Five Years

[flere-imsaho]

U.S. Fatalities: 3,990
U.S. Casualties: 40,229
Iraqi Fatalities: Unknown
Iraqi Casualties: Unknown
Cost: $504,000,000,000.00

I'd like to say something hopeful or optimistic here, but I don't feel either of these emotions. After five years of this, I continue to be as frustrated and angry about these events as I have ever been, save perhaps from 2005-2006.

[NoMyths]

*nods*

[molson]

When (most) everyone was for this in the beginning, did you think we would be there less time?

[Fidatelo]

This is likely a dumb question, but what is the difference between a fatality and a casualty?

[JonInMiddleGA]

One removed hostile dictator.

[Calis]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

This is likely a dumb question, but what is the difference between a fatality and a casualty?

fatality is a death, casualty is an injury

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

This is likely a dumb question, but what is the difference between a fatality and a casualty?

Casualties is usually used to represent the combined total of injured/wounded & dead, although it's sometimes used to differentiate injured/wounded from fatalities.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Calis

fatality is a death, casualty is an injury

Ah ok, I always thought casualties were deaths. Thanks.

[Honolulu_Blue]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/OPINION01/803190348/1068/OPINION

Nearly 4,000 U.S. lives lost and counting

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

-- President George W. Bush, in May 2003, about two months after the U.S. invasion

At the time the president said this, about 175 Americans had been killed in Iraq. Today, the number approaches 4,000. More than 300 troops from other nations in the U.S.-led coalition also have been killed. Estimates of the death toll among Iraqis vary widely, from 90,000-plus to more than 650,000. The numbers of military-contract workers, journalists, aid workers and other non-Iraqi civilians killed is approaching 800. There are no reliable figures on the numbers of enemy combatants killed, but surely it is in the multiple thousands.

Some things are impossible to measure, such as the lost potential, particularly when a young person is killed in war. Who knows what that life might have achieved in a different setting?

As the toll of war goes, this one is a long way from Vietnam, where nearly 50,000 U.S. lives were lost over nine years. But Iraq has been far more costly than Americans were led to believe it would be five years ago. And it's far from being done.

An incalculable human toll in injuries

"This country has a moral obligation to provide our servicemen and women with the best possible care and treatment. They deserve it, and they will get it."
-- President George W. Bush, radio address, March 2, 2007

Loss of potential also becomes a factor in the great number of wounded soldiers from Iraq, nearly 30,000 according to the Department of Defense, including 13,128 who were too seriously hurt to return to their units within three days. That casualty count is the equivalent of a suburb the size of Grosse Pointe Park filled entirely with wounded people, many of whom will need help -- specialized medical services and, in the most severe cases, financial support -- for the rest of their lives.

But the lingering fallout may be even greater, if fears prove true that many brain and mental conditions from combat go undiagnosed.

More than half of all returning service members have said they experienced a blast or other event that jolted their heads or caused blows to their heads. Yet only one in every 10 combat injuries is listed as brain trauma, according to a bipartisan commission on veterans care that did the survey and gathered other statistics. Mild to moderate brain injuries can be very hard to diagnose, members added.

Post-traumatic stress is another disorder that may go underreported. The commission found that anywhere from 12%-20% of Iraqi returnees may need help for PTSD, and that it often occurs simultaneously with brain injury.

Lifelong visible impairments, such as amputations, burns and spinal cord injuries, account for about 6% of the injured.

The commission concluded that early intervention makes a major difference in recovery from both post-traumatic stress and brain injury. America must hold the president to his pledge on veterans care.

Think what $12 billion a month could buy

"Five years after the fact, I believe that one of the reasons the administration's efforts are so unpopular is that they chose not to engage in an open public discussion of what the consequences of the war might be, including its economic cost. I think that having done so not only would have been good government, but would also have been good politics."
-- Former White House economist Lawrence Lindsey, writing in Fortune magazine. Lindsey was let go by the Bush administration three months after estimating the war in Iraq would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. The "official" estimate was $50 billion to $60 billion.

