A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
Tonight, the AP reported that the number of US military deaths in Iraq had reached 4,200. No doubt, this number will continue to be used by the media and liberals in this country to make some sort of point about the pointlessness of the war. To counter this, allow me to publicize some numbers that I think should make far more headlines from Iraq:
2 Medals of Honor.
14 Distinguished Service Crosses.
393 Silver Stars.
68 Legions of Merit.
99 Distinguished Flying Crosses.
97 Soldier’s Medals.
2008 Bronze Stars for Valor.
608 Air Medals for Valor.
4711 Army Commendation Medals for Valor.
20,000 Purple Hearts.
4,200 of our brave heroes gave their lives for the cause of freedom, protecting our country from future attacks and taking the battle to the enemy. Thousands of others lived to tell the tale and were properly recognized for their bravery. They should be remembered for their sacrifices and not as numbers of dead to be used as pawns in some political game of “I told you so”. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what we’re going to hear this week, I’m afraid.
(18) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
I got a phone call from CapitalCargoCourier@hotmail.com today at 7:48
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
For Rachel Green: I do believe that was a scam. Military men do not n
David M
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 11/17/2008 A short recon of what%u2019s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Fearless
They died so that each of us could sleep in safety in our own beds. That includes the deluded libersl windbags!
Donna
I Thank all of our troops whether they gave their lives fighting for our freedoms or they are still serving this great country! You guys are gals are the best!
sue
Ya, the numbers are impressive but what has the media done to show their appreciation for their sacrifice. It’s not like they have shown any support for the Soldiers. The MSM would rather chew toenails than put out a positive story, only use the number as a shocker. Let us all remember how They Have Names got its start. God Bless our Fallen Heroes, their families and all our Heroes still in harms way, along with their families waiting back home.
Mickey
sue, Amen
Sunni
Amen, CJ!
Old Part Timer
Thanks!
I gave up on the broadcast coverage of the war a long time ago (as under the First Amendment I have the right to ignore whatever I want at my own peril), checking the websites daily instead.
It is great to get honest perspective rather than the “All doom all the time” that’s shown on TV.
Donna
Please excuse my typo! I meant to say “You guys and gals are the best!!
JD
“4,200 of our brave heroes gave their lives for the cause of freedom, protecting our country from future attacks and taking the battle to the enemy.” Not in Iraq they didn’t.
CJ
“Not in Iraq they didn’t.” In Iraq, yes they did. We can go back and forth like this all day long, JD.
JD
I’ve seen the injured, I’ve heard the generals, and I’ve seen the injured. There is absolutely NOTHING we are doing in Iraq “for the cause of freedom, protecting our country from future attacks and taking the battle to the enemy.” Stop the propaganda.
CJ
So, because people were injured, it can’t possibly be freedom they’re are fighting for or our country? Tell that to those who fought the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc. I’ve never seen a war where people weren’t injured. Next argument.
Doug
“Protecting our country from future attacks.” Hmm..that would seem to imply there was a past attack on us. From that country.
Doug
If you want to fight for our freedom, CJ, where was your post on the President’s assertion that he has the right to detain anyone (including citizens, a la Jose Padilla) indefinitely without a trial? What about the wiretaps without a warrant? You’re awfully quiet when it comes to actual infringements on our freedoms. How did Saddam threaten our freedom in the first place? At best you could assert that our soldiers died “creating a democratic state in the Middle East” or “getting rid of a bad man” or some such twaddle.
CJ
“that would seem to imply there was a past attack on us. From that country.” No implication, Doug. There WERE attacks on us from that country.
Doug, Bush was wrong on Jose Padilla, but guess what? I wasn’t blogging then. Where are YOUR posts on the topic? But he was also found guilty when he was eventually transferred to a civilian prison, so…
I can’t speak about “warrantless wiretaps” due to my personal knowledge and experience with the program – which is NOTHING like you think it is. I support the program as we use it regardless of what you think (because you have it wrong).
