Perspective is fine, but this is just a numbers exercise without context. One death is too many in a "bad" war; millions may be acceptable in a "good war." I personally feel differently about the deaths of those with whom I served in Vietnam than my father did about those with whom he served in WW2. The American people also felt differently about the deaths in these two wars.
This fellow can talk percentages, ratios and perspective all he wants, but perceptions and attitudes drive our system. If the American people don't think Iraq is worth the deaths, favorable comparisons with other wars won't matter.
Actually that's what John's doing--giving us this war in context with other wars.
When people use combat deaths as reason to suggest that this war is going poorly, or should never have been fought, then it is important that those deaths be put in context, and the context that matters is how this war compares to others.
Thus, context is exactly what you're being given here. Unless your position is that deaths in combat are less tragic in a war YOU agree with than they are in a war YOU disagree with.
Is that what you're saying, LIR? Or are you suggesting that you personally speak for the American people?
Just trying to put your words in their proper context. ;-)
Well put Dean. The figures John of Aaargh has provided speaks volumes of the context of this war in general historical terms and in the American experience. There is a sort of inverstion of priorities that is occuring among the current war's critics who tend to jump towards dramatic conclussions without any consideration historical context at all. I would like to know what exactly constitutes a "bad" war according to the above crticism. Is a "bad" war an unjust war, using the standard set by Grotius, or is it merely a war one chooses to disagree with even if it is a just war?
Perspective is fine, but this is just a numbers exercise without context. One death is too many in a "bad" war; millions may be acceptable in a "good war." I personally feel differently about the deaths of those with whom I served in Vietnam than my father did about those with whom he served in WW2. The American people also felt differently about the deaths in these two wars.
This fellow can talk percentages, ratios and perspective all he wants, but perceptions and attitudes drive our system. If the American people don't think Iraq is worth the deaths, favorable comparisons with other wars won't matter.
Context.
Actually that's what John's doing--giving us this war in context with other wars.
When people use combat deaths as reason to suggest that this war is going poorly, or should never have been fought, then it is important that those deaths be put in context, and the context that matters is how this war compares to others.
Thus, context is exactly what you're being given here. Unless your position is that deaths in combat are less tragic in a war YOU agree with than they are in a war YOU disagree with.
Is that what you're saying, LIR? Or are you suggesting that you personally speak for the American people?
Just trying to put your words in their proper context. ;-)
Well put Dean. The figures John of Aaargh has provided speaks volumes of the context of this war in general historical terms and in the American experience. There is a sort of inverstion of priorities that is occuring among the current war's critics who tend to jump towards dramatic conclussions without any consideration historical context at all. I would like to know what exactly constitutes a "bad" war according to the above crticism. Is a "bad" war an unjust war, using the standard set by Grotius, or is it merely a war one chooses to disagree with even if it is a just war?