers as "White Chicks", Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire, Barry Watson in Sorority Boys, "Juwanna Man". I'm sure you all could think of more, or look it up. All of them are comedies and not just comedies, but madcap ridiculous comedies.(or at least are supposed to be.)

Women as men: First of all, there aren't as many. There were two comedies, "Just one of the Guys"(1985) and "She's the Man" with Amanda Bynes. (2006) But these are exceptions, and even those had serious undertones and sections. Usually women disguised as men aren't funny. It's usually serious, but more often tragic. Barbara Streisand as "Yentl"; The Ballad of Little Jo, in which a woman must dress as a man to survive in the west, when she is found out post-mortem the pain is expressed as violent anger. In "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" Eowyn dressed as a male soldier so that she can ride into combat, though she performs admirably, her little foray still ends with violence and sadness.

These are serious movies, and the storyline of "woman disguised as a man" never ends well and almost always tragically (both in the dramatic and emotional sense.)

Even Hollywood with all it's liberal sensibilities can't seem to quite escape from...

(yes, I'm going to go ahead and be bold enough to say it)

...our God-given gender roles.

Lars Walker writes about World War I:

Someone asked on Facebook today, “What one historical event would you change, if you could go back in history?” My answer was, “I'd stop the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo.”

I'm convinced it was World War I that spoiled everything. Maybe it was inevitable. Maybe Europe was bound to stumble into continental war eventually, through one mishap or another, and then to get mired like a man in quicksand, as hundreds of thousands of its best young men sank and died.

But I seem to recall at least one historian who argued that the whole thing was unnecessary. Nobody seems to know to this day what it was about. With luck it could have been avoided, and then World War II would have had no cause.

Because when the Great War ended, everything had changed. The boys had marched off to Flanders and Belgium with heads held high, full of faith (civic and religious) and idealism. They stumbled home broken in spirit, believing in nothing, the germ of a lost generation. All the decline and malaise we've seen in the West since that time rises (it seems to me) from the disillusionment engendered by that massive exercise in stupidity and cruelty.

Amen. World War I was horrible and pointless, and it led to worse events in that bloody twentieth century. Read the whole thing, which also includes the story of C.S. Lewis' wounding in the war.

From a provocative piece by Peter Wehner:

In the wake of the victories by the North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge, many liberals simply ignored what followed their ascension to power. Progressives believed the leadership of these countries were comprised of enlightened agrarian reformers who would improve the everyday lives of people in both countries. What the South Vietnamese and the Cambodian people got instead was unimaginable brutality and horror — and what we heard from many on the left were excuses and indifference.

I was reminded of this in reading Max’s post, which quoted a tribal elder in Afghanistan, commenting on President Obama’s decision to withdraw more than 33,000 troops by next September. “This drawdown will embolden the morale of the Taliban, and actually it has already emboldened them,” the tribal elder said. The Taliban are saying to the elders not to support Americans or you will be killed, and now they say the Americans are leaving and your lives will not be spared.

Yet we have figures like the liberal evangelical Jim Wallis urging the United States exit immediately, without even a single reference to the hellish future that would face the people of Afghanistan if that were to happen. Wallis argued something similar in Iraq, urging the United States to withdraw rather than support President Bush’s surge strategy. If America had followed the counsel of Wallis, Iraq would have descended into civil war and mass death.

None of this is surprising for Wallis or those who shared his worldview. After all, in September 1979, Wallis wrote of the Vietnamese “boat people”: “Many of today’s refugees were inoculated with a taste for a Western lifestyle during the war years and are fleeing to support their consumer habit in other lands.” (See this profile on Wallis.) Wallis’ words were disgraceful, a slander of innocent people who were fleeing a repressive government. And in Cambodia we didn’t see the emergence of social justice (a favorite phrase of Wallis’); what we saw instead was forced labor, slavery, starvation and the extermination of roughly one-quarter of the Cambodian population.

