Good Evening, Vietnam

Although Vietnam flooded instantly back into American consciousness as the invasion of Iraq was launched in March 2003--along with its ancient vocabulary from "hearts and minds" to "quagmire" (or the deeply referential "Q-word")--for the Bush administration the rhetorical reference point was World War II and its aftermath. From Churchillian phraseology to that famed "axis of evil", modeled on the Axis powers of that global war, to endless invocations of the successful occupations of Germany and Japan, World War II was its analogous war of choice.

Yet from the beginning, no American critic had the Vietnam War era more firmly lodged in the brain than the top officials of the Bush administration. It was as if their invasion was always aimed, as in a suicide mission, directly at America's well-guarded Green Zone of Vietnam memories. After all, much war planning was based on what they considered the "lessons" of defeat in Vietnam.

From the dead-of-night way they brought the dead and wounded back from Iraq to the Pentagon's decision to embed the dreaded media, long blamed for defeat in Vietnam, in military units, Iraq was to be the anti-Vietnam battlefield. If we had, as the right believed, never lost an actual battle in Vietnam, but lost every one on the home front, then the major campaigns of the Iraq War would first be launched and managed on that home front (and only secondarily in Iraq).

But even as the White House and Pentagon were attempting to erase all Vietnam-like thoughts from the reality they hoped to mold both in the Middle East and in the US, even as they were avoiding the "Q-word" or the infamous phrase "light at the end of the tunnel" (for which, in the years to come, they would substitute an endless string of Iraqi "milestones," "landmarks," "tipping points," and "corners" turned), they were themselves hopelessly haunted by Vietnam.

That events in Iraq bore remarkably little relation to those in Vietnam over three decades earlier--beyond the obvious unlearned lesson that smaller powers in our time will not let bigger ones occupy them--seemed to make no difference. Forget the fact that there was no other superpower backing the Iraqi resistance or that the insurgency was a minority Sunni one in a majority Shiite country; forget that Vietnam had next to nothing of resource value other than rice to offer, while Iraq lies at the heart of the oil heartlands of the planet. Just focus for a moment on the recent thoroughly depressing jigsaw puzzle of a map of Baghdad produced by the US military "to reflect… ethno-sectarian fault lines" and leaked to the Times of London. Its various complex patterns of Sunni and Shiite stripes and solids, of flashpoints and "Christian communities," representing the complex swirl of civil war, insurgency, and ethnic cleansing bear no relation to anything imaginable in the Vietnam era.

Vietnam was, after all, a nation that only wanted to exist and whose "insurgency" was led by a single revolutionary/nationalist party headquartered in a separate half-nation. Iraq--an insurgency inside a foreign occupation inside a civil war, all infiltrated by untold levels of corruption, criminality, and religious strife and further confused by a minority Kurdish drive for an independent state--seems to be a nation in desperate search of failed statehood (and the US in Iraq, as Nir Rosen has pointed out, is now but a larger version of all the militias fighting for turf). We are, in short, in new territory here.

And yet somehow, Vietnam only seems to draw closer to Washington's Iraq. Just before the US midterm elections we reached what even the President agreed was a "Tet moment" (though the chaos of those weeks in Iraq bore next to no relation to the South Vietnam-wide offensive launched on the Tet holiday in 1968). It seems that, like drunks at an open bar, the President and others in this administration--no, in the capital more generally--just can't help themselves when it comes to Vietnam.

Take one small example. Just before those midterm elections, George Bush admitted to a group of conservative journalists, as Byron York of the National Review reported, that he was frustrated by the pre-invasion decision not to do the sorts of "body counts" that in Vietnam, as the carnage continued without victory ever heaving into sight, came to seem ludicrous, horrific, and self-defeating. ("'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.'")

The problem, the President admitted, was that, in administration war planning, "We have made a conscious effort not to be a body-count team." Without any other way to measure "success" in devolving Iraq, the President only wished he could reveal the count of kills the Pentagon had long been amassing behind the scenes. Now, as things go from bad to worse he has finally given in to that primal body-count urge. Last week at the Pentagon, for the first time in over three years of post-Mission Accomplished disaster, he offered up a body count, saying:

"Our commanders report that the enemy has also suffered. Offensive operations by Iraqi and coalition forces against terrorists and insurgents and death squad leaders have yielded positive results. In the months of October, November, and the first week of December, we have killed or captured nearly 5,900 of the enemy."