The war has now cost more than $500 billion, with ongoing expenses estimated at $8 billion to $12 billion a month. A new book on the subject coauthored by Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz is titled "The Three Trillion Dollar War." That is simply an incomprehensible amount of money from American taxpayers that certainly could have been put to more constructive use at home.

The price of taking a stand against terrorism? To some extent, sure. But Osama bin Laden remains at large, Al Qaeda roams freely on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and the director of the FBI is telling Congress the agency could do more to fight terror if only it had more money. Meantime, roads and bridges are crumbling, security at U.S. ports remains spotty, federal grants for local police have been cut, and more than half the states are facing budget deficits.

Imagine how the budget bickering in Lansing would subside if Washington chipped in just a week's worth of Iraq spending. Maybe someday this will look like a small price to pay for global security, but after five years, it appears to be at best a marginal investment.

America's world standing damaged

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
-- President George W. Bush, in a post-9/11 speech to Congress

Two years before America went to war in Iraq, the president presented a stark choice to the world that signaled a "my way or the highway" foreign policy and gave rise to anti-American sentiment at a time when the United States should have been receiving international support. Opposing the war in Iraq should not have been cast as supporting terrorism.
The anti-American feeling has only grown during the five years of the war. Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, testified before Congress that the center's 2007 Global Attitudes Project found it to be worldwide.

"This is just not a rift with our European allies or hatred of America in the Middle East. It's a global slide," he said. Worst of all, the deteriorating image of American leadership has spilled over on U.S. citizens, who once were welcomed in most of the world.

"In Turkey, where bin Laden is unpopular and support for terrorism is generally low, about one-in-four say suicide bombings against Americans and Westerners in Iraq can be justified," the Pew survey reported.
Whatever America ultimately decides about its presence in Iraq, it will take years to rebuild important relationships around the world. Chalk up America's global image as another Iraq casualty.

How many more years committed to Iraq?

"The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days or five weeks or five months. But it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, then secretary of Defense, in November 2002, as the United States prepared to invade Iraq

Now, five years and almost 4,000 American lives later, violence in Iraq has finally ebbed but is far from over, and the U.S. presence there is likely to go on for at least another five years.

The next major phase of the war will probably be determined by an event far from Baghdad, the November presidential election in this country. Of the three surviving major party candidates, Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain is the only one not promising to reduce American troop levels until more is achieved in the way of military success and pacification of Iraq's warring factions. Of the Democrats, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has pledged to end the war in 2009, while U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton would begin withdrawing troops in 2009.

A withdrawal is in order. In the fight against terror, America can make more effective use of its military elsewhere, notably Afghanistan. The enormous resources being poured into Iraq can be better spent, notably shoring up infrastructure and security here at home. And as long as the U.S. commitment is open-ended, as McCain posits, the Iraqis will never step up to the challenge of restoring order to their own country and using their own oil resources to rebuild it.

The United States has to start pulling out, so the Iraqis understand that American forces will not be there forever. The United States should time further withdrawals to benchmarks of Iraqi government progress. McCain is probably the closest to right about how long the United States is going to have some military presence in Iraq, but the mission has to begin changing to one of transition for Iraq.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One removed hostile dictator.

hmm, I wish that's why we went. OR I wish we went to bring him up on crimes against humanity for what he did to the Kurds. Unfortunately Mr. Bush become a salesperson (which means he may have even believed in the product and not necessarily known he was lying) and he and his admin. sold it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

This is likely a dumb question, but what is the difference between a fatality and a casualty?

the soldier who dies next to you = is a fatality

the soldier next to you who has his arm blown off = casualty

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One removed hostile dictator.

he *was* hostile, in the early 90's.

ever since he was just guilty of playing the worst game of poker ever. he alluded that he had WMDs and capable of using them, we've discovered that was basically a bluff. as more intel came out it was obvious Iraq wasn't capable of doing most of the things we were told they could/would do.