I recall my cognitive dissonance: Why weren’t those on the left –who took great pride in advertising their compassion for the poor, the dispossessed, and the downtrodden and who took special pride in their multicultural sensitivities — the least bit horrified by what happened and their complicity in it? Didn’t the mass graves, the genocide, and the killing fields bother them? Why weren’t there more liberals like Joan Baez, who supported the North Vietnamese until she became horrified at its human-rights violations (she eventually published a full-page newspaper advertisement describing the horror that had descended on Vietnam). Conservatism might not be perfect, I thought at the time, but it could do a good deal better than this.

Read the whole thing.

“Do not rejoice when your enemies fall,
and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble.” - Proverbs 24:17 (Posted on my Aunt's facebook page)

“I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.” - Mark Twain - heard on the radio yesterday, and on various sites and blogs.

In light of Bird's post from yesterday, it's hard to know exactly how to react to the news of Osama bin Laden's demise. I will, however, tell you how I reacted when my wife woke me up Sunday night to let me know that bin Laden had been taken out. I was half asleep, but I remember my one-word response:

"sweet."

The man perpetrated a great evil, and I believe justice was done. But if he never repented and received Christ, his eternity is a horrible thing to contemplate. Not sweet at all. And my sins, as much as his, put Jesus on the cross.

A few other observations:

1. I didn't vote for him, and I won't vote for him in 2012 (unless something really earth-shattering changes inside me or with him), but I was proud of our President following the news. Ordering this kind of take-down is never without major risks. He could have chosen an easier way, such as an air strike, but he didn't. He deserves major credit for this. While I assume that some of the intel that led to bin Laden's whereabouts was gathered under GWB's administration, and I think some credit may be shared, Obama deserves huge congratulations. It was under his watch that the long hunt was finally finished.

2. What can be said for the brave men in the strike force? Incredible skill and courage! And they will have a story to tell forever (even if only amongst themselves - I don't know if their identities will be declassified). I'm a tee-totaller, but I'd buy numerous rounds of brewskis for these guys if I could. I'm thankful none of our people were hurt or killed, and that it appears that casualties as a whole were kept to a minimum.

3. I think both Obama and GWB have been classy in the aftermath. In addition, some conservatives have shown class as well by congratulating the President, and some liberals have shown class by not getting overly political about this American achievement. Others, of course, on both sides, have been jerks, but that's to be expected.

I think it's cool that Obama invited GWB to ground zero, and that GWB declined. Well done on both parts.

Former President George W. Bush has turned down President Barack Obama’s invitation to join him at ground zero on Thursday, citing his desire to avoid the media glare.

“President Bush appreciated the invite, but has chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight,” Bush spokesman David Sherzer told POLITICO in an email Tuesday night. “He continues to celebrate with all Americans this important victory in the war on terror.”

While I know it's naive to even say it, here's hoping for a lessening of terror threats, for a wise completion of our ongoing wars (and I don't know what that would look like, for the record), and, maybe just for a few moments, more unity in our body politic. I'm tired of the screaming.

I'm glad bin Laden is dead. I'll be the first to admit that.

However, I can't seem to get worked up about justice being served, et cetera, and it's difficult (if not impossible) for me to rejoice in his death in the same way I'd rejoice in his repentance (which obviously never happened).

My wife, Brandi, and I often talk about the comments posted on a local news website in relation to guys (or gals) who have been charged with crimes. They usually go something like this, "Put a bullet in his head and save the tax payers some money!"

When speaking of the general mood on those comment threads, Brandi said, "It's like everyone deserves the death penalty for everything."

Humans specialize in ungrace, but do we rejoice in repentance? Do we pray for it? Hope for it? Believe for it?

I hope so.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON OSAMA BIN LADEN

East Room

11:35 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
Read the rest of this entry . . .

Charles Krauthammer sees things pretty clearly:

Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense.

. . .

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

[H/T Instapundit]

I heard this on the radio today, and also in this Corner post by Daniel Foster:

A very good and very welcome piece of news to start off the New Year: No American soldiers lost their lives in combat in Iraq last month.

Combat fatalities have been steadily decreasing since June of 2009, when troop drawdowns in Baghdad and other cities began in earnest. Since July, American forces have suffered five or fewer combat-related deaths each month. Casualties among Iraqis have also decreased to their lowest levels since the war began in 2003.

