Return of the Body Count?

It's been clear since the Afghan War began in 2001 that no one had the Vietnam analogy more programmatically on their brains than the Bush team in the White House and the Pentagon. It was visibly clear that they went into Iraq in 2003 playing an opposites game with the "mistakes" of Vietnam (as they saw them)--while excoriating any critics who cared to make comparisons to the Vietnam experience. Part of administration planning was clearly aimed at avoiding all enemy "body counts," since (as the Vietnam War dragged on) the body count of kills, announced in Saigon each day, came to discredit the whole effort. All blood, no results. So, starting in Afghanistan, this administration was clearly going to produce only results and no enemy body counts.

Tommy Franks, the US commander of that operation, famously said so. "We don't do body counts" was his statement. But--until this week--we had no other insider confirmation that, right down to the body count, Vietnam remained the anti-template for the war in Iraq.

Tuesday, however, was Radio Day, a gathering of rabid, right-wing radio shock jocks in a heated tent on the North Lawn of the White House, where the top honchos of this administration right up to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney sat for interviews with Sean Hannity & Co. to rally the faithful two weeks before a shaky midterm election. It was an event, as Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post found out, closed to "the press" (except for ten minutes of "pool" coverage). On Wednesday, the President himself made amends, opening up the inner sanctum, the Oval Office, to the press -- well, 8 "conservative journalists" anyway.

Byron York of the National Review was there and wrote a revealing piece Wednesday about the President's growing frustration over Iraq. It seems that the man who, in December 2005, finally offered a cumulative (unbelievably low-ball) body count of 30,000 for all Iraqi deaths by violence since 2003 and then "stood by" that same number almost 11 bloody months later, was most frustrated that he couldn't offer the American people a real, notch-on-the-gun, continuous measure of "progress" in Iraq -- just how many enemies we were knocking off there regularly. "We don't get to say," said Bush, in what was evidently an outburst of irritation, "that -- a thousand of the enemy killed, or whatever the number was. It's happening. You just don't know it."

And why exactly can't the President reveal that proud -- and obviously high -- figure to us when, as he said, comparing Iraq to World War II (where progress was so much easier to measure), there are so few other indices of success? He was willing to reveal just why for the first time in this passage from the York piece:

"'We have made a conscious effort not to be a body-count team,' Bush said, in a clear reference to the tabulations of enemy killed that became a hallmark of the Vietnam War. And that, in turn, "gives you the impression that [U.S. troops] are just there -- kind of moving around, directing traffic, and somebody takes a shot at them and they're down."

So now we know. This can officially be declared the anti-Vietnam, anti-body count war. The President has told us so. And it's darn frustrating for a man who, according to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, once kept in his Oval Office desk drawer "his own personal scorecard for the war" in the form of photographs with brief biographies and personality sketches of those judged to be the world's most dangerous terrorists--each ready to be crossed out by the President as his forces took them down. And a man who is truly frustrated, well, he just has to vent sometime, doesn't he? Perhaps, since so much else from the Vietnam era has returned to haunt us, it's time for the official return of the body count or, as Donald Rumsfeld likes to call all the measuring the administration does behind the scenes, the "metrics" of "success."

Comments (24)

1. Everything that CAN be said about Iraq and Afghanistand HAS been said....10 days from now, the results of those words will finally be shown.

   Either a continuation of the Repub Congress...and the words didnt matter,

   or the Dems take Congress...and then the REAL fun begins. "Murtha"?, "Murtha-lite?", "semi-withdrawal", "partial withdrawal"....Kerry/Kennedy/Murtha/Dean...or Biden/Clinton...or what?

   Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 11:00am

2. Funny, for the GOP abstinence and withdrawl are acceptable birth control methods, but not OK for "violence control" (like war let's say).

