Surge Still Not Working, Unless You Count The Surge In Dead US Troops
April 24th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |9 more dead today. So far. And yet we don’t hear the president calling for flags to be flown at half mast. We just hear that the president is going to veto a bill that would give a firm timeline for getting American troops out of the death hole he helped create.
In what is being called the deadliest attack on US forces in over a year, today’s bombing brings April’s US death toll to 85 and the total official US military death toll to over 3300.
Today’s attack took place outside of Baghdad in an area that has seen increased violence since the “Surge” began. As US troops move in to one area, insurgents move into another. Violence isn’t abating in Iraq as a result of the president’s brilliant idea, instead it is merely shifting to another location to wreak havoc again.
It seems that the only measurable surge is in dead Americans and Iraqi civilians.
[tag]Iraq, surge, Bush, war, msnbc, us+troops+attacked[/tag]
13 Responses to “Surge Still Not Working, Unless You Count The Surge In Dead US Troops”
By Liberal Army Wife on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
I know some bloggers who have been online with the families of that group, who are still waiting to hear. This is so horrendous for them, the base that their soldiers are from, the community surrounding them. and he won’t lower the flags. maybe it’s because the flags would be PERMANENTLY at half staff. This month, I know there has not been one day that there hasn’t been a fatality. And that might actually wake up the public, the ones who only watch idiotic entertainment shows, the ones for whom the news of Anna Nicole’s baby is so much more important than the news of the dead soldiers, the anonymous children of the military families.
LAW
By ken grandlund on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
Living in a military community, I can empathize with what those communities that have experienced multiple military deaths in one fell swoop. And I can empathize with the families of those who have died as well.
I also think that in light of the national mourning for the VT victims, such deference should be extended to military deaths too, especially when those deaths have been caused by a madman not too unlike the VT killer, at least from a mental health POV.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
Question: were flags flown at half mast during WWII whenever a US soldier died? The Korean conflict? Vietnam? Kosovo? Has anyone ever even suggested that the flags SHOULD be/have been flown at half-mast when a soldier dies in the midst of a military conflict?
Just wondering.
Aside from memorial day services, has any sitting President attended so much as a single funeral for a single soldier who died in a single military conflict? Talking grunts now, not generals. If so, how many? Is the President supposed to run the country while simultaneously attending what is now approaching 4,000 funerals over the past four years? That’s what? Approximately 1,000 funerals per year? That’s an average of, what? 2 to 3 funerals per day?
“He doesn’t have to attend every funeral,” one might say, “He should selectively attend some funerals” but, by contrast, blow off the vast majority of military funerals, honoring a few and, by non-attendance, dishonoring the many?
Attending how many funerals would satisfy his critics? Ten? Fifty?
The stated purpose of the surge, as I understand it, was to bring calm to the Capital city, Baghdad, to allow the politics to proceed in peace, peace relative to what has been. This seems to be occurring. Seems to me that the surge is accomplishing it’s stated goal, at least what I understood to be its stated goal. I guess I could be wrong on that.
By Ron on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
“Seems to me that the surge is accomplishing it’s stated goal, at least what I understood to be its stated goal. I guess I could be wrong on that. ”
Yep. You are. What I’m trying to figure out, Craig, is where you spend your time reading that you have not noticed this.
Ken, the flag would be at half mast every day if were to do it for every combat death. Frankly, it’s an empty gesture and this would only make it emptier.
I think the flags should be flown upside down until this war is over.
By ken grandlund on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
Craig-
From the Wa. Post:
President Jimmy Carter attended ceremonies for troops killed in Pakistan, Egypt and the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran. President Ronald Reagan participated in many memorable ceremonies, including a service at Camp Lejeune in 1983 for 241 Marines killed in Beirut. Among several events at military bases, he went to Andrews in 1985 to pin Purple Hearts to the caskets of marines killed in San Salvador, and, at Mayport Naval Station in Florida in 1987, he eulogized those killed aboard the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf. 3
In 1996, Dover made an exception to allow filming of Clinton’s visit to welcome the 33 caskets with remains from Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown’s plane crash. In 1998, Clinton went to Andrews to see the coffins of Americans killed in the terrorist bombing in Nairobi. Dover also allowed public distribution of photos of the homecoming caskets after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
The flying of the flag at half staff is regulated by certain rules (which you can easily look up online) and at the direction of the president. It isn’t common custom to fly it at half staff during a prolonged conflict, but if you’r elooking for someone to suggest it, let me do so here and now. A half staff flag denotes a time of natinoal mourning and I think that most people would view war and it’s high death toll as a time of mourning.