Said General Raymond Odierno, top commander in the Iraqi theater: “[This] is a very significant milestone for us as we continue to move forward, and I think that also speaks to the level of violence and how it has decreased over time.”

Pray that we will soon be hearing similar news from Afghanistan.

You may have already seen this, but a number of blogs have joined in what is being called the Victory in Iraq celebration, and have declared yesterday, 11/22/2008, as "VI Day". From Zombietime:

Who gets to decide when it's over?

Indeed, everywhere you look, someone has highlighted yet another detail which, cumulatively, demonstrate that "peace has broken out all over" Iraq.

Each person has their own criteria as to when the war was won: Some say we won the war long ago when we defeated the Iraqi Army in three weeks. Some say we won when the Iraqi government tried and executed Saddam Hussein. Some say we won when Iraqis voted democratically to elect their own leaders. Some say we won when we established control over the entirety of the country last year, eliminating the last remaining insurgent strongholds. Some say we won six months ago when the last remaining organized resistance evaporated.

On the other hand, there are those who are saying (in response to this essay) that we have not reached that magical benchmark. The Iraqi parliament may have passed the security agreement solidifying Iraq's post-war stability, but some people say we should wait until the U.S. Senate approves it before we declare victory. Others say that the war won't be won until casualty levels literally drop to zero. Other say we haven't won until all troops are gone from the country. Others wait in vain for an official announcement.

There is no consensus. And there never will be. Still, the cut-off point between "war" and "not war" has to be drawn somewhere, and if we don't draw the line ourselves, I guarantee it will NEVER be drawn. Because the Left and the media want to make sure that even ten years from now, when perhaps one US soldier is killed per year in an otherwise completely stable Iraq, that still won't qualify as "victory." Because their overarching goal is to to make sure that the war goes down in history as a defeat, no matter what.

My opinion is: This is as good a time to declare victory as we're ever going to get. All signs point to "Yes." If you don't agree, that's perfectly fine, you can ignore this essay. But if you think this is long overdue, then climb on board.

Read the whole thing.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this. For my part, I think a declaration of success is way overdue, if for no other reason than to thank our soldiers for a job well done. They have persevered bravely and with expertise through some of the most trying conditions imaginable. All that being said, I can understand why some are loathe to declare victory. Aside from people who simply don't want to see or admit to the success in Iraq for political or moral reason, a number of people have valid concerns about ever assuming success when it comes to the middle east.

Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments thread. I would ask that we avoid pointless arguments about whether we should ever have gone to Iraq in the first place. This thread is concerned with whether we can consider this a win or not. If you hated the war from the start and hate the fact that we're even talking about this, please post your thoughts on your own blog. If you'd like to discuss whether or not declaring victory is a reasonable response to current events, please feel free to express your thoughts here. All opinions that are on topic with this post are welcome.

[Hat Tip: The Anchoress]

On this Veteran's Day, from About Last Night:

On October 9, 1918, an HMV sound engineer named Will Gaisberg set up a primitive piece of recording equipment immediately behind a unit of the Royal Garrison Artillery stationed outside Lille and recorded a British gas-shell bombardment. His purpose in doing so was to preserve the sounds of war before the coming armistice caused them to vanish forever from the face of the earth.

According to HMV's catalogue, the recording, which was commercially released, consisted of

the actual reproduction of the screaming and whistling of the shells previous to the entry of the British troops into Lille. It is not an imitation but was recorded on the battlefront. The report of the guns and the whistling of the shells is the actual sound of the Royal Garrison Artillery in action on October 9th, 1918. No book or picture can ever visualise the reality of modern warfare just the way this record has done...it would require only the slightest imagination for one, by means of this record, to be projected into the past, and feel that he is really present on the battlefield witnessing this historic chapter of the war.

Here is Gaisberg's own account of the making of the recording:

Gradually we came within the sound of the guns, and eventually, when only a short distance from Lille, we pulled up at a row of ruined cottages, in one of which the heavy siege battery had made its quarters. In the wrecked kitchen we unpacked our recording machines and made our preparations before getting directly behind a battery of great 4.5' guns and 6' howitzers, camouflaged until they looked at close quarters like giant insects. Here the machine could well catch the finer sounds of the "singing," the "whine," and the "scream" of the shells, as well as the terrific reports when they left the guns.

