Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
No More Room
Congress already has run out of space on a memorial created last year to honor all of the U.S. service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a grim sign of the times, the "Wall of the Fallen," set up by House Republican leaders in June, is almost full. The mounting death toll from Iraq has forced U.S. House staffers to study how to reconfigure the display in the lobby of the Rayburn Building - the largest office building for members of Congress - to squeeze in more names.
According to the Defense Department, 3,736 U.S. service members died in the two wars by the end of April. New names are added to the display every few months, but none have been added since November. The last name listed is Lance Cpl. Luke Holler, 21-year-old Marine reservist from Bulverde, Texas, killed by an explosive device on Nov. 2.
In the current format, there is space for about 130 more names, but 506 Americans have died since mid-November. In April, 104 Americans were killed in the war's sixth-deadliest month.
(Via Rogier van Bakel.)
Guy Montag|5.7.07 @ 7:32AM|#
And in other news, the Freedom Wall at the WW II memorial
contains 4048 gold stars. Each represent approximately 100
fallen service members.
Years ago the Test Pilot Memorial at White Sands (?) was almost
full too.
thoreau|5.7.07 @ 8:06AM|#
I know exactly which walls we should list the fallen on: The
walls facing the desk of every damn member of Congress who votes to
continue this fiasco. Make them stare at the tally of their
handiwork.
And if anybody wants to list the names of Iraqi civilians on those
walls as well, that's fine with me.
|5.7.07 @ 8:20AM|#
And in other news, the Freedom Wall at the WW II memorial
contains 4048 gold stars. Each represent approximately 100 fallen
service members.
I think the point Radley was making had less to do with the
number of deaths than the fact that the invasion of Iraq
was not justified, and their deaths were therefore needless and
tragic. Of course that applies less so to those who died in
Afghanistan, which was a justified military action.
|5.7.07 @ 8:30AM|#
Y'all might find it interesting to go back and take a look at those "ask the man in the street" stories from just before the invasion of Iraq, wherein random people were asked how many people we should be willing to sacrifice in a war with Iraq. A grim question to be faced with while walking from your car to your desk, certainly, but the answers are interesting.
|5.7.07 @ 9:08AM|#
As soon as the Congress passes the War Emergency Funding Bill, there will be plenty of money to expand the memorial.
|5.7.07 @ 9:11AM|#
Y'all might find it interesting to go back and take a look
at those "ask the man in the street" stories from just before the
invasion of Iraq, wherein random people were asked how many people
we should be willing to sacrifice in a war with Iraq.
Y'all want to link some of them?
|5.7.07 @ 9:30AM|#
I would willingly sacrifice the lives of each of you "Reasoniods" for Iraq. - Especially you, Thoreau and brotherben.
|5.7.07 @ 9:33AM|#
The Republicans - and yes, this is a memorial set up the
Republicans - actually thought that invading the oldest place in
the world and "fixing" it was going to be a "splendid little war,"
and wasn't even going to cost enough dead and missing troops to
require a big monument, or even to wait until it was over to know
how big it needed to be.
They wrere just so certain. Idiots.
|5.7.07 @ 9:35AM|#
Ethan,
You mean back when just about everyone believed that Iraq was
passing germ bombs and suitcase nukes to Osama bin Laden?
Dave W.|5.7.07 @ 9:52AM|#
3,736 U.S. service members died in the two wars by the end
of April
and an undetermined, or undisclosed, number of Iraqi and
Afghanistani civilians, too. If that matters.
Dave W.|5.7.07 @ 9:55AM|#
Correction:
"If that matters."
should have been:
--If that matters to a guy like Radley Balko.--
|5.7.07 @ 10:00AM|#
It probably matters to Radley. To whom it DOESN'T matter is (a)
anybody in Washington (you won't be seeing any monuments to dead
Iraqis any time soon) and (b) most Americans, who are utterly
uncaring on the subject.
God bless America.