[NoMyths]

According to IraqBodyCount.org, documented civilian deaths number around 82,249 - 89,760.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

When (most) everyone was for this in the beginning, did you think we would be there less time?

Actually, I honestly thought the Bush Admin would, after toppling Saddam:

1. Hand the reins (i.e. the non-disbanded army) over to the next dictator (i.e. Ahmed Chalabi)
2. Sign a bunch of oil contracts
3. Maybe move a base from Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia to somewhere in Iraq
4. GTFO

But what do (did) I know?

And for those new to this argument, I was against the invasion from the start.

[Drake]

4:85 is a pretty impressive kill ratio.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Drake

4:85 is a pretty impressive kill ratio.

Where are you getting that number from?

[ThunderingHERD]

I was hoping this thread was about the David Bowie song.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

According to IraqBodyCount.org, documented civilian deaths number around 82,249 - 89,760.

4,000 U.S. deaths
~85k from NM's citation.

4:85

(And it was in no way a political comment about the war itself.)

[CU Tiger]

As popular war advances;peace is closer....

[Calis]

Originally Posted by Drake

4,000 U.S. deaths
~85k from NM's citation.

4:85

(And it was in no way a political comment about the war itself.)

That's civilian deaths.

I'm not sure that should be an impressive number in a kill to death ratio of a military force.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Calis

That's civilian deaths.

I'm not sure that should be an impressive number in a kill to death ratio of a military force.

Yes. Especially since these are the people we supposively are fighting to liberate from their hostile dictator.

Also, I assume (and truly hope) that only a very small percentage of those numbers were actually the direct result of U.S. military action.

[Drake]

Wars really need better statistics if they expect me to follow this whole war thing closely. I'd really like to see a Casualty per Round Fired stat, or maybe Casualty per Aimed Shot. It's really hard to tell who the top recruits are without better stats.

We give way too many awards for those to be a reliable metric.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

When (most) everyone was for this in the beginning, did you think we would be there less time?

Though I never believed it, we, as a nation, were told pretty directly by our leadership that we had a very short, simple, profitable mission in Iraq(oil revenue sharing would pay for the entire war effort IIRC).

And to echo flere's statements, though I stay out of more of these threads than I get involved in, I too was against this from day 1.

[Radii]

dola, I should clarify and say that I was very much for the engagement in Afghanastan, but just as strongly against any involvement in Iraq.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Drake

Wars really need better statistics if they expect me to follow this whole war thing closely. I'd really like to see a Casualty per Round Fired stat, or maybe Casualty per Aimed Shot. It's really hard to tell who the top recruits are without better stats.

We give way too many awards for those to be a reliable metric.

They need to hire Jim to get those stats.

[GoldenEagle]

In before the lock.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Radii

dola, I should clarify and say that I was very much for the engagement in Afghanastan, but just as strongly against any involvement in Iraq.

+1

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Actually, I honestly thought the Bush Admin would, after toppling Saddam:

1. Hand the reins (i.e. the non-disbanded army) over to the next dictator (i.e. Ahmed Chalabi)
2. Sign a bunch of oil contracts
3. Maybe move a base from Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia to somewhere in Iraq
4. GTFO

But what do (did) I know?

And for those new to this argument, I was against the invasion from the start.

That's what I thought would happen as well, although I think at some point I was for the war (I was a lot more hawkish back then). I didn't realize there'd be that many incompatent people at the top to not have a real exit strategy or even the basic understandings of the Iraqi potical and religious enviroment. I was quite obviously wrong.

[Fidatelo]

War stats would be awesome! I wonder if someone would become the Bill James of war, giving us metrics that could transcend battlefield location and era to make stats comparable between a soldier in Dieppe and another in Iraq. KPD+ (kills per day+) or something.

[Kodos]

Maybe it's just me, but this doesn't seem to be a good thread to be flippant about. Thousands of Americans and countless others from Iraq have died or been maimed for life in this conflict, and folks are making jokes about stat-tracking? Poor form, in my book.