Dusk fell, and we were obliged, very reluctantly, to pack up our recording instrument and return to Boulogne--and to England; but we brought with us a true representation of the bombardment, which will have a unique place in the history of the Great War.

You can listen to the two-minute recording here.

It is one of the most haunting and disturbing documents of the past that I know--one made all the more haunting by the knowledge that Gaisberg accidentally inhaled some of the gas from the attack, which damaged his lungs irreparably. In London he fell victim to the international flu epidemic that was then ravaging the city, and died on November 5, six days before World War I came to an end.

To all veterans, everywhere. Thank you for your service.

On this day the two quotes below resonate strongly with me.

One is from the pen of a great lion of a statesman from the twentieth century. The other is from a former Secretary of Defense, spoken at the Pentagon this morning.

The first:

I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all....Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder....

Silly people — and there were many, not only in enemy countries — might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would just be a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before — that the United States is "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate." Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.

— Winston Churchill, The Grand Alliance

The second:

Here, beneath the sloping fields of Arlington National Cemetery — fields that hold our nation’s fallen — this building stands as a silent monument to the resolve of a free people. And so too this Memorial in its shadow will stand not only as a symbol of a nation’s grief, but as an eternal reminder of men and women of valor who saw flame and smoke and stepped forward to save and protect the lives of their fellow Americans on September 11th.

Let it also remind us of each of those who have volunteered to serve in our nation’s Armed Forces, before and every day since. Our nation’s military has stood guard in this new age of peril, determined that what happened here, seven years ago, must not happen again.

We have been “acquainted with the night.” We have taken its measure. In the darkest of times, we have stood together. In defiance, our nation has pressed on toward morning. With resolve renewed, and with the certain strength of the American people, our nation will force the dawn.

My constant prayer is that God will bless the families of those we remember this day. And that the good Lord will bless all of those who have lost loved ones in the long struggle that has followed. We are deeply in their debt. And each of us will remain so for the rest of our lives.

- Donald Rumsfeld, The Pentagon, 9/11/2008

[H/T The Corner]

On this July Fourth weekend, I'd like to thank the brave US, Iraqi, and Coalition forces in Iraq for their perseverance, their expertise, and their largely unsung successes.

I will insert here the required disclaimer that the recent good news out of Iraq is "fragile and reversible". But I don't know how people can't be encouraged by this news.

From the Times of London:

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

. . .

American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had “defeated” terrorism.

“They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,” Maliki said. “But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them.”

The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda’s numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.

Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, said: “We’ve limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they’re mostly not succeeding.”

Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: “I think we’re at the irreversible point.”

In addition, did you know that Saddam had 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium and that this material has been safely sold to a Canadian company?

My guess is no.

I'm tired of the American Press and their "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality. I'm also tired of the tendency toward "no good news allowed when the President has an R after his name" mentality. But there are other bloggers who are far more skilled at commentary regarding this problem than I am.

Such as the Anchoress, who I hat-tip and wish a happy Fourth to. You should read her - she does excellent work.

From Michael Barone's latest article on National Review Online:

During the Democratic primary season, all the party’s candidates veered hardly a jot or tittle from the narrative that helped the Democrats sweep the November 2006 elections. Iraq is spiraling into civil war, we invaded unwisely and have botched things ever since, no good outcome is possible, and it is time to get out of there as fast as we can.

In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn’t work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.

That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination — but it was poor prophecy. It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful, beyond even the hopes of its strongest advocates, like Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the “benchmark” legislation demanded by the Democratic Congress — all of which Barack Obama seems to have barely noticed or noticed not at all. He has not visited Iraq since January 2006 and did not seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington.

Without delving too deep into current politics, the fact that the party and candidate of "change" seem unable to change their proposed Iraq policy of precipitous withdrawal in the face of such heartening success really troubles me.

Thankfully, not everyone is ignoring the changing tide in Iraq.

