A little perspective on the “grim milestone” watch
Bookworm on Mar 24 2008 at 11:02 am | Filed under: Iraq, Media matters, Military
If nothing else proves that most MSM journalists are hacks, it’s their inability to break free from the phrase “grim milestone” whenever they talk about a new reportable number of American deaths in Iraq. They’ve taken a phrase that should give a sense of tragedy and, instead, turned it into something so hackneyed it’s almost laughable. Just to make my point, here’s the LA Times, reprinted in the SF Chron, with the latest iteration of that expression (see paragraph 2). A Google search will lead you to more than 92,000 other articles in which grim milestones rear their ugly heads.
I had this particular grim milestone put into perspective for me by my 8 year old today, someone who is fascinated (and always has been) by war and the military. I forget how it came up, but the conversation, as it so often does with him, turned to war. He said something and my response was “Honey, war is dangerous. You can’t have a war without people dying.” His next question was inevitable: “How many people have died in Iraq?” I told him that lots of people have died, including 4,000 American troops. After we clarified that my reference to troops meant 4,000 individual deaths, and not the wiping out of 4,000 battalions, he commented, “Is that all?” “Yes,” I said, “that’s all.” I began to remind him that each death was an individual tragedy, a loss for mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. . . . He cut me off: “I know that, but 4,000 is a really small number compared to other wars. Millions died in World War II. Four thousand is nothing. I’m really sad they died, but that’s not a big number for a war.”
I didn’t let the conversation stop there, explaining to him that there are still lots of people wounded — seriously and permanently — but that modern medicine is one of the reasons our troops have such a high survival rate. He appreciated that and, bless his little 8 year old heart, showed appropriate sympathy for the men and women who come home hurt. Still, I think he had a point and exhibited some good perspective based upon his fairly accurate historic knowledge. (Did I mention that he’s interested in warfare?)
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
11 Responses to “A little perspective on the “grim milestone” watch”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
True, that is more than the total number of American dead from the Spanish American War (est. 3,500 – see http://www.spanamwar.com/casualties.htm), but then look at how much has been accomplished:
1) Two viciously anti-American dictatorships and breeding grounds for global terrorism kaput, 2) Iran surrounded
3) A new model for pluralistic Middle East government in its nascent stages and showing clear progress.
4) World petroleum pipelines are probably safer than at any time during the past 15 years.
5) A a clear and tangible warning of severe consequences made to any other would-be terrorists that might mistakenly believe us to be a “weak horse”.
6) Best of all, a severe drop-off in Al Qaeda’s reputation among Muslims – not only in Iraq (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/30289.html) but throughout the Muslim world (http://www.twocircles.net/2008feb26/politics_not_piety_dictate_radicals_muslim_world_poll.html.
7. Our military has developed some very nifty and advanced counter-insurgency technologies and tactics that should serve us well for the 21st Century.
But, of course, while we’ve undeniably paid a very heavy price (with all due respect) in destroyed and damaged lives of our brave soldiers, we’ve also had to pay a heavy political price:
For example,
1) The Democrats have shown themselves to be particularly craven, underhanded, disloyal (in some cases) and whiny losers. (So, now we know: they are the “French” party).
2) Most Europeans don’t like us very much, especially because we embarrassed them (so, cry me a river).
By the way, Book, has your son been talking to our friend Ymarsaker?
If nothing else proves that most MSM journalists are hacks, it’s their inability to break free from the phrase “grim milestone” whenever they talk about a new reportable number of American deaths in Iraq.
It is just a self-hypnosis action, repeated so that sooner or later you will convince yourself of what you are saying.
(Did I mention that he’s interested in warfare?)
Hook him up with Legends of the Galactic Heroes if he is so interested in warfare.
link
This is an old anime which was never licensed in the United States. Or at least I didn’t see it listed on NetFlix. Because it is old, you should download it before the torrent dries up. The only reason why it still has people seeding is because for many people that watch it, they fall in love with it because it is a masterpiece.
Download instructions in the link.
I didn’t let the conversation stop there, explaining to him that there are still lots of people wounded — seriously and permanently — but that modern medicine is one of the reasons our troops have such a high survival rate.
LOGH explains the cost of war quite well. In fact, the initial theme is anti-war in nature. You should watch it in order to screen it for him, Book.
That way, you two can have something to talk about relating to tactics and strategy in war, based upon a common source. Given that I doubt Mr. Bookworm is very much interested in military history.
LOGH is only ever special if the audience already has a view of military history to place the story events into context. A modern peace activist would find nothing of interest in the anime, except perhaps that its theme of anti-war supports their anti-war position. Which, I guarantee you, is not the case.