[MikeVic]

I think that if some kind of stats were kept, people would support wars more (as opposed to not caring one way or the other... it wouldn't turn an anti-war person for the war though). The people would have a way to follow it closely.

I'm not saying this as a joke, but wouldn't it be something if in the future this did happen. You can look up who the most efficient soldier was, etc.

[korme]

I have been lucky to not have had to attend many funerals in my lifetime, but the last one I attended was early 2007 for my childhood neighbor and best friend, who we lost on Dec. 28, 2006.

RIP Lance Cpl. William David Spencer

[molson]

Originally Posted by Radii

dola, I should clarify and say that I was very much for the engagement in Afghanastan, but just as strongly against any involvement in Iraq.

That's a common viewpoint that I don't quite understand.

Were you for the engagement in Afganastan just because that's where Bin Ladin was physically present at the time of 9/11? The plot itself obviously wasn't centralized there.

The Taliban were an annoyance to our sensibilities, but no more of a threat to us than Iraq (and probably even less). They were just very hospitable to terrorists, not unlike many other places.

The primary US demand of the Taliban was to hand over Bin Ladin. When they didn't, they were invaded. Since Bin Ladin was never ultimately captured, wasn't Afganastan a waste as well?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Radii

dola, I should clarify and say that I was very much for the engagement in Afghanastan, but just as strongly against any involvement in Iraq.

For what it's worth, by almost any rate measure, the US military is doing equal or better in Iraq. Especially since al-Sadr/Iran cut deals last year. Don't let the media narrative which uses counting stats fool you into thinking it's going markedly better in Afghanistan vs. Iraq.

[Kodos]

If we'd had more troops to dispatch to Afghanistan, maybe we would have actually caught Bin Laden.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If we'd had more troops to dispatch to Afghanistan, maybe we would have actually caught Bin Laden.

Of course, but my question is - is that why everyone was in favor of invading Afganistan, to catch this one guy?

[Arles]

To add some balance, here's another way to frame the stats:

1.4% death rate
14.3% casualty rate
Within 5 years:
-Dictator removed
-new government instilled
-democratic elections
Between years 3 and 4, violence significantly decreased (between 30 and 70% - depending on your source and location).

This may very well go down in history as the most successful major military offensive/nation building effort ever. What's amazing is that it could have even gone much more smoother than it did. Now, I don't know that you can use these numbers to justify the war to all people, but I think it puts everything in some historical perspective.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

That's a common viewpoint that I don't quite understand.

Were you for the engagement in Afganastan just because that's where Bin Ladin was physically present at the time of 9/11? The plot itself obviously wasn't centralized there.

The Taliban were an annoyance to our sensibilities, but no more of a threat to us than Iraq (and probably even less). They were just very hospitable to terrorists, not unlike many other places.

The primary US demand of the Taliban was to hand over Bin Ladin. When they didn't, they were invaded. Since Bin Ladin was never ultimately captured, wasn't Afganastan a waste as well?

The Taliban were a nuisance, but they were shielding Al-Qaeda, the ones responsible for the attacks on 9/11. We didn't go into Afghanistan to go specifically after the Taliban, it was the Al-Qaeda base we were targeting. It just so happened that most of the time they were working together, so they became one and the same as targets.

You last point hits on a big reason why I felt we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We still had, and have to this day, unfinished business in Afghanistan regarding Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. We took the focus off of where the problem still was sitting, and turned it full bore onto Hussein.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

That's a common viewpoint that I don't quite understand.

Were you for the engagement in Afganastan just because that's where Bin Ladin was physically present at the time of 9/11? The plot itself obviously wasn't centralized there.

I was for the engagement in Afghanstan because of the understanding/assumption/intelligence that Bin Laden was physically present in Afghanstan, along with a large number of Al Qaeda high level members, training sites, and support. I was also for it because of the feeling that there was a need to respond to such an attack with some form of authoritative force that would indicate that we would not sit idly by and allow ourselves to be attacked. I felt that this engagement was a direct and, based on what we were being told, proper response to what had happened.