Dave W.|5.7.07 @ 10:06AM|#
It probably matters to Radley.
Historically he has been pretty quiet about that aspect of the war.
He seems to like US soldiers a lot, though, and that may not be too
compatible with giving a shit about enemy civilians. That is why I
wonder sometimes.
|5.7.07 @ 10:10AM|#
actually thought that invading the oldest place in the
world
They invaded Greenland?
just this guy|5.7.07 @ 10:14AM|#
Just for perspective, over 250,000 Americans died in the second
world war.
Just for perspective, some 350,000 Soviets died in the battle of
Berlin, while over 700,000 are estimated to have died in the battle
of Stalingrad.
You can say that Iraq is more pointless than any other war in
history if you like, but it still has really modest casualties by
the standards of modern warfare. That Americans are 'appalled' by
fewer than 4,000 casualties says less about the war and more about
their total lack of historical perspective.
If people expect to fight any kind of global war and yet keep
casualties in the three digit range, they are being really
unrealistic.
|5.7.07 @ 10:17AM|#
Guy Montag,
Well, if you're going to play the casualty-comparing game, you
should also note that more US troops have died in Iraq than
civilians died in the 9/11 attacks.
Now, comparing the number of Iraqi civilians "collaterally damaged"
due to our activities there would be really sobering, unless you're
blood-drunk on national greatness conservatism, I guess.
thoreau|5.7.07 @ 10:31AM|#
I would willingly sacrifice the lives of each of you
"Reasoniods" for Iraq. - Especially you, Thoreau and
brotherben.
And what would you accomplish by "sacrificing" me?
|5.7.07 @ 10:31AM|#
The relatively low fatalities in our "global war" in Iraq have
more to do with medical technology than any operational cleverness.
The surge, by bringing troops out of the relative security of
places like the Green Zone, is likely to result in a higher rate of
casualties. I noticed, as I was googling through the headlines this
morning, that the number of troops in the surge seems to have
surged from 21,500 to 30,000.
The high survival rate of severely wounded soldiers will mean high
costs related to Operation Tar Baby will continue for decades.
thoreau|5.7.07 @ 10:37AM|#
I thought that Del Boca Vista was the oldest place in the world, demographically speaking.
just this guy|5.7.07 @ 10:45AM|#
"Well, if you're going to play the casualty-comparing game, you
should also note that more US troops have died in Iraq than
civilians died in the 9/11 attacks."
Then one should note that less than 4,000 people died at Pearl
Harbor.
And so, by that logic, the 250,000 casualties that the US suffered
in WW2 were over 245,000 too many.
And yes I know that mentioning WW2 is horribly passe, but in the
past 6 years I have heard not one anti-war argument that couldn't
have been used with equal force in 1941.
Therefore, I must conclude that WW2 was a useless act of American
imperialism.
Right?
|5.7.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Maybe Radley needs to take a page from Ron Bailey and put a
'disclosure statement' at the end of any post mentioning US
casualties in Iraq, stating that Iraqi civilian deaths aren't a
good thing either.
Will that shut Dave up? Probably not, but it can't hurt.
Quibbler|5.7.07 @ 10:46AM|#
joe
No, I do not think myself "soooooooo" unique. I knew what you
meant--although "oldest civilization in the world" still does not
arguably apply to Mesopotamia--but I am a quibbler, after
all.
I might, however, question you as to what difference it makes that
Iraq is so old. Frankly, just being "the oldest place in the world"
doesn't mean a damn thing. But, I'm just quibbling.
|5.7.07 @ 10:48AM|#
I would willingly sacrifice the lives of each of you
"Reasoniods" for Iraq. - Especially you, Thoreau and
brotherben.
And this is why it is so important that government power must be
limited - sometimes people like JohnD get their hands on it.
|5.7.07 @ 10:49AM|#
And yes I know that mentioning WW2 is horribly passe, but in
the past 6 years I have heard not one anti-war argument that
couldn't have been used with equal force in 1941.