This wasn't just a presidential slip. Take two typical recent headlines--an AP report went: "2,000 killed in Afghanistan since Sept." ("Almost 2,100 militants have been killed in Afghanistan since Sept. 1 in operations involving coalition special forces soldiers, a U.S. Army spokesman said.") and a Pentagon news release for Iraq, "20 Terrorists Killed, Weapons Caches Destroyed" -- reveal that it is increasingly policy. It seems that we now have an official body-count team in Washington for both our failed wars.

And that's the least of the matter. As 2006 ends, Iraq has become Washington's Vietnam in every sense of the word. On the one hand, the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, representing the world of the elder George Bush, has opted for a policy which combines the Vietnamization program ("Iraqification") of the Nixon years (reduce American ground troops, bulk up American advisors to local forces, increase American air power, and at the very least create a "decent interval" between the withdrawal of American combat forces and the moment when defeat becomes evident). In the meantime, the President's upcoming revamped approach looks to be a combination of a John F. Kennedy-era massive advisor build-up and a classic Lyndon-Johnson years "surge" of troops. In the Vietnam era, another word was used for "surge"-- "escalation." And, as it happens, the newly proposed surge into Baghdad and al-Anbar Province of perhaps 20,000 extra American soldiers (along with a tripling of American advisors/trainers) is exactly the kind of "incremental" escalation that American military men, looking back on the Vietnam disaster, swore would never happen again

Just to ensure that this is indeed Vietnam we're now enmeshed in, both sides in the present recommendation debate have been consulting a key architect of the final losing years of the Vietnam era -- Henry Kissinger.

The dangers of succumbing to the Vietnam urge are remarkably quick to show themselves. Already last week Helen Thomas exposed an instant "credibility gap," sending White House spokesman Tony Snow scrambling to explain how the President could cite a two-month body-count figure but the administration couldn't offer a Pentagon count for four years of war. Meanwhile, the latest polls show a yawning, Vietnam-style "credibility gap" between what anyone in Washington wants to do and the urge of increasingly large majorities of Americans to withdraw all American troops on a fixed timeline from Iraq.

Even more to the Vietnam point is the evidence of collective establishment cowardice in present Iraq planning -- the willingness simply to put off the loss of a war (and of a dream of global domination) into someone else's future. In the Vietnam years, President Nixon (advised by Kissinger) could undoubtedly have gotten us out of Vietnam, but squandered his "capital" instead on his historic China opening, trying in the process -- shades of Iran today -- to get a neighboring regional power to do for his war what he was incapable of doing for himself.

This kind of ongoing madness -- part of which, these days, passes for "realism" just as Kissinger's particular brand of Vietnam-era madness passed for "realpolitik" -- should be material for The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Unfortunately, it will also be the basis for the deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands more Iraqis as well as hundreds or thousands more Americans in the years to come. And undoubtedly, when we're done, the Iraqis will be forgotten and -- as in the Vietnam era -- this will be called an "American tragedy," to be followed by an "Iraq Syndrome," and so on into the Möbius strip of history, farce, and catastrophe.

Comments (37)

1. Tom, sometimes you guys really kid yourselves about how the public thinks. While an arguement can be made now for parellells between Nam & Iraq, in 2003 NO ONE had Vietnam "come flooding back" into their consciousness. Indeed, the initial military conflict was as far removed from Nam as it could be. Rummy & Co screwed it up logistically later, which is a shame, cause we might have gotten out of there victorious and cleanly, (a fact that probably would have irritated NATION staffers immensely).

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/19/2006 @ 3:41pm

2. SOMEWHAT agree with Chip....March of 2003, the percentage of Americans that were thinking "Vietnam" when "Iraq" was mentioned was pretty low. Gulf War-I (1991) was more likely to be on their minds.

   But it HAS quickly degenerated into the "new Vietnam". We're always on the "verge of victory". Al Maliki may be worse than Nguyen Van Thieu. And everybody already knows the outcome will be the fall of a city (Saigon-1975, Baghdad-20??).

   Fortunately, as shown by the "lackluster" support for "troop surges" by the Joint Chiefs (even CPT has to scramble to spin that)....the "Westmorelands" are losing favor faster.

   Posted by Mask at 12/19/2006 @ 4:02pm

3. Baghdad-2006

   Posted by kimbo1 at 12/19/2006 @ 4:13pm

4. I think you missed the point of the piece, Chip. In short, the deeply entrenched tendencies of the powerful to delude themselves completely and thoroughly, in the process creating an inferno even as the ashes of the previous bonfire have yet to cool.

