Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
Following his promise to veto funding for the occupation of Iraq, President Bush sent the Iraq supplemental back to the Hill. While majorities of citizens and members of Congress increasingly feel that the continued presence of the United States makes no sense, the President expressed other concerns. After vetoing the bill, he explained "It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."
Which, I suppose, is why we'll never, ever leave.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi government, the one which the president insists will stand up so our soldiers can stand down, is taking a vacation. So long as they know we'll stay there, taking bullets and bombs on their behalf, they seem only too happy to let our government take the heat for their failures, rather than shouldering the responsibility themselves. Setting benchmarks and staying only so long as the Iraqis hold up their end of the bargain seems like the only way to move forward, and it's a shame that the President is holding our troops hostage rather than acknowledging that simple fact.
Here's another simple set of facts to consider.
It works out to right around twenty wounded soldiers per day over the last few months, and apparently that rate is still rising.
Comments
It looks as though the rate has been consistently falling for much of the last six months. Interesting. Perhaps the surge is working after all...
Posted by: Hmm | May 1, 2007 8:13 PM
Dear Mr. Hmm:
Maybe the wounded rate is 'consistently' going down with the surge because the killed rate is 'consistently' going up.
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/
You can take your surge and pound it.
Posted by: un-hmm | May 1, 2007 9:15 PM
Well, you gotta realize, that people’s lives don't mean much to our leaders. What is 3k-4k troops killed to them? Just look at Vietnam. Lies were exposed, people demonstrated, the war and casualties went on and on. And what's worse, many people will tell you today, that it was worth it, the domino effect was stopped. This war won’t be any different.
Posted by: Dan | May 1, 2007 10:33 PM
I gotta differ with ya on this one, not because I support the war, but because Congress screwed up. For Congress to dictate specifics of how the war is to be fought in a bill (for example, dictating rules of engagement for after the withdrawal begins) is at least arguably an un-Constitutional overreach on its part into the President's role as Commander-in-Chief. No President would be willing to allow such a precedent to be set, and I'd bet that pretty much any President would either veto a bill containing such provisions or go to court to have the parts telling him how to wage the war declared un-Constitutional. Even if Congress were found to be within its powers to put such conditions in a military appropriations bill, any President would have challenged it somehow, either by veto or in court. (Actually, the whole question would make a fascinating Supreme Court case).
In reality, even though I am opposed to the war, I see it differently. Congress didn't have the courage of its convictions just to cut off the funding for the war (not that I'm advocating that; that would be even more disastrous than what it did). Instead they passed a feelgood measure that they know would provoke a veto just to make a political point. Now both parties will go back to the backrooms to negotiate some sort of compromise. Just you watch.
Personally, I see both the President AND Congress holding the troops hostage.
Posted by: Orac | May 1, 2007 11:27 PM
To the first two commenters: The icasualties data (which is what that graph is drawn from) only gives monthly casualties through March, so there isn't enough data to try to infer anything about the recent escalation. While there has been a general decline over six of the last seven months, it isn't outside the natural monthly variation, not a significant deviation from the UPWARD trend.
Orac: I don't think Congress is dictating specifics. Congress has the Constitutional power to "make rules for the government of land and naval forces," and for "governing such parts of [state militias] as may be employed in the service of the United States." I don't think they've gone beyond those Constitutionally granted powers. I'd also think that the Congressional power to declare war must be matched with some power to regulate the broad outlines of that war. Not to manage the details on the ground, certainly, but to make rules for how troops may be used given the nation's needs.
I think you're right that there will be some sort of compromise – this bill already represented a compromise between people who wanted to fund only a withdrawal, and those who wanted no strings at all. The number of people advocating a simple defunding is vanishingly small, in part because that would punish soldiers for their Commander's intransigence and incompetence. The last Congress allocated funds to send lots of troops to Iraq, so even if Congress pulled the plug, the danger would exist that the President could repeat Teddy Roosevelt's brinksmanship over the Great White Fleet tour around the world:
That's what "holding the troops hostage" really looks like. Congress allocated the funds, the President refused them unless Congress gave in to his demands. I have trouble seeing how Congress is in the wrong here, politically, legally, or ethically.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | May 2, 2007 12:20 PM
"While there has been a general decline over six of the last seven months, it isn't outside the natural monthly variation"
So it's been going down for the last six months and you don't call that progress? I know you may not be pleased at such a turn of events, as it doesn't support your anti-war, anti-Bush agenda, but for the sake of the troops, call it like it is. Don't try and spin this one in favor of the Left, ignoring the sacrifice and progress of our soldiers in the process.
Posted by: Progress_is_good | May 3, 2007 7:38 PM
I'm saying that a decline for six of the last 9 months (NOT "the last six months", the data doesn't cover April or May and November 2006 is not part of the trend), with none of the variation outside the internal variability of the data, is not evidence of anything beyond random chance.
I think the soldiers in the field care a lot more about rising fatality rates than blog commentary on the long term trends in casualty rates. Pretending that this discussion hurts them is an insult to the actual sacrifice they are making.
The question is what the sacrifice is meant to achieve. Sacrifice implies that there is some benefit to be gained, and I don't see it. All I see are dead and wounded soldiers, dead and wounded civilians and an Iraq that is descending into civil war. Progress would be good, but civil war isn't progress, it's failure. Losing thousands of soldiers to fatalities and casualties isn't progress either.
Where's the progress? Wishing doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | May 3, 2007 8:48 PM