For example, if Bush truly was as corrupt and power hungry as the Clintons, then people might have a point about protesting the war. But so far, the only reason they are doing so is not because they believe Bush is negating the best interests of the nation with unnecessary wars, but because they believe they can get something of a personal benefit in opposing Bush or the war. And that, reverses the historic context of corrupt leaders running a Short and Victorious War for political gain given that it is flipped. The corrupt traitors are not the leaders of this nation, but the ones opposing its elected leaders. Or shall we say, some of our elected leaders.
The special trait of the Democrat party is that it can get recruits for its ideology only by appealing to self-interest and people who want government benefits and bribes for votes. It is not a matter of patriotism or self-sacrifice or working for the greater good, as Iraq when it was invaded by Bush.
Historical contexts are just that, it happened during a certain time under a certain type of ruler and socio-economic system. When in today’s world, that socio-economic system is different and so are the rulers, then there is no “historic context” that people can pull up about “grim milestones”. The only grim milestones are the ones people are making up as they go along.
For those interested in a comparative history, they might be interested in my piece about Rome’s war with Carthage.
Link
Rome lost a rather large percentage of their available military manpower at Cannae. It didn’t stop them, though. What for most other nations would have constituted a disastrous loss, culminating in a surrender, was rejected by Rome. Rome’s tenaciousness and indomitable desire for victory was what, ultimately, separated Rome and its destiny from Carthage’s destiny.
Many people, in and out of America, believe America’s success in war and in economy were based upon exploitation, luck, or just the “big bully approach”. Those with a more historical perspective understand that there have been plenty of people with luck, bully personalities, and the desire to exploit others, that have never lasted as long as America nor have had America’s long string of successes.
America started as 13 Colonies and then grew to 50 States, which to anyone else would look like an empire composed of 50 sovereign nations. The fact that no new states were being admitted, is not because of a lack of American power, but because America did not wish to expand beyond her present borders.
If America’s long ago ancestors had lacked a certain type of indomitable will and desire for victory, there would be no America today. Or at least there would be two Americas, the Union in the North and the slave owning Southerners in the south. And that, as they say, would have changed the rest of the historical timeline by quite a bit.
All you have to do is to look at Kosovo and Europe for what happens when nations become divided. War and cruelty never stops in those regions. It doesn’t even get abated as it does here in America.
That’s the difference concerning Iraq. Some in America still have this burning desire to win and uphold the traditions of their nation. When that fire burns out, as it once did for the Roman Empire, so will America burn out as well. It doesn’t matter how rich a people are or how large their army is on paper. If they have no will, if they have no desire to sacrifice for the long term good of their nation, then their nation will end when a stronger enemy arises.
Certainly lack of economic welfare can accelerate the decline of a nation, like what happened with Germany, but that was only because Germany already lost to England and France. Which is a good warning, in a way, to never lose to the French or British. America has done quite well by this rule of thumb.
Rome only had about 100,000 citizens around the 2nd Punic War, according to Roman censuses. They lost around 80 thousand Roman and allied city-state soldiers. In those days, only a Roman citizen could join a consular legion. Even if you account for the fact that the Roman forces had 50% of itself composed of allies, that is still 40,000 in a time and day when population was very very small compared to today’s world.
So why is the media so successful convincing Americans that Iraq is grime because we are losing men and women? Because the media cheats. Also the media doesn’t have a very hard job, given how weak and flabby most Americans are when it comes to war, killing, death, and violence.
Peace, prosperity, and money has its costs, you know. Carthage had money, which created an unwillingness in its citizen body to fight their wars. Why fight your own wars when you can pay somebody else to do it for you?
Carthage got killed by Rome, not because Rome had a drafted force, but because Rome would never give up. Even before Cannae, they lost a couple of legions to Barca. After Cannae, they still lost soldiers, if not battles. But Rome would never give up. So long as there are Americans that won’t give up, America will stay viable in the history books.
Get used to losing wars, like the loss in VIetnam: get comfortable with “defeat” and you will end up like the French, the Carthaginians, and the people the Islamic Caliphate conquered before 1000 AD.
The first figures are for the Battle of Cannae, which I forgot to mention.
If you haven’t discovered this site as a source, you might want to check it out for your son. Occasionally some of the linked blogs/articles need to be adult censored, but it’s a bit of real life. I assume you’re already familiar with Michael Yon’s work? Very exciting reading for an 8 yr old, I’d think.
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/
That’s an idea. It might make him a bit more of a reader, too. He’s a perfectly capable reader — indeed, he’s on top of the grade appropriate curve — but it gives him no pleasure, which is sad.
but it gives him no pleasure, which is sad.
So what does he read about concerning military history or warfare?
Btw, anyone that gets hooked on anime will tend to be reading subtitles. And anyone interested in warfare will also be chewing up the notable battles and events, such as accounts of Thermopylae, Gates of Fire, Anabasis, etc.
