Bitter pill for the body bean counters

The media’s focus consistently has been on the number of American casualties. Since we’re Americans, and every American death is a tragedy, this is relevant and important information. However, since we’re in a war, it’s useful to know what hits the enemy has been taking. Here, the media has been much less helpful, ignoring those numbers or folding them into civilian deaths — which is always going to be a problem with a Non-Governmental Army which fights without a uniform. It must be bitter gall for the anti-War body counters that Al Qaeda itself admits that it has taken huge hits in Iraq:

The new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq said in an audio message posted on a Web site Thursday that more than 4,000 foreign insurgent fighters have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. It was believed to be the first major statement from insurgents in Iraq about their losses.

“The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight,” said the man, who identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir – also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri – the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The voice could not be independently identified.

The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

These hits aren’t even Al Qaeda regulars — it’s the foreign volunteers.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Don Quixote

    Two thoughts. 1) the 4,000 is a boast; they came to die, by suicide if possible. 2) the media regularly reported America estimates of opposition casualties in Vietnam, only to find they were grossly inflated. It is no wonder they are hesitant to do such reporting now.

  • Ymarsakar

    20k for jihadii deaths, is more like it. The 4k is a downplay, 2k would be too obvious as that is about the same as American deaths, and a little bit lower. 4k is reasonable, gives a sense of imminent defeat that allows them to recruit more desperate sex starved youths, or something like that. 4k isn’t such a huge hit, it does not dent terrorist reserves, depending upon population. Which is why they admitted it. They want to appear like the underdog, so any children they slaughter they can justify it as “blowback” or “biteback” or “counter-attacks” or whatever their propaganda apparatus deems fit to print. Hrm, fit to print, sounds familiar for some reason. Oh well.

    For every American that dies, 10 to 15 jihadii goes to heaven.

    20k is a logical and conservative measure of total enemy terrorist deaths. Probably not even counting the Shia revolutionaries backed by Iran, hezbollah folks.

    It’s not the media that are hesitant to report enemy casualties lest they find them to be grossly inflated. That never bothered Dan Rather, and it didn’t bother anyone else of the fake and accurate journalism school. Don Quixote gives the media that he views, too much credit for reason.

    The military is defacto the party that refuses to release enemy casualties, at least total ones. Even if the military did, nobody would care except the war bloggers and Jacksonians. Since the media is not for Jacksonian or military viewers… let’s just say that that is not their priority.

    You would think that a military that is hesitant to focus on the enemy casualties, would be more adequate at bookkeeping enemy casualties given that it is free from the media spotlight. You would think that all those Calculus programs used in their logistics number crunching computer systems, would be able to come up with a simple death to kill effective ratio. And you would be right. Calculus is not something just for the engineers, the military bean counters use it for their planning and setup programs. You think calculus and advanced number crunching would have trouble tallying 4k to 40k terrorist deaths in a nation that Americans have free transportation in?

    This ain’t the jungles people, Al Anbar is a desert, and the cities have morgues. Bodies don’t just disappear into the secure enemy Northern zone. Especially after the Marines cleared our Fallujah. I’m sorry, but Allah isn’t coming in with his divine rage avatar to clean up the bodies of his followers.

    Let’s be clear here. The media does not refuse to report the tallies because “they are worried about being wrong”, the media does not report the tallies because anything having to do with context in Iraq must be ignored. Just like the article Don Quixote linked to as his initial barrage into Iraq is undefeatable, the media must preset certain delineations so as to obfuscate the issue. They cannot do so if they tell both sides of the story, so they don’t, they refuse to. They misinterpret polls and intel analyists, they even misinterpret casualties in Iraq, to include training deaths amazingly enough. If training deaths and accidents bring the number to the magical 2k number, then the media were quite eager to use it and they did. It’s fake, but it will be accurate in a few months won’t it, given that American deaths will eventually supercede 2k, right?

    The propaganda tricks of the media, are amateurish. They do not fool me, not in the least. One reason they don’t fool me is because I see to the heart of their motivations. When they say that they are “hesitant” to report something because it might be wrong, do you truely believe I am guillible enough to believe in that motivation given what I have seen? Not in the least will I believe; their actions belie their claims of morality and ethics. Freedom fighters, after all, care more for people’s freedom than people’s obedience. Claims of moral self-righteousness and the moral high ground, can be proven or disproven. I need not believe just because people have said their side is on the right.

  • Ymarsakar

    Because the political leadership and the SecDef in Vietnam wanted an attrition war, they focused their formidable political powers to influence a high enemy casualty list.

    This is based upon the belief that if enough people are killed, then they will be defeated. The media applies this belief quite well, you know, but for the other side. Obviously they would not want anything to do with Vietnam era politics, not because they were corrupt, but because they were designed to help the Vietnamese and American people. Can’t have that, now can we.