I was against the engagement in Iraq because I felt that the connections that were being made there were tenuous at best, outright direct deceit at its worst(Al Qaeda links to Iraq, constant confusing and wrong statements being made by leadership that led numerous Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and that many of the hijackers were Iraqis.) I was against the war in Iraq because I felt like our attitude as a nation, especially as it was presented by President Bush, was terrible for our foreign policy. I thought we had built up a massive amount of goodwill and had the support of nearly the entire world going into Afghanistan, and we blew it in the most spectacular way possible, telling the entire world in no uncertain terms to go fuck itself if it didn't like what we were going to do in Iraq. And I felt that what we were being told about how 'simple' a mission we had in Iraq, how easy success would be, was just severely optimistic. I felt like our leadership was telling the public that we would be in Iraq for no more than a year, and probably less, to drum up massive support, when that seemed an impossibility realistically. A number of issues about the ability to fight on two fronts, what we would do if something else happened somewhere else while we were stuck in two fronts, seemed unresolved as well.


The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq to me at the time seemed HUGE and very clear.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

This may very well go down in history as the most successful major military offensive/nation building effort ever. What's amazing is that it could have even gone much more smoother than it did. Now, I don't know that you can use these numbers to justify the war to all people, but I think it puts everything in some historical perspective.

Of course, ANY number of casulaties is going to be unacceptable to someone against the war in the first place, and any number is a huge tragedy to the familes involved. But 4,000 fatalaties is shockingly low. I was certainly expecting far more than that from the initial invasion itself. People and the media were expressing a real fear about this - remember when Dan Rather was speculating, maybe 1 or 2 days into the war that the Iraq turned was turning out to be more than they bargained for that that the invasion might be repelled? Instead, Iraq folded like a lawn chair.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

For what it's worth, by almost any rate measure, the US military is doing equal or better in Iraq. Especially since al-Sadr/Iran cut deals last year. Don't let the media narrative which uses counting stats fool you into thinking it's going markedly better in Afghanistan vs. Iraq.

Yeah I understand that. As best as I can, I'm trying to re-iterate my feelings a the time, before there were any results, I'm really not trying to make any points based on what's happened since. Its not that I'm upset now because people have died when I wasn't before or anything like that.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Arles

To add some balance, here's another way to frame the stats:

1.4% death rate
14.3% casualty rate
Within 5 years:
-Dictator removed
-new government instilled
-democratic elections
Between years 3 and 4, violence significantly decreased (between 30 and 70% - depending on your source and location).

This may very well go down in history as the most successful major military offensive/nation building effort ever. What's amazing is that it could have even gone much more smoother than it did. Now, I don't know that you can use these numbers to justify the war to all people, but I think it puts everything in some historical perspective.

remains to be seen if installing a new gov't was beneficial for the Iraqi's. they were already a 3rd world country *with* sadam, with the new gov't many are still without basic necessities.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Arles

This may very well go down in history as the most successful major military offensive/nation building effort ever.

I really hope it does.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Radii

I was for the engagement in Afghanstan because of the understanding/assumption/intelligence that Bin Laden was physically present in Afghanstan, along with a large number of Al Qaeda high level members, training sites, and support. I was also for it because of the feeling that there was a need to respond to such an attack with some form of authoritative force that would indicate that we would not sit idly by and allow ourselves to be attacked. I felt that this engagement was a direct and, based on what we were being told, proper response to what had happened.