   At what point does the nation take heed of Eisenhower's warnings about the dangers of the military industrial complex? Probably not soon enough I imagine.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2006 @ 4:18pm

5. Posted by KIMBO1 12/19/2006 @ 4:13pm

   No, KIMBO....s'why I posted "20??". (although 2009 may be optimistic, I left the possibility with the 3rd integer left with a "?").

   Plus you've got Harry Reid, Hillary, and Silvestre Reyes giving cover for a "troop surge" (that apparently the Joint Chiefs aren't "full-square behind"...to again be generous).

   Posted by Mask at 12/19/2006 @ 4:19pm

6. Chip,

   No one had "Vietnam come flashing back" in 2003 while we were drunk on patriotism and declaring "Mission Accomplished". When the lack of planning and the lies became evident, then the Vietnam comparisons slowly began. And in 2002/2003, "The Nation" among other liberal presses expressed serious reservations about this war and the rationale for entering it...what a bunch of dumb-asses they all were, right?

   Posted by kimbo1 at 12/19/2006 @ 4:25pm

7. Dilip Hiro had it nailed in January 2003 here at "The Nation"-

   "Unlike highly homogeneous Japan, Iraq is a heterogeneous society. The traditional religious, ethnic and tribal animosities will break out in postwar Iraq once the iron hand of Saddam is removed, with civil conflict erupting along ethnic and sectarian lines, the deadliest one being between Sunnis and Shiites who share the Mesopotamian plain.

   Nostradamus couldn't have done better [thenation.com]

   Posted by Mask at 12/19/2006 @ 4:44pm

8. Mask/Kimbo

   Actually, the American people also initially supported the insertion of ground combat troops into Vietnam. It wasn't until 1969 that the population started turning against it. The scales here are smaller, in terms of time frame, troop committment and casualties, but the arc is very similar.

   Here [tinyurl.com] is a USA Today story from a year ago that discussed the parallels.

   Posted by brunowe at 12/19/2006 @ 5:18pm

9. But we had so many other things to do that year besides questioning whether or not preemptive war based on obvious lies was really such a good idea. 1. Dumping bottles of French wine down the sewer. 2. Running over a stack of Dixie Chick CD's with a steamroller. 3. Watching endless hours of pundits and "experts" predicting and opinionating. 4. Sticking yellow ribbons on our SUV's. 5. Shopping (by order of the president). 6. Fawning over our favorite celebrity "journalist" in combat gear telling us how wonderful it was in bed with the military. 7. Persecuting all of those "unpatriotic bastards" that did not support the president.

   No, not many people were asking the hard questions in 2003. It was so surreal how single-minded people were (I think this has changed only in the last 6 months).

   Posted by MiddleWay at 12/19/2006 @ 5:21pm

10. One major succes in the Iraq war which everybody seems to overlook is that those tens of thousands (some say hundreds of thousands) of Iraqis who've died since 2003 in so many horrible ways -- hey, at least they weren't killed by Saddam. Because that would just have been horrible. Shit, even being alive under Saddam's regime was far, far worse than being raped and murdered by an American G.I. (along with your whole family) or being blown up by a car bomb. All of those Iraqi war dead were spared death at the hands of Saddam and they were spared having to live under the Saddam regime. They should be thankful, especially the ones priviledged enough to have been killed by Americans.

    I apologize for being so sarcastic and so cynical, but the Vietnam comparison reminded me of a book about guerilla warfare called The war of the flea which begins with an American soldier in Vietnam who's just participated in the destruction of an entire village with napalm, justifying his actions thus: "We had to destroy that village in order to save it" [from communism].

    If there is one obvious similarity between Vietnam and Iraq, it's the blatant disregard of the U.S. Army for civilian lives.

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 12/19/2006 @ 7:44pm

11. God save our troops and God save us from President Bush.

    Posted by liveeasy at 12/19/2006 @ 9:47pm

12. $1 trillion bucks and counting...

    what incompetant bastards...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/19/2006 @ 11:16pm

13. Wasn't our abandonment of Vietnam a high water mark for leftists in the US? We quit in Vietnam and left my buddies behind. You lefties slandered our honor, our memories, and our pride.

    Standard McCarthyite nonsense. Vietnam was a loss for many reasons, from backing a corrupt military junta in the South to a plan based on firepower-based attrition that didn't work for a counter-insurgency type war. It was the majority of the US people, not just the lefties, who turned against the war when victory was no closer in '69 than it was in '65.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/20/2006 @ 01:14am

14. I've posted this 10-15 times and each time I do it seems like history repeating itself all over again down to some of the Nixon/hsuB speaches that were/are almost exactly the same from last year. Now the slow escelation for more troops as a solution when most of the military are shaking their heads thinking we've already seen these estimates. What's worse than the shit we're in? A bigger stnkier dump. 2007 will be like 1966, 2008 like 1967, 2009 like 1968,...