   Hmmmmmmm

   Posted by leftofcenter at 10/27/2006 @ 11:12am

3. And heaven forbid the WH would accept the estimates of scientists on deaths in Iraq. We all know them eggheads at the Lancet are just "guessing" (gods, what a loon)

   Posted by leftofcenter at 10/27/2006 @ 11:15am

4. "Everything that CAN be said about Iraq and Afghanistand HAS been said....10 days from now, the results of those words will finally be shown."

   not even close. perhaps that is true with you, but you may not speak for everyone else in the world.

   you are not one to take a stand easily, preferring some kind of gadfly sniping, except in the recent discussion on the right to choose. that is why that stand is much appreciated by me.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 11:16am

5. Wow. The Nation is actually mentioning Byron York. I love it when both of these journals take shots at each other.

   For the record, I highly recommend the link with the Bush interview. It's not every day that you get candid words from a commander in chief...with his guard down.

   I think that much of what can be said about the war now has already been said. For instance, no one on this board would surprise me anymore than I might surprise them. It'll take time and serious analysis by legitimate military historians and political scientists (not simply talking heads) to arrive at an accurate perpsective.

   Posted by Beausoleil at 10/27/2006 @ 11:23am

6. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/27/2006 @ 11:16am

   Well, JOHANN...step up and correct me. Name something that has gone "un-mentioned" about the failures in Iraq or Afghanistan?

   Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 11:30am

7. Oh come on, we have a press that reports on Iraq from the safety of the green zone, an administration that lies about the war and everything else.

   "Name something that has gone "un-mentioned" about the failures in Iraq or Afghanistan?"

   this is an impossible request.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 11:41am

8. i'm beginning to think that life is so easy for the bush team (catered lunches, lincoln towncar chauffeurs, cuban cigars, private jets), that these pesky realities from iraq are beginning to irritate them.....and they're just getting frustrated and lazy.

   i love how rumsfeld said the other day, "this is complicated stuff, so just back off."

   Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2006 @ 11:52am

9. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/27/2006 @ 11:41am

   Yes, it is...because it shoots down your premature LEAP to criticize what I said, JOHANN.

   NOTHING as gone un-mentioned about the wars, as I said originally. And my point was that ONE MORE mention of "body counts" by Mr Englehardt doesn't matter.

   The war is lost (Afghanistan too maybe). So re-hashing the same things over and over again don't matter. Only a week from Tuesday matters.

   Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 12:05pm

10. nonsense. in order to save these dialogues from bickering I will put you on ignore for a while, as much fun it is to skewer your pretensions.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 12:15pm

11. We are a long long way from ending the dialogue about this war. The investigations haven't even begun yet.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/27/2006 @ 12:43am

    Uh, FRANK...you mean we have to wait a long long time for dialogue and investigations....before the Dems come up with a single, unified plan for withdrawal from Iraq?!?!?

    THAT was my point.

    Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 12:57pm

12. All

    On of the most succinct timelines of the BS and lies leading up to Dubya's Debacle...worth a read BushCO: lies, damned lies and war

    (and a thousand pardons as I may cross post this on another thread)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/27/2006 @ 1:07pm

13. Posted by BEAUSOLEIL 10/27/2006 @ 11:23am

    Bush's guard was down? You make it seem as if he was cornered at breakfast.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/27/2006 @ 3:05pm

14. It was a planned meeting with eight conservative journalists. If Bush really had his "guard down" in a set-up like this, that doesn't say much about his preparation skills.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/27/2006 @ 3:06pm

15. Who should be the last man to die for this debacle?

    Cheney?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 3:35pm

16. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/27/2006 @ 3:35pm

    Odd, even dangerous joke aside, JOHANN.

    Last time I checked Robert McNamara is still alive...and attempting a mea culpa "Nixonian" redemption of his honor.

    'course Cheney with his heart condition won't make it another 30.

    Posted by Mask at 10/27/2006 @ 4:21pm

17. Odd, even dangerous joke aside, JOHANN.

    dangerous? do we live in North Korea?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/27/2006 @ 5:23pm

18. [ This morning I attended an award ceremony at my son's base. He was presented with a commendation and shake for a job well done in Iraq and, most importantly, a standing ovation from those in attendance. He was one of the lucky ones who made it home in one piece. Those who didn't make it back return in the dark of night unseen by a grateful nation. They are given a military funeral and the family is given money and medals.