As for Saddam, Bush enforced resolutions and defended our national policy, which has been around for years, of regime change. Saddam was a threat to the United States, its interests, and the Middle East at large. Even your own liberal writer Paul Berman, said in his book Power and the Idealists that “the government in Baghdad was the most actively and violently anti-American government anywhere in the world…Saddam had made an ideological fetish of his weapons of mass destruction, which left open the possibility that he might use them someday, as he had already done against his own citizens” and the citizens of Iran.
Our Soldiers created freedom by removing the threat that was always that Saddam would develop or acquire WMD, particularly nuclear weapons, and that he would use them to dominate the Gulf and threaten the stability of the region and its resources.
Doug
Saddam attacked us? I must have slept through it, please name the time and place this occurred. Not some Laura Myrolie fantasy about the 93 WTC bombing, either. Now, I happen to think his invading a sovereign country and threatening the world%u2019s oil supplies was a pretty good reason to go to war against him %u2013 but he did not directly attack us. What have ya got in the last decade or so?
Oh, but there was the possibility he might use something (he didn%u2019t have) or develop or acquire nukes, as if enrichment wasn%u2019t a major industrial undertaking impossible to hide under scrutiny, or as if you could pick up U-235 at Costco. That ship sailed six years ago. Saddam%u2019s not the only one with an %u201Cideological fetish%u201D.
I post plenty, when I have something to say. I used to correspond with (harass?) an officer who goes by %u201CMidnight%u201D. I%u2019m always up for a reasoned debate, a no among the yes comments.
So you%u2019re OK with locking up citizens (or anyone) without trial?
CJ
September 11, 1996 – Saddam fires missiles at US warplanes in the no-fly zone
December 29, 1998 – Saddam fires surface to air missiles at US warplanes in the no-fly zone
May 16, 2000 – Saddam fires surface to air missiles at US warplanes in the no-fly zone.
February 17, 2001 – Saddam fires anti-aircraft guns at American planes patrolling the no-fly zone.
June 20, 2001 – Saddam fired surface to air missiles at US warplanes in the no-fly zone
I could literally just keep adding dates to this if you’re not mentally able to do the research yourself. Add to this the fact that Saddam never turned over the remains of Scott Speicher who was shot down in 1991.
Additionally, I said that I’m NOT okay with locking up American citizens without trial. I thought that my “Bush was wrong” was simple enough to understand. Let me try to clear it up: Bush was wrong. Hope that helps. I do NOT think it is wrong to lock up battlefield combatants because they are subject to the laws of war, which do not require trials. You can’t apply US trial law with a combat environment. That’s why we have the Geneva Conventions.
As for WMD evidence, did you bother to read the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report in 2004? Probably not. Listen to this:
“Although Iraq no longer had a large scale BW (biological weapon) production capability after 1996, Iraq did retain an inherent dual-use BW capability. Iraq retained BW know-how through scientists who were involved in the pre-1991 BW program, as well as civilian facilities and equipment that could be bent to a BW program. Iraq also retained some BW-related seed stocks until after Operation Iraqi Freedom; and conducted BW-applicable research after 1996, but the ISG judged that the research was not conducted for the purposes of a BW program.”
The 2002 NIE estimated that Iraq would have a nuclear weapon within one year after it acquired fissile material abroad and in 4-7 years if it manufactured its own. The New York Times Magazine even reported in May 2002 that “the world is awash in [nuclear materials]“, including 1,300 to 2,100 metric tons of weapons grade uranium that was unprotected – “enough for 26,000 rough-hewed bombs” the report concluded.
Doug
Not bad, not bad. Although a few failed potshots are hardly sufficient reason. Ironically, the only Allied aircraft shot down in the no-fly zone were taken out by our own F-15s. And no evidence ever emerged that Scott Speicher was ever held by the Iraqis (the DNA from the prison cell with his initials did not match).
As for BW, every country with a strong chemical industry has the “capability” to brew or make chem/bio. The seed stocks were known to and approved by the UN authority. I don’t know how you erase the knowledge of the weapons scientists, but you can monitor for an active program. No evidence of post 1998 banned activities ever emerged.
I further might remind you who produced the NIE (hint: “slam dunk”) , and the caveats and dissents from the DOE that were left out of the unclassified summary. There is no evidence of Iraq ever seeking uranium or conducting any banned nuclear activities.