Skip to main content

When Iraq Passes 9/11

As of today, the United States has lost 2816 soldiers in Iraq. According to Wikipedia, 2973 people (excluding the hijackers) died as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks. This excludes the 19 hijackers and twenty-four listed as missing.

So. Not to get too grim and all, but we're 157 deaths away from the Iraq war costing more American military lives than the total of confirmed non-hijacker lives lost as a result of the 9/11 attacks. When will Iraq pass 9/11? Over the last six months, U.S. forces lost an average of 68-69 soldiers per month. If trends continue -- and they're getting worse -- the date of passing will occur sometime near the beginning of 2007. In real terms, of course, we're long past that bitter milestone. 9/11, after all, was an international tragedy, with victims from dozens of countries (it was the World Trade Center, after all); by comparison, total coalition deaths today number 3055. And military deaths are just the beginning: hundreds of contractors have died and close to 45,000 military personnel have been injured. Don't even get me started on the Iraqi victims of our arrogance and stupidity; finally a U.S. diplomat is honest, only he has to apologize later.

The Iraq war was an American invention, a product of particularly American hubris. And we remember our own victims before we remember others. (This is a common human trait.) So it seems worthwhile to mark the date when Iraq passes 9/11 in this one measure. The numbers tell the story of our failure more powerfully than argument can. Shouldn't we mark it somehow -- a national day of contrition, perhaps?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who else can't speak for himself? Hermagoras, that's who. Because UD won't let him.

Welcome, Uncommon Descent members ! For the record, I don't ban users or arguments (I will delete threats and suchlike.) As long as you're here, you might check out the reality behind ICON-RIDS (if you haven't heard about this before). A letter to GilDodgen, responding to this : I, Hermagoras, am banned at Uncommon Descent but apparently still discussion-worthy. Indeed, a whole post devoted to refuting someone (me) who is not allowed to respond. You guys are certainly committed to fair debate! I was trying to make a fairly simple point, which I would have thought IDers agree with: that all observations and all "facts" are theory-laden. It's simple enough. I elaborated it in a post which Dembski apparently thought was off-topic and led him [to] ban me in precisely the terms I previously discussed on my blog . Hilarious. Then continued discussion (again I can't respond) about how I'm trying to be the clever one . Nothing in my banned posts

Radical misreading: Kairosfocus on Saul Alinsky

Just a brief note to respond to kairosfocus, who claims regarding Saul Alinsky: For those who came in late, Alinsky was a neo-marxist radical who saw cultural and community subversion as the means of communist revolution. I cut my critical thinking eye-teeth on Communists, messianistic charismatic pols and cultists, and have wariness about all three. (All quotes in bold are emphasis added.) Truth be told, kairosfocus couldn't tell a Communist from a hole in the ground. He links to a passage in his bloviating web page on "selective hyperskepticism" as follows: His premise for resorting to ruthless radicalism -- as stated in his key work, the 1971 Rules for Radicals [RFR] was that: " A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of

Scott Simon and NPR hate poetry

On NPR's Weekend Edition this morning, Scott Simon delivers a commentary about the recent exposure of gang-banger "memoir" Love and Consequences by Margaret Jones (actually Margaret Seltzer). Simon observes that "the book is a fraud, but Ms. Seltzer came within hours of of being on NPR." Wrong . In fact, Jones/Seltzer did make it onto NPR's syndicated show "On Point," and the show followed with an hour-long, hand-wringing examination of how they got punked in the first place. But that minor error is nothing compared to what happens next. Simon quotes Seltzer making up some bullshit about her life and observes (my transcript of the online audio): Now if some Brooklyn or London novelist had written a story set among drug gangs and uttered those words, people might have dismissed them as pretentious nonsense. Put those sentences into a so-called memoir, people call it "gritty and real," or "raw, tender, and tough-minded,&q