And the surge was described as bringing security to Baghdad principally, but not solely, otherwise extra troops would not have been sent to Anbar province too. So when the violence simply leaves Baghdad (which BTW is has not) and relocates in another area, I don’t consider that a successful exercise.
By ken grandlund on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
Ron- you make a good point. An upside down flag is meant to signal distress- another apt feeling over America.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
Ken,
Thanks for the info on past Presidents. In my searches, I found this site. There’s a lot there. Much of it not really relevant to what I asked but if one scrolls down to about 4/5ths of the way down, to a section titled, “PRESIDENTIAL CEREMONIES AND EULOGIES — HONORING THE DEAD”, examples are given. The examples appear to be to honor those who died in isolated incidents — such as a plane crash, the failed attempt to release the Iran captives or terrorist attacks such as the USS Stark or the Saudi bombing or that in East Africa or the USS Cole — or conflicts of short duration — such as Grenada. One possible exception was a service for the fallen in San Salvador attended by Reagan in 1985.
These appear to be services where Presidents could attend a single service and honor all the dead. There appear to be no examples from an extended conflict with the possible exception of El Salvador. The thing is, these are not quite comparable to an ongoing, four year conflict with daily or near-daily casualties.
As for the violence in Iraq, yes, some were also sent to Anbar. You are correct but no one expected or promised that the violence would disappear and it hasn’t. It has, however, reportedly been reduced, particularly the sectarian killing, which the surge was particularly meant to reduce. I’m not calling it a magnificent success, as in mission accomplished, but it is a work in progress and the progress appears to be in the direction expected.
As for half-masting the flags during ongoing military conflicts, I have no objection. I think it a fine tribute.
By Liberal Army Wife on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
Craig, I suggest you take your pastoral duties and go to Fort Bragg. They will need all the help they can get. The “reduction” just cost them 9 dead in one secterian action, with 20 wounded.
I rather doubt he will go there either. Even though, one would figure the 82nd Airborne would be a “good house” for him…But I have the feeling they would need to vet that audience very very well.
Reduction my ass.
LAW
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
When I was in seminary, I considered becoming a chaplain.
By Charlie on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
Two of my friends in IVAW are drafting legislation to require the flag to be flown at half mast any time an american serviceman or woman is killed on foreign soil.
Charlie
By Robert Kunferman on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
OK, Where were all of you when they were taking us to war? Hopefully next time a war rolls around, you will be smarter and realize war is hell. The only thing I ever liked about this war was that it might have gotten the do nothing law enforcement crowd off the backs, and out of the pocketbooks of us citizens.
Nope, instead it made a lovely excuse to spend more on the henchmen and let me guess…..?… You all want that to continue until you have no rights left. Then complain about it when the news media tells you it is good to go ahead and blow your tin horns. Thanks again for mistaking your pitiful formal educations for being learned and wise. Let’s not make it a total loss; think; learn. And Vote smart for your rihgts. Especially when you sit on a jury.
By Ron on Apr 24, 2007 | Reply
Charlie, I just worry that the half mast thing would be used very cynically if it were adopted for all combat deaths. I just think we have had enough of cheap symbolism that is easily manipulated.
By Lazy Iguana on Apr 25, 2007 | Reply
President Dumb Shit needs a dose of reality. So here it is.
How many cops have we “surged” into South Central LA, and how has that effected gang activity?
We can not even get gangs out of our cities, right here at home. And now we are supposed to rid another country of what amounts to well armed and very violent gangs? What the hell?
This flag thing was started by the military. Lets not forget that. It was military families AND active duty soldiers that brought this up. Not “the liberal media”.
I think this reflects that the Military has lost confidence in Bush and his crazy plans. They will still follow orders, and clearly do whatever it takes to stay alive when they are sent into combat areas. But when active duty people of all ranks, from the private up to people with stars on their shoulder, start to talk we the public should listen.
It has to be very bad before soldiers and officers will speak out against a sitting President. You just do not do that. I hate to think what morale in the field is.
If you support the troops, at this point you can not support the President. He totally screwed the pooch here. So pick a side. I picked my side.
My position is unchanged since 2003. I was against action then and I am against it now. Bush could have given just a little more time for inspectors to take another look. But he did not want to. Why? Because I believe he knew that nothing was there. He had to invent a reason and push it through as quick as possible. So he did.
If this is not a criminal action, nothing is. Yet he will get away with it, because for 6 years the congress was not going to so anything. Now the congress is investigating, but Bush can easily stonewall till his term is over.
What we should all do is bombard Congress with letters DEMANDING that Congress only authorize funds for Bush’s presidential library and office if they are built in Guam. Or better yet, the most remote of all the Aleutian Islands. Somewhere far away, where nobody will ever go.
In effect, placing his legacy in exile. He deserves it. Too bad this will not happen either.