One minor difference is that the Japanese actually, you know,
attacked us.
|5.7.07 @ 11:10AM|#
You've been arguing politics for 6 years, and no one has
mentioned to you that Iraq didn't post a military threat to us,
while Japan and Germany did? Who have you been having these
argument with, grey squirrels?
Quibbler,
I can't believe you whiffed on "so unique." Anyway, the point of
bringing up the extend of the area's history is to draw attention
to the foolishness of those who thought that a short war and a
short occupation would straighten their politics out.
|5.7.07 @ 11:15AM|#
And yes I know that mentioning WW2 is horribly passe, but in
the past 6 years I have heard not one anti-war argument that
couldn't have been used with equal force in 1941.
One minor difference is that the Japanese actually, you
know, attacked us.
A second difference is that it is now four years since we occupied
the capital and deposed the leadership. So it is not
1941.
How many Americans died in combat with the Germans or the Japanese
in 1949?
|5.7.07 @ 11:16AM|#
"""I think the point Radley was making had less to do with the
number of deaths than the fact that the invasion of Iraq was not
justified,"""
I don't think it's that Iraq was not justified, but more about our
governments inability to "size" up the conflict which we are
engaged. Somewhat, along the lines of the Pentagon retiring Gen
Shininski for telling Congress we need a few hundred thousand
troops to fight the war. Our government has constantly
underestimated what is required of this job. Either that, or we
grossly over estimating our ability.
Fail to plan, plan to fail
|5.7.07 @ 11:18AM|#
justthisguy,
Yet, given the supposedly tiny casualty count, there's still too
many to fit on the memorial set up by pro-war Congressmen.
Did a similar thing happen to a monument set up by pro-war
Congressmen in world war two? Did they run out of space because
they didn't foresee how many American casualties there would
be?
Quibbler|5.7.07 @ 11:19AM|#
joe
I didn't really "whiff." At least, I don't think I did. What does
that mean?
But anyway, I don't think the point that just because they're old
bears any relation to how difficult they may be to "straighten
out." The Ottoman Turks did a damn fine job of keeping all of the
Middle East (and even those idiot Greeks) in line for
centuries.
Just a quibble.
|5.7.07 @ 11:22AM|#
""Therefore, I must conclude that WW2 was a useless act of
American imperialism.
Right?"""
I might note that WWII was to defeat enemy states. The purpose of
the Iraq war is to "create a democracy"
There is no comparision, that I've seen, between Iraq and WWII that
has withstood scruitny. Maybe with the exception that troops die
when they go to work.
|5.7.07 @ 11:23AM|#
"The Ottoman Turks did a damn fine job of keeping all of the
Middle East (and even those idiot Greeks) in line for
centuries."
Please tell me you're kidding.
Quibbler|5.7.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Mad Max
I never said I agreed with their methods.
It's just that I quibble with the assumption that an old place
cannot be controlled.
Any society, old or new, can be controlled and pacified--if you
really want to....
|5.7.07 @ 11:26AM|#
Quibbler,
There are not shades of uniqueness. Something can't be "so unique,"
it's either unique, or it isn't. What kind of Quibbler are you,
anyway?!?
"The Ottoman Turks did a damn fine job of keeping all of the Middle
East (and even those idiot Greeks) in line for centuries."
But the architects of this war didn't plan to "keep the Middle East
in line for centuries" via the constant application of military
force, like the Turks. They intended to "fix" their political
culture, and turn Iraq into Shining Beacon of Democracy that would
Transform the Middle East.
They thought such an action would have few casualties, and take
"months, not years."
I repeat: Idiots.
Quibbler|5.7.07 @ 11:36AM|#
joe
You're the one who started the "soooooo unique"!
But, I agree. It was much easier for the Romans and the Persians
and the Ottomans to maintain peace in this region: their goal was
total domination, in perpetuity. They succeeded for a time. Trying
to instill a desirable regime without the promise/threat of
long-term force is foolhardy. Either direct, or watch; you can't do
both.
