Isn’t it amazing how these days, the success of a mission is measured by minimization of American losses. Clinton was constantly praised on how he used the military because he had “minimal losses” (Here’s just one example). The Persian Gulf War was a rave success because there was a minimum of American casualties. (There were actually many more “non-hostile” deaths in the Persian Gulf War than “hostile” ones.)
Was this really a success, though? It was a successful battle. It was a success for the Kuwaiti’s. However it’s hard to argue that Saddam’s regime REALLY suffered as a result. If anything it gave him the opportunity to hide under a corrupt oil-for-food program and continue to abuse his people even worse.
It used to be that the measure of success of a military engagement was whether the enemy was defeated. Wouldn’t you call the Persian Gulf more of a forfeit or a tie (like Korea for instance)? Wouldn’t the current war in Iraq be more of a success? Even if you were to argue about the reasons for going in, and the difficulties in “winning the peace”, it’s hard to say we didn’t win the war, especially given the fact that we did it in a way to minimize civilian casualties. (please send your links with examples of Al Jazeera and Michael Moore talking about 10s and 100s of thousands of millions of civilian casualties, here).
The truth is, there hasn’t been a military in the history of mankind that has spent more resources (time, money, and human lives) in order to spare the innocent in war. Isn’t that what the left wants in a war, to make life better for the innocent instead of just bombing the crap out of entire countries? What they don’t seem to realize is that it takes boots on the ground in order to do that, and that means losses to American forces.
You can’t have it both ways (not even if the media wants you to).
Posted at 04:51 pm by Logipundit