newlogo.jpg
June 20, 2003
Militarily Insignificant
Tearful U.S. troops mourned a slain comrade in Baghdad on Friday, hours after a grenade attack set two vehicles ablaze in the latest assault on U.S. forces struggling to control postwar Iraq.

Some wept as they remembered the 25-year-old soldier, whose helmet hung over his rifle, wedged upright into sandbags with his boots and name tags. His platoon sergeant, Dennis Duell, knelt alone by the pile of mementos after the service.


I will never downplay Americans being killed in combat . . . But from a military perspective, it is insignificant.

Major General Ray Odierno
Press Conference
June 18, 2003

There's going to be violence in a big city.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Conference
June 18, 2003


Posted by billmon at June 20, 2003 11:05 AM
Comments

In WWII one guy getting killed was not "significant."

In Vietnam, one guy getting killed was not "significant."

Why? Because dozens and hundreds were dying daily. We expected deaths.

We now apparently expect deaths daily again. Will Dubya fly onto an aircraft carrier to announce resumption of combat operations?

sgc

Posted by: Stephen Charest at June 20, 2003 11:49 AM

It's best when Republicans rhetorically indict themselves.

Posted by: MattS at June 20, 2003 02:37 PM

It's shameful. Rummy didn't care about Iraqi lives, that was clear. Now it's clear he doesn't care about Americans either.

Posted by: Marc at June 20, 2003 02:43 PM

I'd like to see these guys try to explain to them why this death isn 't significant.

"During the war in Iraq, the Army's 3rd Infantry took more casualties than any other military division. Now, with the heavy combat all but over, many wives angrily say their battle-weary husbands need to come home."

Posted by: pessimist at June 20, 2003 02:47 PM

Via Pandagon, we get this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13087653_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-US%2DTROOPS%2DADMIT%2DSHOOTING%2DIRAQI%2DCIVILIANS-name_page.html

on killing Iraqis:
"
...Specialist Corporal Michael Richardson added: "There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in uniform, I just pulled the trigger.

"It was up close and personal the whole time, there wasn't a big distance. If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren't."

"There's a picture of the World Trade Centre hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my flak jacket. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."
"
(emphasis mine)

Even the reality that Iraqis weren't on the 9/11 planes is militarily "insignificant" to some.

Posted by: ChrisL at June 20, 2003 03:55 PM

There's a picture of the World Trade Centre hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my flak jacket. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback."

Well you know -- a wog is a wog is a wog.

The sick/funny part is that these are the same guys who are supposed to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis for us.

Posted by: Billmon at June 20, 2003 04:26 PM

The military has always had its share of psychopaths.

But please don't tar all of them as Lt. Calley's or cpl richardson. This stuff happens because their commanding officers and SNCO's either condone it or let the troops behave anyway they please and fail to reign them in.

The fault is theirs, they failed in their duties.
If we start labeling all our troops as 'baby killers' this will backfire on the anti-war movement in ways you can't imagine.

Hold the officers responsible.

Posted by: Rodger at June 20, 2003 08:02 PM