    We have to start pulling out now not add to it. Hillary has started changing her tune as has Reid. Once debate starts in the congress, give it a month and lots more will follow. McCain will fade as a credible voice. Especially when the torture investigations are revisited seriously.

    Year ___Vietnam US dead _________Year __Iraq US dead

    1961-65____1864_______________2003-06____2965

    1966_______6053________________2007____14,829

    1967______11,058_______________2008____27,731

    1968 ____16,511_____________2009___42,983

    1969______11,527_______________2010____30,088

    1970_______6065________________2011____15,645

    1971_______2348________________2012_____5476

    1972________561________________2013_____1314

    TOTALS

    KIA_____58,191______________________141,031

    WIA___153,303_______________________375,142

    MIA_____2338__________________________5641

    XXXxxxXXXXxxxXXXXxxxxxXXXXXxxxXXxxxXXXxxx

    South Vietnamese ___________________Iraqis

    KIA__230,000______________________611,800

    WIA__300,000______________________798,000

    North Vietnamese ________________ Insurgency

    KIA__1,100,000___________________2.926,000

    WIA__600,000____________________1,596,000

    Total Civilians Killed

    2-4,000,000____________________5-10,000,000

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/20/2006 @ 02:22am

15. LV¬, I posted this for Maasch on Surge, but it applies just as well to coporate DU bj'ers like yourself too:

    aasch,

    You seem to be all about winning. What is winning in Iraq, really? Would you go into someone's home shoot him dead, steal everything in the house and say you won? No you believe in the free market if everything is fair to a point. So rather than moving into someone elses home and stealing, killing, you're willing to bargain and buy what they're willing to sell you. If the price is too high-- you look elsewhere. Thus no killing necessary right? But why is Iraq different? Bottom line aren't we only there for the oil? Saddam hated UBL almost as much as we did and they were wiling to sell their oil to whomever. So why make all the shit up to move into their house to steal their oil when we could've bought it? Is life so cheap? Cheaper than oil? Who's making the money? Not our soldiers, not us. Thus aren't we losing every second we stay there?

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/19/2006 @ 10:44pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/20/2006 @ 02:32am

16. er, corporate

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/20/2006 @ 02:33am

17. Posted by RLawrence at 12/20/2006 @ 02:40am

18. Where's the money for escalation, even if it weren't morally reprehensible, politically unpopular, and pragmatically stupid? The latest trade deficit numbers are in the news today. From the AP: "The current-account trade deficit increased 3.9 percent to an all-time high of $225.6 billion in the July-September quarter, the Commerce Department reported Monday." The current account "represents the amount of money that must be borrowed from foreigners to make up the difference between imports and exports. The United States is borrowing more than $2 billion a day from foreigners to finance the trade deficit." The Chinese and even the EU are holding our debt and could pull the plug on the war party and our entire economy any day.

    George and Dick have had since November 7 to get it together. They're still staging photo ops while people die, and doing budget and policy shenanigans to help their buddies, and only their buddies, on the QT. They want to steal oil from countries that won't play ball -- even though oil dependence is the last thing this planet needs more of -- because some of their buddies are in the oil business. The 650,000 have died for them, not for the Constitution.

    Time for a March on Washington, I say. How about MLK day? Or Lincoln's Birthday -- a Monday in 2007, February 12. Troops Home Now.

    Posted by RLawrence at 12/20/2006 @ 02:42am

19. Posted by BRUNOWE 12/19/2006 @ 5:18pm

    But Vietnam started VERY SLOW...first a trickle of advisors from Truman, then Ike, then a BIG boost from JFK (plus the Diem assassination), then FULL-bloom under Johnson.

    Posted by Mask at 12/20/2006 @ 07:20am

20. MASK

    A fair point, although I would point out that we'd been supporting Iraqi exile groups for a few years before the war. As I said on another thread, the scales here (time, numbers, casualties) are all smaller.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/20/2006 @ 09:35am

21. Posted by BRUNOWE 12/20/2006 @ 09:35am

    Another analogy....it will stop BOTH sides from "playing with the toy soldiers"...possibly for a decade or more....i.e. Darfur, "peacekeeping missions", etc.