FWIW, I take neither side.
|5.7.07 @ 11:41AM|#
'You're the one who started the "soooooo unique"!'
That's it, I'm not throwing you any more Quibbler softballs, if
you're just going to let them go by and give me a confused stare
like that.
|5.7.07 @ 12:03PM|#
I would willingly sacrifice the lives of each of you
"Reasoniods" for Iraq. - Especially you, Thoreau and
brotherben.
Spoken like a true chickenhawk.
I don't think it's that Iraq was not justified, but more about
our governments inability to "size" up the conflict which we are
engaged.
Can't it be both? I suppose your interpretation is as valid as my
own.
|5.7.07 @ 1:14PM|#
And yes I know that mentioning WW2 is horribly passe, but in
the past 6 years I have heard not one anti-war argument that
couldn't have been used with equal force in 1941.
Besides crimethink's point that we were actually attacked
by Japan, I'll add that Germany and Italy declared war on us.
In the past 6 years I have not heard one pro-war comparison to WW2
that wasn't either woefully ignorant or downright disingenuous.
|5.7.07 @ 1:49PM|#
All of the best World War Two comparisons come from the anti-war
side.
The "not one step back" orders, and insistence that the only thing
necessary is a more Will, regadless of the conditions on the
ground, is a reflection of Stalingrad, Moscow, and El
Alamein.
Afghanistan is North Africa - it would take just a fraction of the
troops devoted to the Big Fight to achieve a decisive victory
there, and free up pretty much the whole expeditionary force for
other operations, but since the Big Fight is always, always, always
just around the corner from victory (right up until it's a just a
hair from complete disaster), the campaign will never get enough
forces to achieve anything but a stalemate.
PENIX|5.7.07 @ 7:10PM|#
3,736 US troops have died. The Iraqi death total since 2006 is estimated at 655,000.
Guy Montag|5.7.07 @ 10:38PM|#
I think the point Radley was making had less to do with the
number of deaths than the fact that the invasion of Iraq was not
justified, and their deaths were therefore needless and tragic. Of
course that applies less so to those who died in Afghanistan, which
was a justified military action.
So, where is YOUR memorial to all of those dead German and English
(others) civilians?
No, his "point" is that he does not like a particular war and it is
just fine of people live in terror and slavery as long as we are
not involved in it.
Where is the monument to Civil War civilians crimethink?
Radley had a juvenile "point", if that, that a monument was erected
by a bunch of politicians before something was done. That is why
the test pilot example of mine was added.
WWII? The monument was bult long after a real number of deaths
should have been tallied and that is still not accurate for that
one even at this late date.
All of you fucking body counters can kiss my ass. Fuck off and
die.
|5.8.07 @ 5:17PM|#
"""3,736 US troops have died. The Iraqi death total since 2006
is estimated at 655,000."""
Most the Iraqi death is that the hands of another Iraqis. Therefore
I would expect the Iraqi death count to extremely larger than our
own.
Iraqis are in control of Iraq. We are playing largely a reactive
role.
|5.8.07 @ 5:18PM|#
If the Iraqis don't like the Iraqi death toll, they really should stop killing each other.
Guy Montag|5.8.07 @ 9:56PM|#
If the Iraqis don't like the Iraqi death toll, they really
should stop killing each other.
Yes, the correct answer. Good show.
|5.9.07 @ 12:36AM|#
If the Iraqis don't like the Iraqi death toll, they really
should stop killing each other.
If you're suggesting that there's nothing we can do to stop them, I
wholeheartedly agree. Considering that and the fact that they don't
want us there, when do we leave?
|5.9.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Brave, brave Sir Guy Montag doesn't want us counting bodies.
Shall we just stuff them underneath the floorboards, like Ed
Guine?
If only we could all have the bravery of Sir Guy: the Bravery of
Being Out of Range
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245