    Who should be the last man to die for this debacle?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/27/2006 @ 12:39am ]

    [ We are a long long way from ending the dialogue about this war. The investigations haven't even begun yet. What does Dubya think? Just because he told a bunch of conservative hack journalists that he weeps with the families -- that makes all of his lies ok? If it were my son he were weeping over I'd punch him right in the mouth. Then I'd spit on him and throw him the hell out.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/27/2006 @ 12:43am ]

    This is likely to be a response that rambles a bit, but I'll try to write coherently. My father had his 23rd birthday just a few weeks after the United States declared war on Japan in December of 1941. He enlisted in the navy, and ultimately served as the chief electrical officer on the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey. Like many veterans of WWII, he didn't talk often, or much, about his experiences during the war, but occasionally my brother or I would dig out the photographic journal that had been put together -- a chronicle of the ship's journeys and her crew, which was given to each of the men when they were finally discharged -- and Dad would answer our questions. A few strong impressions linger in my mind, from these talks, not so much the exact words he said (of which I've forgotten too many, I'm sorry to say) but his perspective on military service. He most certainly understood the necessity to fight, but he was a man with two eyes to see and a good head to make sense of things, and when he took measure of the ghastly waste of his generation in its prime, and the grievousness of thwarted human enterprise, it was deeply offensive to his philosophical nature. He also had a clear understanding of what constituted genuine integrity in a leader, and he recognized fake authority when he encountered it. I can remember Dad telling the story of one of the ship's comanders, who, when he concluded what was supposed to be an inspirational speech to the assembled crew, ranted "...we're going to KILL and KILL and KILL and KILL and KILL those Japs..." until he was practically frothing at the mouth. My father then thought to himself "This man is insane; we'll be lucky if any of us gets off this ship alive."

    My father could also tell the difference between an unavoidable war and a reckless military misadventure, even if it did take several years of witnessing ceaseless, horrific slaughter on the nightly newscasts from Vietnam to confirm him in his conviction that that war must be stopped. (So many of us in that era were slow to grasp the magnitude of that violent blunder, but then, few Americans had yet been able to comprehend how brazenly criminal their government would be, to mire its own citizenry in confusion, with its lies.) I turned 18 in 1973 and I'd received my draft number (I don't recall what it was, precisely, but I seem to remember that it was a relatively "safe" figure in the mid 200s, but it still had an ominous feel). There were signs that Nixon was finally winding down the war in Vietnam, but none of us really knew how much longer the fighting would drag on. At that time my father said something to me that I will never forget, because, though he was a serious man of resolve, I don't think I'd ever before heard such gravitas in his voice. He said, "I will go to jail myself, in your defense, rather than let you, or your brother, be sent over to that mess in Vietnam." In that one, straightforward sentence he expressed a full lifetime of courage, compassion and humanity.

    I'm 51 now, and I have no sons of my own, but let me say in humility that, from my own dad's example, I have an inkling of the flood of emotions that you must be feeling for your son, FRANKGRITS, and the torrents of cold rage you must be feeling towards those criminal imposters who led us into this seething catastrophe in Iraq, and I simply wish to offer you, your son, and your family my wholehearted admiration, prayerful thoughts, and sincere gratitude. Blessings.

    Posted by phillipe at 10/28/2006 @ 08:00am

19. Mask, can I get an answer on my "dangerous" joke? why dangerous?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2006 @ 08:28am

20. Dann eben nicht.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2006 @ 1:52pm

21. It's Halloween for American soldiers in corpse ridden Iraq. The body count goes on. . .

    -This is an eerie place most of them have not seen, nor like any other desert, including those in the American Southwest and Mexico of which some of them may be cursorily familiar.