    Posted by Mask at 12/20/2006 @ 09:53am

22. Vietnam?

    Where are all the strip clubs? The heroin? The psychodellic drugs? The prostitutes? The cool anti-establishment movies?

    Vietnam? I think not.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 12/20/2006 @ 10:58am

23. Can 'any' military engagement appear as Vietnamesque-- until it passes the long build up to being like a quagmarish Vietnam? As much as it's totally screwed up, looks like most people would still like to help out the Iraqis (as well we should), but with a totally different strategy. Only 11% want more of our troops in the meat grinder and few see Iraq as anything other than a quagmire, that 'winning' for us may not really be what 'Iraq' needs. What if by us pulling out-- Iraq wins? In the long term-- will hsuB be considered a loser, well ok, as 'big' of a loser? May be the only option left to an escalation that still makes any sense and gives hsuB an out. Well but can he go against his loser instincts-- that is the question?

    CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Dec. 15-17, 2006. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

    Approve___Disapprove___Unsure

    ___28_________70_________2

    "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

    Favor___Oppose____Unsure

    __31______67________2

    "Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which one do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by December, 2007 -- that is, in 12 months time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq." Options rotated

    Immediately___By 12/07___As Long As Needed___Send More___Unsure

    _____21_________33___________32______________11_________3

    "What do you think is the most likely outcome for the U.S. in Iraq: a victory, a stalemate, or a defeat?" Options rotated

    Victory___Stalemate___Defeat___Unsure

    __27________50________20_______3

    "What do you think the U.S. should do concerning its strategy and tactics in Iraq? Do you think there should be a complete overhaul, major changes, minor changes or no changes at all in the strategy and tactics the U.S. is applying to the situation in Iraq?"

    Complete Overhaul__Major Changes__Minor Changes__No Changes At All__Unsure

    ________27____________46_____________18____________6_____________5

    "As you may know, Congress has authorized 70 billion dollars for the war in Iraq. Would you favor or oppose a proposal that would spend all of that money to immediately withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq and would prevent the U.S. from spending any additional money for future military operations in that country?"

    Favor____Oppose___Unsure

    __38_______59______3

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/20/2006 @ 11:07am

24. Posted by ZEDDMEN 12/20/2006 @ 10:58am

    Given enough time, I'm sure we can convert the Iraqis to that level of moral decay and obscenity: a great tourist attraction for the GOP pedophiles and VP hunter friendlies. Perhaps that was the plan all along...well, considerring the recent GOP history and no real reason for going here-- it makes more sense.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/20/2006 @ 11:21am

25. er, there

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/20/2006 @ 11:26am

26. Posted by LV¬ˆ?´®†¥¡ 12/20/2006 @ 12:40bm

    Because you're too idiotic to answer the question or just now recognized yourself as a pro-DU loser?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/20/2006 @ 1:14pm

27. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/20/2006 @ 11:07am

    What's fascinating about that poll data, HSUB...is that CPT would ignore ALL the questions, until the LAST one (no support for MONEY to be used for withdrawal)....and claim it proves that "Americans don't support withdrawal!!!"

    Posted by Mask at 12/20/2006 @ 1:52pm

28. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/19/2006 @ 9:13pm

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/20/2006 @ 7:36pm

    More ad hominum attacks. Do as I say, not as I do...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/20/2006 @ 8:13pm

29. Wow, there sure is a lot of talk of winning and losing in Iraq. Can anyone out there explain exactly what it will mean to "win" this war?

    I especially invite those who continuously use phrases like "leftists" and "Demoncrats". Please specifically define the things that would happen there in order to call this a victory.

    Posted by MiddleWay at 12/20/2006 @ 8:51pm

30. This is considerred winning for the repub lemmings:

    (Week 201 12/31/06 2)

    (Week 200 12/24/06 3)

    "I haven't heard the word 'broken', but I've heard the word, 'stressed.'"(12/19/06)

    Week 199 12/17/06 10

    "I'm Sleeping A Lot Better Than People Would Assume..." (12/14/06)

    Week 198 12/10/06 20

    'Iraq Study Group's 79' (12/6/06)

