Postwar Iraq Toll Exceeds Combat Deaths

[lebkuchen]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/iraq

KHALIS, Iraq - The toll of U.S. troops killed in postwar Iraq (news - web
sites) surpassed the number killed in major combat on Tuesday, reaching
139 with the death of a soldier in a roadside bombing.

Two other soldiers were wounded when the
bomb hit a support convoy in the town of
Hamariyah, 16 miles northwest of Baghdad, the
military announced.

The incident brought the death toll since May 1,
when President Bush (news - web sites)
declared an end to major combat, to one more
than the number of troops who died during
heavy fighting before that date. Since the war
began March 20, 277 U.S. forces have died.

[ixion]

1. ah... But Rummy says all is well...

well, in evil Rummy world, I guess. :crazy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=83453

[lebkuchen]

3. Next on the agenda:

Prop up * to preach to the public about how much "confidence" he has in the altruism of the mission.

You know dang well the attackers are planning something significant against our troops in a continuing attempt to get their point across: GET OUT!

* speeches about being "confident" are going to ring pretty hollow after that.

[robbedvoter]

2. Here's a letter to the editor with lots of relevant numbers:

> 136 American soldiers have died in Iraq since President Bush
said, "Mission Accomplished"; 71 since he said "Bring 'em on!"; 43
since Odai and Qusai officially died. Nearly 30 soldiers have died in
Iraq just since Bush went on his August vacation. 275 overall dead
since the invasion of Iraq began.
>
> CEO pay at defense contractor Lockheed Martin went up from $5.8
million in 2000 to $25.3 million in 2002. CEO pay went up at General
Dynamics from $5.7 million in 2001 to $15.2 million in 2002. It went
up at Honeywell from $12.9 million in 2000 to $45 million in 2002. It
went up from Northrop Grumman from $7.3 million in 2000 to $9.2
million in 2002. Meanwhile the Pentagon says it might have to cut the
pay of combat troops because it's a "budget buster."
>
> Enriching defense contractors at the price of compensating our
troops? Continuing in futile occupation of a Middle Eastern country
at an escalating cost of American lives? I'm no longer sure who Bush
thinks he's working for, but it doesn't appear to be the American
people or American soldiers. In fact, increasingly, I find myself in
agreement with former Vice President Al Gore, who recently
opined, "It's time to fire this President and get a new one."
>

[lebkuchen]

4. Global hotspot increases up

Here's a current article in "Stripes" full of facts and figures you may find interesting. Rumsfeld is not going to give up on his attempt to privatize the military. That's his baby. It's all he cares about.

http://estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=17209

Peters alluded to former Army Chief of
Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s departure
speech, warning of the perils of trying to
do a 12-division mission with a
10-division Army. “Really what we’re
doing is trying to use a 10-division force to
do a 15-to-18 division mission,” Peters
said.

Peters said he’d like to see a 15-division
Army, “but we’re not going to get it.” He
rated a 12-division Army as minimal.

That’s not likely to happen under
Rumsfeld’s watch, one observer of the
administration said.

In a briefing last week, Rumsfeld “made it
pretty clear that the last thing we need to
be doing is adding divisions,” said Frank
Gaffney, president of the Center for
Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The
center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization which was established in
1998, according to its Web site.

<snip>

That said, Rumsfeld “is not adverse to
adding bodies,” just not by adding new
military structure, he said.

Instead, Rumsfeld is looking at 300,000
military occupation specialties that might
be filled by civilians. The secretary of
defense is confident that it’s practical to
replace 50,000 technical and
administrative jobs with civilians, freeing
up soldiers without the considerable costs
associated with adding structure, he said.

[Divernan]

7. Rumsfeld to fill 300,000 military occupation specialtyjobs with civilians

To replace trained military specialists with civilians is extremely poor management for several reasons:
(1) It will clearly cost more to hire civilian SPECIALISTS, i.e., if you want special skills, you're not going to be able to hire for minimum wage.
(2) Any civilian going into a theater of war will also be getting significant hardship bonuses.
(3) Civilians are always free to quit and walk away if the atmosphere gets too dangerous, and in today's wars, there are no clear battle lines - just like in Vietnam, it was dangerous to be anywhere in country. And if the people charged with repair and maintenance of weapons systems, vehicles, etc., not to mention providing facilities for feeding, housing and medical care walk off the job, our own military will not be trained to replace them.
(4)Perhaps most importantly, our enlistees in the armed forces go in for specialized training which will translate into employability when they finish their military service. You have seen this emphasized in recruitment ads for decades! Haven't seen any ads saying, Hey, join the Army and we guarantee to put you in to combat for your whole tour, at wages below the poverty level, so you can defend the oil interests of international corporations. Only someone with a death wish would enlist for that purpose.

So much for the wisdom of the corporate CEO Bush administration.

[lebkuchen]

9. The cost of insuring civilian contractors in a war zone will be high-

increased exponentially over what the soldiers are insured for.

How cost-cutting can be used in an argument to justify privatization is a mystery to me.

[Divernan]

11. That's why US troops were left without planned food/shelter.

Private companies contracted to set up food service, cots, etc., in Iraq pulled out because their private insurers would have charged prohibitively expensive insurance rates for private employees - bye, bye profit and bye, bye civilians.

[cap]

8. this enables Rumsfeld to bypass Congressional approval...,

double check me to see if I am wrong, but don't you need Congressional approval for deployments over a certain number of troops?

I need to look at the War Powers Act

[Terran]

5. A couple of months ago, I jokingly said this day would come by Labor Day

Looks like I got it wrong.

I hope this little statistic gets plenty of exposure. It has a certain resonance that is difficult to spin away, IMO. More people killed after "Mission Accomplished" than before "Mission Accomplished".

[NNN0LHI]

6. I bet the Dems end up using AWOL's aircraft carrier landing footage in...

...their ads rather than Bush, as Karl Rove had planned. That stunt was really a stupid thing to do.

Don

[lebkuchen]

10. If today's low-water mark doesn't highlight the incompetence of the *ies,

the American voter may as well turn in his/her voter registration card.

[Sushi_lover]

12. we need another carrier landing

and a bigger sock, I guess

[gratuitous]

13. Dammit, Lil George called "Mission Accomplished"!!

Quit lookin' at those casualties and expenses! Just quit it!

[Tracer]

14. Rumsfeld Wants to Privatize ...

... those 300,000 Army people for two reasons:

1. Put them on active duty as cannon-fodder.

2. Line his friends pockets with government contracts.

[lebkuchen]

15. Despite Shinseki's pleas, Rummy kept the numbers low

He held our soldiers as ransom to push for privatization.