That’s not true of all critics of the Bush administration and its military leaders. The editorial writers of the Washington Post have been paying close and careful attention. And even though they may be temperamentally more inclined to favor Obama’s candidacy over John McCain’s, they have not been unwilling to take Obama to task for his inattention to American success. Obama, the Post noted tartly on June 7, “has become unreasonably wedded to a year-old proposal to rapidly withdraw all U.S. combat forces from the country — a plan offered when he wrongly believed that the situation would only worsen as long as American troops remained.”

On June 18, a Post editorial made the same point again and noted that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyard Zebari told Obama in a phone conversation that a precipitate withdrawal would embolden al-Qaeda and Iran. But Obama told Jake Tapper of ABC News that he said no such thing. Perhaps he’s still trying to avoid facing facts that undermine his narrative. Which might also explain why he said he was willing to meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions while he has not been able to find time to meet with Petraeus.

. . .

If George W. Bush was wrong about the surge from summer 2003 to January 2007, Barack Obama has been wrong about it from January 2007 to today. John McCain seems to have been right on it all along. When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” What say you, Sen. Obama?

From Blackfive, via National Review's Corner, a wonderful homecoming.



To our soldiers: Thank you so much for all you do, and we look forward to the day when you are all back home.

From a report published last year for Congress by the Congressional Research Service

Table 4. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006
Part I, Total Military Personnel

Year Total Deaths
1980 2,392
1981 2,380
1982 2,319
1983 2, 465
1984 1,999
1985 2, 252
1986 1,984
1987 1.983
1988 1,819
1989 1,636
1990 1,507
1991 1,787
1992 1,293
1993 1,213
1994 1,075
1995 1,040
1996 974
1997 817
1998 827
1999 796
2000 758
2001 891
2002 999
2003 1,228
2004 1,874
2005 1,942
2006 1,858

Total Deaths under Reagan 1981-1988 - 19,593
Total Deaths under Bush I 1989-1992 - 6,223
Total Deaths under Clinton 1993-2000 - 7,500
Total Deaths under Bush II 2001-2006 - 8,792

Deaths due to Hostile Action – from Table 5
1980-82 0
1983 18
1984 1
1985 0
1986 2
1987 37
1988 0
1989 23
1990 0
1991 147
1992-95 0
1996 1
1997-2000 0
2001 3
2002 18
2003 344
2004 739
2005 739
2006 753

Comparison of Deaths in Modern American Conflicts – from Table 6
World War I 116,516
World War II 405,399
Korea 36,578
Vietnam 58,209
Gulf War 382
Afghanistan 352
Iraqi Freedom 3,091

I put the above numbers together myself from the original source. There is lot of fascinating statistics there and I would encourage you to go read it.

And let us never forget that each number represents a precious human life.

And I want to personally thank anyone reading this who has ever served, or who has had a family member who served. Words are not adequate to express my gratitude.

For being such a polarizing issue, it seems that we're not hearing nearly as much about Iraq as we used to. Correction: we're hearing generalities about Iraq -- Democratic candidates pledging to withdraw the troops eventually, President Bush pledging to stay the course (and withdraw the troops eventually) -- but less and less specifics.

David French wrote an article recently that reminded me of the way this war will be won, if it is indeed won. Excerpts from it are below:

Mansuriyat al Jabal, Iraq — JAG officers like me tend to be a bit nervous whenever we go “outside the wire,” and last Thursday’s kerosene-delivery mission to the small Diyala River Valley town of Mansuriyat al Jabal (or “MAJ”) was no exception. The 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (Lieutenant Colonel Paul T. Calvert, commanding) was deep into the second week of “Operation Raider Harvest,” a complex operation designed to deny al-Qaeda one of its last safe havens. As the squadron cleared the local towns of al-Qaeda, we also brought much-needed supplies, including humanitarian assistance (rice, flour, etc.), medical care, and kerosene (vital for cooking and heating on cold northern Iraq winter nights).

. . .

Because we knew that the town was formerly dominated by al-Qaeda (before we arrived, al-Qaeda committed atrocities against the former town leaders, killing many and destroying their homes), and because a fuel truck full of highly flammable kerosene would make an excellent target, the lawyer wasn’t the only nervous soldier out there. “Doc” Allen, a medic who had seen just about everything, leaned over and said, “I’ll be surprised if nothing happens today.”