I was against the engagement in Iraq because I felt that the connections that were being made there were tenuous at best, outright direct deceit at its worst(Al Qaeda links to Iraq, constant confusing and wrong statements being made by leadership that led numerous Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, and that many of the hijackers were Iraqis.) I was against the war in Iraq because I felt like our attitude as a nation, especially as it was presented by President Bush, was terrible for our foreign policy. I thought we had built up a massive amount of goodwill and had the support of nearly the entire world going into Afghanistan, and we blew it in the most spectacular way possible, telling the entire world in no uncertain terms to go fuck itself if it didn't like what we were going to do in Iraq. And I felt that what we were being told about how 'simple' a mission we had in Iraq, how easy success would be, was just severely optimistic. I felt like our leadership was telling the public that we would be in Iraq for no more than a year, and probably less, to drum up massive support, when that seemed an impossibility realistically. A number of issues about the ability to fight on two fronts, what we would do if something else happened somewhere else while we were stuck in two fronts, seemed unresolved as well.


The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq to me at the time seemed HUGE and very clear.

Extremely well said.

+1

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

remains to be seen if installing a new gov't was beneficial for the Iraqi's. they were already a 3rd world country *with* sadam, with the new gov't many are still without basic necessities.

Not to sound too callous, but I don't think the goal of this effort was to make sure every Iraqi had cable TV and a hot shower. The goal was to have a country much less likely to buddy up with Al Qaeda and more friendly to the US. Now, the best way to reduce the "hate" effect of terrorists is to improve conditions - which is a part of the overall effort in Iraq. Still, that's not the prime endgame of this endeavor. It's also a reason why this whole effort may not be a success (despite the above numbers) if everything falls back into a Saddam-like regime in a few years.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

Not to sound too callous, but I don't think the goal of this effort was to make sure every Iraqi had cable TV and a hot shower. The goal was to have a country much less likely to buddy up with Al Qaeda and more friendly to the US. Now, the best way to reduce the "hate" effect of terrorists is to improve conditions - which is a part of the overall effort in Iraq. Still, that's not the prime endgame of this endeavor. It's also a reason why this whole effort may not be a success (despite the above numbers) if everything falls back into a Saddam-like regime in a few years.

But by all accounts, Al Qaeda wanted nothing to do with Saddam's Iraq. There wasn't a chance of them buddying up. But that is what the fight has now turned into, keeping Iraq from becoming a terrorist hotbed. In the vacuum that we didn't fill post-invasion, that allowed Al-Qaeda and the other groups to establish footholds that we are still fighting.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Extremely well said.

+1

Agreed, that answered my questions.

Does anyone want to admit that they though Iraq was a good idea after the government was overthrown in about 10 minutes with minimal casualties, and after we saw those videos of jubilant Iraqis tearing down symbols of the old guard? Because the support was overwhelmingly positive then.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by cartman

But by all accounts, Al Qaeda wanted nothing to do with Saddam's Iraq. There wasn't a chance of them buddying up. But that is what the fight has now turned into, keeping Iraq from becoming a terrorist hotbed. In the vacuum that we didn't fill post-invasion, that allowed Al-Qaeda and the other groups to establish footholds that we are still fighting.

exactly. this stuff didn't happen in Saddam-controlled Iraq. and the people had running water and electricity.

it seems the new gov't main goal is to say "we had less people getting blown up by suicide bombers this month than we had last month". Iraq was less of a problem to the US towards the latter stages of Saddam's reign than it is now. and the people had a semblence of order and control. obvioulsly with dictators that order and control swings too far in one direction, but hey, sometimes dictators do what they need to get the trains to run on time.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by cartman

But by all accounts, Al Qaeda wanted nothing to do with Saddam's Iraq. There wasn't a chance of them buddying up. But that is what the fight has now turned into, keeping Iraq from becoming a terrorist hotbed. In the vacuum that we didn't fill post-invasion, that allowed Al-Qaeda and the other groups to establish footholds that we are still fighting.

I don't recall exactly, but wasn't Sadam intensely secular and, therefore, really wary of (if not opposed to) Muslim extremist groups like Al Qaeda?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Maybe it's just me, but this doesn't seem to be a good thread to be flippant about. Thousands of Americans and countless others from Iraq have died or been maimed for life in this conflict, and folks are making jokes about stat-tracking? Poor form, in my book.

Agreed.