BW,
If your son continues to be interested in warfare (mainly the study thereof) I can make a recommendation that may help him get perspective. There are several tactical combat games that are worthwhile from a basic military point of view. In ground warfare the standard is Advanced Squad Leader (ASL); for naval/air conflict in the modern age there is nothing that compares to Harpoon (any version – I use 4th edition). To get a feel for historic warfare (and the horrific casualties involved) any of the Napoleonic- or Duke of Marlboro- era games can illustrate how easy it was for armies of that age to lose 40% or more of their troops. There are possibly a dozen good games, including Gettysburg, that bring the American Civil War into perspective.
Feed his interest and don’t fear where it leads. I would encourage you to keep him in school – the road for a degree-holder in the officers’ corps is much easier than the enlisted side. And we (my own Intelligence Corps) can use all the bright minds we can acquire. When we get good people those numbers stay historically low.
On a side note, we were laughing in the office the other day about the statistics and how they don’t always mean what people want them to mean. The average deaths per thousand persons for deployed soldiers in OIF/OEF is lower than the stateside average deaths per thousand for civilians of the same age, across the gender, racial, and economic divides. And since I’m the suicide prevention guy for my task force, I just got an update that shows us at about 60% of the national average by age group.
“Grim milestones” were found on D-Day, the Chosin Resevoir, El Alamein, and the Bulge. Milestones mean progress – I’d be more worried if we were standing still.
Back to the work of keeping a “safe and secure environment” in the world’s newest nation-state (at least according to the locals).
SGT Dave – “Violence is the last option mainly because you don’t need another option after using it…”
for naval/air conflict in the modern age there is nothing that compares to Harpoon (any version – I use 4th edition).
I played a submarine simulation game. Called Silent Hunter 4 (had to look that up). My C++ programer instructor was former Navy, involved in analogue computer solutions for the tracking systems of pre-transistor age turrets I believe.
The details I mentioned about the game was very familiar to him and he recounted many experiences along those lines. I was surprised that anyone in academia would know such things about military history, and on some levels I didn’t expect Silent Hunter 4 to be so historically realistic. His stories prompted me to investigate the failures of torpedo detonation systems in WWII. He didn’t serve in WWII, but I suppose the stories about frack ups are rampant in the navy more so than in civilian life.
There was quite a lot of work and preparation involved in making a strike against enemy commercial shipping, which was what submarines did back in as a primary mission role.
For a diesel submarine, you could only travel underwater and undetected (by planes) for only so long before you have to surface for air and to recharge your electric generator. That’s right, the submarine could not use its diesel engine for power underwater because it didn’t to vent some waste gases outside. The diesel engines charged up electric batteries which were used underwater. While you could make something like 7 knots on the surface, your submerged speed were really low. What this meant is that you had to travel the hundreds of miles in clear view of planes and visual sightings, only submerging when the enemy has been located via sonar or visual sightings.
Then you had to get into range of the merchantmen using only periscope and sonar. You couldn’t use the periscope up close because they would see it. So you mostly relied upon sonar to listen for the movements and directions of the merchant. Once you got his direction down and plotted an intercept course for your torpedo, you programmed it into the torpedo and launched it. You launched it after confirming the silhouette of the ship you are seeing, in order to tell the torpedo how close to the surface it should travel. Too high and you can see the wake of the torpedo engines. Too low and you might miss the keel of a ship by passing underneath it. Destroyers and merchantmen had different displacement figures. Also the water depth was important if you wanted the torpedo to detonate magnetically underneathe the keel, which would break the keel in two with one torpedo.
It had the option of “dud torpedoes” which I eventually figured out was that if you hit the enemy with one of your torpedoes, it wouldn’t blow up. So I turned that off because that wasn’t very useful to me.
It was only later when I heard about historical accounts of US submarine captains doing 5-6+ textbook runs on a merchant, with none of their torpedoes exploding. What was a nuissance for me that could be easily changed, was something rather different for those people. These kinds of things both awed me and angered me. The kind of nerve it takes to do such things I could far more easily understood because it was not just a matter of “silent and hidden sub running circles around merchantmen doing anything it wanted to”. There were escorts around that became notified of an enemy sub presence when a merchant ship hears that “dud” sound in the sonar. Then the merchant man would start evasive maneuvers which would make it really hard for you to come up with a torpedo interception solution, especially if you wanted to maintain some self-preservation distance.
This was in the Pacific by the way. The anger came from the knowledge that the good old government and Roosevelt the Democrat savior knew about these problems but didn’t want to do jack about them. They still kept saying “there was nothing wrong with the torpedo detonation devices, the captains must be blaming the torpedoes for their own incompetence”.
These pieces of knowledge also make me far less easy to fool concerning that Leftist refrain about how war is just the strong bullying the weak because the strong has American advantages of technology and crack. It ain’t technology that wins wars because even technology can go wrong if you have retards running your wars.