American Wars: Death Tolls

Death Toll of US Troops in Major Wars of the Last 100 Years

World War I	116,708
World War II	131,028,000
Vietnam	58,209
Korea	36,516
Iraq	3,278 and counting

This is not to underplay the dealth of over 3,000 of our finest. But it is worth putting that toll in perspective - American troop casualties are still a lot smaller than in previous wars, and indeed despite the negativism of the media, the mission's in better shape. Iraq has a democratically elected government, as inept as Washington, for starters, and a people who seem committed to democracy, judging by the turnout at the last election. That's more than we could say about Korea or Vietnam.

Pressure Maliki, for Heaven's Sakes!

Today, there was a story about how Iraqi President Maliki has been sacking senior officers who have been too aggressive on the Shiite militia's like al-Sadr's Mahdi army. This is starting to get old, and it's high time the US started to put more pressure on him. Not just pressure that US forces will leave if there is little political progress, which is useful to a point, but also maybe we need to start talking partition. Democratic presidential Joe Biden is the only one who has seriously pushed this idea, and there certainly are numerous challenges, but as the alternatives dry, it might be a good option to keep pushing if for no reason that to keep Maliki on his toes.

A few thoughts on partition, by the way. The common response is Turkey would never allow an independent Kurdistan, and the rest of the Iraqis wouldn't accept a breakway republic with most of the oil. Maybe so, but as I see it, Turkey has little leverage in this debate - the US could "accept" a Kurdish offer for permanent bases that would deter any Turkish aggression. The oil is trickier, but is precisely why the US needs to start considering this option more seriously - it sends a message to Shiites and Sunnis that a prolonged stalemate could be the equivalent of singing sayanora to their oil riches.

My Many Cents on the SOTU

So the State of the Union is out, and many have thrown in their opinions on President Bush's performance. Some called it tired, Bob Schieffer thought he'd done a better job than his press conference. So how could someone as opinionated as me not chime in?

I thought Bush didn't do very well, but not just because he appeared deflated. I thought he spent too much time with general cliches and not enough on specifics. Let's start with what he didn't, ...

Iraq

The let-freedom-ring rhetoric is wearing thin. What I thought he should have pointed out, something I heard from an embedded reporter on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer was that the additional troops serve an important function - to date, American troops only patrol hotspots, and the insurgents just wait out the patrols before wrecking havoc. The additional troops would actually help establish bases in the hotspots, a significant function.

To be fair, he did, for the first time, seem to get tough on the Iraqi government, at least verbally, putting them on notice asking them to deliver. I suspect this will not yield much though, since Maliki's butt belongs to the Shiite militias craving Sunni blood, but it's a start. Maliki doesn't want US troops to leave, and we need to start indicating that if he wants to kiss up to Sadr, maybe he'll have to step aside for Sadr when American troops leave.

GRADE: B-

Energy and Climate Change

Bush wants to cut oil consumption by 20% in the next 10 years - fuggadeboutit! Not happening! At present, none of the other technologies will dramatically reduce oil consumption by more than a few percent in the next ten years, as I understand it, and fuel efficiency standards improvements will probably be counterbalanced by greater consumption. Listen, it all comes down to this - now everyone's talking about this issue (don't get me wrong - as a tree-hugger, I love that people are) because of concerns about global warming, but especially because people still remember the high gas prices in the recent past. All the OPEC would need to do is allow low oil prices for a couple of years and people will return to their gas-guzzling ways!

I do think oil will eventually be on the downslide, but not quite yet. The optimists often point to how competitive alternate fuels are (I was in a talk Friday where someone from GE Energy has a similar chart) but these assume record oil prices which are largely driven by speculation. I do think every price spike encourages more money into R&D for alternate fuels, but I think Bush would have done well to detail more specific initiatives to help in the development of alt fuels. For wind power, for example, the greatest deterrant is that most farmers who can build the wind farms are not close enough to the grid to sell their generated power back. Tax and other initiatives in this area would go a lot longer than a wannabe green president.

GRADE: C

Healthcare

I'm with Bush on needing to reform the healthcare system. The tax initiatives are an interesting step, as is his push for Health Savings Accounts. But again, I think his plan to help uninsured is flawed - most of the uninsured pay little by way of income taxes, so tax initiatives are unlikely to spur them to buy insurance. I do think there is a need for a creative solution, and this isn't necessarily it.

GRADE: C

Immigration

Finally a topic where I thought Bush whacked it out of the park. Short but sweet! Securing the borders is nice, but impossible unless we reduce the stress. Allow legal workers and border agents can focus on drug dealers, criminals and terrorists. And by documenting this workers, we can keep track of them. Excellent! I couldn't say much more.

GRADE: A

War on Iran?

One would be justifiably incredulous about suggestions that the US might go to Iran, but when someone of the stature of Ted Koppel suggests his sources in the military suggest this is a possibility, you naturally sit up. Koppel thinks there were indications in a recent Bush speech to point to this, and the deployment of additional strike forces there. Now, the Bush administration surely couldn't be serious. I mean, Iran is a threat, and my personal belief is that Iraq factored into the equation in the first place because of Iran. The plan was once Afghanistan and Iraq become key US allies, a two-pronged ground attack on Iran was now possible. Too bad it can't work! Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are viable bases for a military campaign (and I say this as a supporter of the war!), and the US now has to look to try to redefine its once grand vision.