Thankfully, Doc Allen was surprised — thanks to the professionalism and vigilance of the young soldiers of Grim Troop, who pulled off an operation that combined firm crowd control and constant vigilance with a light and compassionate touch. The kerosene delivery — done under a warm sun and a cloudless sky — was quiet and routine.

. . .

We will win the war when “nothing happened today” is the common report, when “nothing” means no explosions, no beheadings, no snipers, no torture, and no kidnappings, when “nothing” means that kids went to school, mothers went to the market, and dads went to work.

The desperate quest for “nothing” is one of the many things that separates us from our enemies in Iraq. Regardless of where one stands on the essential morality or wisdom of the initial decision to invade and topple Saddam Hussein, it is difficult to argue with the fundamental justice of our case today. When one side wins when life attains its most normal rhythms of work, play, and school, and the other side wins when that life is disrupted by the most hideous violence imaginable, there is no real debate as to who is right and who is wrong.

The citizens of MAJ know what life under al-Qaeda is like, and they are now beginning to experience life in the new, free Iraq. As the Iraqi army completes work on an outpost in town so that the only permanent military presence is Iraqi, and as the men of the town start to work on clearing local canals, repairing bridges, and renovating schools, it looks like we have a fighting chance to make “nothing happened in MAJ today” the common report.

And that’s how this war will end, not with toppled statues, not with defeated armies surrendering en masse, and almost certainly without any victory parades. It will end with . . . nothing. And when the last Humvee rolls out, it will perhaps roll out without even a wave.

The people of Iraq will be too busy living their lives to pay much attention.

I'm praying for an increasing amount of "nothing happened today" in Iraq.

A new study says, "Truth was first US casualty in Iraq war."

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush and his top officials ran roughshod over the truth in the run-up to the Iraq war lying a total of 935 times, a study released Wednesday found.

This headline has been on both the Yahoo home page and the MSN home page all day.

Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'
Hundreds of false statements on WMDs, al-Qaida used to justify Iraq war

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

Yahoo used AFP and MSN used AP. Boy, I'll bet the media is giddy over this one. "Finally we can prove it! Bush really is a liar."

A couple questions.
First, did anyone ever do a study like this on Bill Clinton?
Second, if someone turns out to be wrong, is that the same thing as lying?

I do not believe that he knowingly lied to the public. I believe that he thought there were WMD's there. And so to label one MAJOR incorrect conclusion as 935 lies is ridiculous. It's true, he kept saying it. So they seem to be counting each one as a lie.

What about you, do you believe he lied? And have you ever heard of a scientific study that counted lies before? Man, these guys should turn their "studies" to an election campaign. They'll be busy til the sun goes supernova. Anyone know when and where they might be able to find one? (An election campaign I mean, not a supernova.)

Do police officers get prosecuted if they shoot someone who points a toy gun at them, and they really believe it was a gun?

The US Military wants its enlistment bonus money back from soldiers who couldn't finish their term because of their war injuries.

The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.

HT: Volokh.

David Bernstein blogs on a lecture by Matthias Kuentzel, which details the curious entrance of anti-Semitism (in its current virulent form):

. . . while there was always anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world, it also was based on the notion of Jews as an inferior group that Mohammed had defeated militarily. Anti-Semitic visions of powerful Jews being behind the world's problems, and plotting to control the world, found most prominently in the Hamas charter, entered the Muslim world via the Muslim Brotherhood, who in turn took those ideas from the Nazis, which spent significant effort and money propagating them in the Middle East. This all started well before the creation of the State of Israel, belying the notion that the Israel-Palestinian conflict caused modern Muslim anti-Semitism.

"The success of the [9/11] attacks, Sheik Omar concluded, showed that 'there is no defense system could stand in the way of the determination of a person who wants to become a Martyr.' His conception of a martyr, it should be noted, differs from the common Western idea, derived from Christianity. A Christian martyr is someone who is killed for his faith, without bringing his own death upon himself. The notion of a 'martyr' as someone who kills others viewed as enemies of the faith, and in the process gets himself killed, is a distinctly Islamic concept."

-- Robert Spencer, Islam Unveiled.