Five years.
Four thousand American lives.
$505 billion (and counting).
30,000 Americans wounded (military personnel only, no numbers for U.S. contractors).
Approximately 100,000 Iraqis killed.
4 million Iraqis displaced.
These figures, in my opinion, understate the cost of the Iraqi war and occupation. What it will cost to continue to treat the physical and mental wounds for returning vets is hard to estimate. And of course the financial cost is all going on the credit card. Thanks, kids.
Almost exactly three years ago on this blog, I noted that an American general, when asked about the war, said, “Yes, we’re winning. And we’ve been winning for some time.”
Three years later, I guess we’re still winning. And it still looks like a horrific waste to me.
2 comments:
Izzy,
Don't those numbers paint an awful picture of war? It's always horrific, always shocking and always exemplifies mankind at its worst. In reflecting on them, I am wondering how many deaths could have been averted if past leaders of our country had acted sooner. Bush 41 had the opportunity to take out Saddam in the Gulf War. The Afghanistan war, which has its own horrific death toll mounting, could have been averted by Bill Clinton acting to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. The real shame of war in the modern era is that it is no longer a battle between "good" and "evil." It is not about "us" and "them." More often than not, all war is political theater. We are not so much trying to win something as we are to prove our point and exert our will. War is always immoral, but somehow, this element makes it even worse.
Well, just to nitpick a little, Clinton did try to take out bin Laden. He didn't succeed, but he did try.
We have a whole history of meddling in the Middle East that I could into at length, but that's a long road. I would argue that if our former leaders had acted *less* rather than more, the world might be in better shape.
But that's too big a discussion for me to take on right now. Thanks for the comment, though.
Post a Comment