I must say I'm amazed at all the talk of a military campaign, be it by the US or Israel, given how foolhardy it would be. Now, Israel genuinely has reasons to be concerned with Ahmadinejad's map-altering desires, but a full-blown war would only expose the Israeli people to more hostility. The Mossad is one of the best intel agencies in the world - I would think they would be able to deploy shoes on the ground (as opposed to boots) and take out key facilities with low-level tactical nukes or appropriate bombs. Given the secrecy in Iranian society and the desire for the ruling class not to reveal their embarassment, Iran will probably never admit it had a nuclear facility, let alone one Mossad was able to take out - which is all the better!

Played by the Shiites!

Even before I read this piece by John Burns of the New York Times detailing the execution of the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, I disapproved of the decision to hang him now. Not because I'm a death penalty opponent, and heaven knows if anyone needed to hang, it was Saddam. My objection was he was being hanged for the murder of just over a hundred Shiites, while his trial for the genocide of Kurds, ruled a genocide by The Hague, where Saddam established Holocaust-style concentration camps, using chemical weapons and sarin to exterminate anywhere between 50,000 and 170,000 Kurds was still underway. (More on the Al-Anfal campaign) A central mission in our criminal justice system is to allow victims to testify against the perpetrators, and justice to be delivered. What did the Iraqis achieve by failing to wait a few more months?

As the NY Times piece indicates, it really was all about the Shiites thirst for revenge. President Bush was generous in turning a blind eye, but the events indicate that the Shiites intended to send a message to Sunnis, hanging Saddam on a holy Sunni day, despite American pleas to avoid escalating the situation. But besides the motives, the Iraqis have made choices they never would have because of American protection. After all, when an inflammation in violence would have to be handled by US troops, it is hard to be overly concerned about not bowing to the thugs in your community. And yet, I wonder why the US bent over quite so easily. Not a single international observer at the hanging ... what an outrage!

And yet, despite my disgust with Maliki and his fellow scum, I do not support an American withdrawal. I think the vengence shown towards Saddam is just a preview of what might happen if American troops leave - masses of Shiites eliminating a Sunni population, and reprisal attacks from the Sunnis. I do think more though of another idea I used to oppose, partition of Iraq into independent ethnic countries.

Iraq Moves Towards Civil War

Today's carnage in Iraq, when Shiite mobs torched and killed more than 200 Sunnis in the deadliest day in that country, is a grim preview of what might become all too commonplace if US troops leave. Yes, many Americans want their men and women back; yes, intellectuals argue that the American presence might be inflammatory; yes, Iraq might already be in the midst of a civil war ... but are we really ready to see a large-scale genocide where tens of thousands of Shiites and Sunnis are butchered? And on whose hands would the blood be, given we deposed that crazy tyrant who kept the factions from killing each other. Well, yes, it was the Bush administration and the neocons who pushed for the case, but the US as a nation has a collective responsibility ... and indeed would have an ethical responsibility to prevent genocide if it were to happen.

Much has been talked about Darfur and the crisis there ... some Americans even support the idea of American boots on the ground to prevent the rape and massacre of the local people at the hands of Janjiweed militia. And yet, here in Iraq, we have boots on the ground, and the minute the boots leave, the killing will begin!

Thoughts from Our Nation's Capital

I just returned from spending the weekend with a visiting aunt in Washington, DC. A very enjoyable trip indeed, it also gave me some pause for reflection. Two images in particular stand out in my memory .. and my phone memory too (ha, I did use my phone's camera after all!)


The first image is from the Korean War Veteran's Memorial. I loved the words "defend a country they never knew and a people they never met". People draw comparisons between the present war in Iraq with the failed war in Vietnam, but never consider that American "adventurism" is the reason the South Korean nation is strong and her people enjoy freedoms, unlike their starving brethen across the border. (Just to use per-capita GDP as a comparison, the Southerns' produce about $22,600 versus $1,700 for their communist compatriots)

American adventurism was often ridiculed, and sometimes justifiably, but we should never forget the ethical obligation we have to act to defeat dictators.

The other image that struck me was an exhibit from the Smithsonian Castle. (sorry for the poor image) These are samples of US currency notes (fiat currency as it is called). Why did it strike me? It reminds us that there is nothing sacrosant about the dollar. Indeed, the shells to the bottom right were valid currency at one time, just that they weren't backed by the famous "full faith of the US Treasury". Keep that in mind the next time you hear this nonsense of how the Chinese are fixing their currency, or what the underlying value of the US dollar is. A currency is a promissory note, that's it, nothing more, nothing less (which is why there's a school of thought which believes that money is gold and nothing else, which is interesting until you realize that if the value of a gold coin can fluctuate as significantly as has been the case, the whole store of value argument in a truckload of BS!)

More Troops for Iraq?

The British newspaper, the Guardian reported that the Bush administration planned to increase the troop levels in Iraq, rather than the withdrawal that Democrats and indeed many Americans have been calling for. This truly stunned me, and would probably be about the gutsiest thing Bush has ever done. Would it work? Tough to say. Sen. McCain has been pushing this viewpoint for a while now, but Gen. Abizaid publicly disagreed with the utility of this strategy a few days ago. The best guess is noone knows - just like everything else that has happened in Iraq. It's a strategy even Republicans will be uncomfortable with, and could alternately viewed as an out-of-touch presidency, or a president who doesn't rule by opinion polls like his predecessor.