    -This is a spooky place of a strange language most of them do not speak, nor have even before heard. For fear, it is not like anything one may hear even in Detroit these days.

    -This is a gruesome place of a bloody social order most of them do not understand. The politics of revenge there is not what even those from the meanest streets of our biggest cities know.

    American soldiers are on a mission from hell in Iraq. . .

    The Muslim fanatics there have already won this 'war', just as surely as the Christian fanatics here have lost it. Hopefully, it won't take more than a century for these deluded adherents of death to figure this out, as was true in the darkest days of the Middle Ages.

    So, be damned the attempt to impose some 'notion of democracy' on the Iraqis', and they are not even sure that's who they are. They work against America at every turn. They hate us. They kill our soldiers because our soldiers kill them. They just plain don't want us there!

    So why are we there on this Halloween? It is because of the arrogance of greedy, warmongering American psuedo-intellectual advocates of hegemony, and the hubris and stupidity of those who have enthusiatically waged this faraway war for them. Sadly, those too have been persuaded to insidiously and calculatingly wage war as well on their own people's 'notion of democracy'. . .

    Scarey!

    Blog On at PLANET REVOLUTION [planetrevolution.blogspot.com]

    Posted by tfnewkirk at 10/29/2006 @ 12:57pm

22. Ever notice how all of the generals are afraid to speak truth to power while they were in the war and bucking for another star, and then, only after retiring, when they are safely out of harm's way, i.e., Rummy's direct line of fire, do they start becoming military strategists discussing the war policy on MSNBC and CNN?

    Courage under fire should also mean under fire of an Administration run by an inept power hungry puppet who is using his office to wield power, but is truly out of his mind, and his disease has passed on to the VP, Rummy, and Condi. The generals' first duty is to the men and women in the field, and not to the president. This isn't ancient Rome.

    But these glory-happy generals are blindly following Rummy like automatons, not leading their troops. Maybe they know Rummy et al. can't handle the truth, but they of all people must know--and speak out--about the true situation because Bush claims to listen and act on what they--the generals--tell him.

    But it seems Rumsfeld tells the generals what to tell the President. They know Bush is planning to bomb Iran and they must know if that happens, then it is the beginning of the end of the world. We might as well pick a US city--how about--Washington? Miami? Seattle? Let's see--San Diego (where I live)? New York? Then what next? If the generals will bravely untie their own bonds to Rummy and have the guts to come out and speak plain truth to abusive power, we might yet save our necks.

    The trouble is that Generals Miller, Sanchez, Schoomacher and Abizaid are opportunists themselves and should be ousted. Gen Abizaid, who speaks and reads fluent Arabic, should be, if anything, a Communicator; he is in a perfect position to do so. General Pete Pace knows (and recently exposed) Rummy for what he is, a vicious sadist as demonstrated on TV a week or so ago (excerpts, slightly paraphrased) on C-Span):

    Pace: If any of my troops see inhumane treatment of detainees or any prisoners going on, they are legally obligated to stop it immediately.

    Rummy: I don't think you meant to put an immediate stop to it while it is occurring.

    Pace: Yes, sir, I meant...if they see any inhumane treatment, they are legally obligated to stop it immediately.

    If that doesn't show we have a general with some cojones out there, what does? So go further, Pete, and speak truth to power, awready. Do something honorable:

    Pace: "Semper Fi, and screw you, Rummy...sir."

    Andrea Lawrence-Stuart aka Neighsayer

    Posted by neighsayer at 10/29/2006 @ 4:26pm

23. P.S. The above is relevant--because there won't be any body count if the President gets his way. He said "I want saving Iran to be my legacy."

    Does this fool think he'll escape it with his life if his plan to bomb Iraq goes through? Or is he pulling a martyr act, too? He will take us with him. So there will be no one to do a body count.

    Posted by neighsayer at 10/29/2006 @ 4:32pm

24. He said "I want destroying Iraq to be my legacy."

    Bush has certainly gotten his wish.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/30/2006 @ 09:59am