    Week 197: 12/03/06 35

    Week 196: 11/26/06 16

    Week 195: 11/19/06 13

    Week 194: 11/12/06 16

    Week 193: 11/05/06 15

    Week 192: 10/29/06 20

    Week 191: 10/22/06 17

    Week 190: 10/15/06 30

    Week 189: 10/08/06 23

    Week 188: 10/01/06 30

    Week 187: 09/24/06 15

    Week 186: 09/17/06 17

    Week 185: 09/10/06 14

    Week 184: 09/03/06 23

    Week 183: 08/27/06 22

    Week 182: 08/20/06 15

    Week 181: 08/13/06 7

    Week 180: 08/06/06 13

    Week 179: 07/30/06 12

    Week 178: 07/23/06 13

    Week 177: 07/16/06 14

    Week 176: 07/09/06 8

    Week 175: 07/02/06 6

    Week 174: 06/25/06 14

    Week 173: 06/18/06 16

    Week 172: 06/11/06 8

    Week 171: 06/04/06 20

    Week 170: 05/28/06 10

    Week 169: 05/21/06 13

    Week 168: 05/14/06 16

    Week 167: 05/07/06 15

    Week 166: 04/30/06 19

    Week 165: 04/23/06 17

    Week 164: 04/16/06 11

    Week 163: 04/09/06 21

    Week 162: 04/02/06 23

    Week 161: 03/26/06 10

    Week 160: 03/19/06 4

    'ISG/Baker-Hamilton Commission (3/15/06)

    Week 159: 03/12/06 10

    Week 158: 03/05/06 7

    Week 157: 02/26/06 9

    Week 156: 02/19/06 16

    Week 155: 02/12/06 10

    Week 154: 02/05/06 13

    Week 153: 01/29/06 11

    Week 152: 01/22/06 14

    Week 151: 01/15/06 11

    Week 150: 01/08/06 6

    Week 149: 01/01/06 31

    Week 148: 12/25/05 15

    Week 147: 12/18/05 10

    Week 146: 12/11/05 14

    Week 145: 12/04/05 14

    Week 144: 11/27/05 21

    Week 143: 11/20/05 13

    Week 142: 11/13/05 28

    Week 141: 11/06/05 18

    Week 140: 10/30/05 29

    Week 139: 10/23/05 19

    Week 138: 10/16/05 23

    Week 137: 10/09/05 22

    Week 136: 10/02/05 19

    Week 135: 09/25/05 18

    Week 134: 09/18/05 15

    Week 133: 09/11/05 9

    Week 132: 09/04/05 7

    Week 131: 08/28/05 10

    Week 130: 08/21/05 14

    Week 129: 08/14/05 14

    Week 128: 08/07/05 15

    Week 127: 07/31/05 36

    Week 126: 07/24/05 23

    Week 125: 07/17/05 9

    Week 124: 07/10/05 12

    Week 123: 07/03/05 9

    Week 122: 06/26/05 8

    Week 121: 06/19/05 14

    Week 120: 06/12/05 21

    Week 119: 06/05/05 30

    Week 118: 05/29/05 13

    Week 117: 05/22/05 28

    Week 116: 05/15/05 8

    Week 115: 05/08/05 24

    Week 114: 05/01/05 12

    Week 112: 04/24/05 16

    Week 111: 04/17/05 13

    Week 110: 04/10/05 10

    Week 109: 04/03/05 10

    Week 108: 03/27/05 9

    Week 107: 03/20/05 7

    Week 106: 03/13/05 6

    Week 105: 03/06/05 5

    Week 104: 02/27/05 14

    Week 103: 02/20/05 18

    Week 102: 02/13/05 20

    Week 101: 02/06/05 8

    Iraqi Free Elections (1/31/05)

    Week 100: 01/30/05 15

    Week 99: 01/23/05 61

    Week 98: 01/16/05 9

    Week 97: 01/09/05 12

    Week 96: 01/02/05 17

    Week 95: 12/26/04 11

    Week 94: 12/19/04 21

    Week 93: 12/12/04 14

    Week 92: 12/05/04 14

    Week 91: 11/28/04 27

    Week 90: 11/21/04 17

    Week 89: 11/14/04 34

    Week 88: 11/07/04 67

    Week 87: 10/31/04 7

    Week 86: 10/24/04 16

    Week 85: 10/17/04 3

    Week 84: 10/10/04 31

    Week 83: 10/03/04 10

    Week 82: 09/26/04 12

    Week 81: 09/19/04 16

    Week 80: 09/12/04 22

    Week 79: 09/05/04 26

    Week 78: 08/29/04 8

    Week 77: 08/22/04 14

    Week 76: 08/15/04 23

    Week 75: 08/07/04 9

    Week 74: 08/01/04 18

    Week 73: 07/25/04 5

    Week 72: 07/18/04 11

    Week 71: 07/11/04 12

    Week 70: 07/05/04 20

    Handover (6/29/04)

    Week 69: 06/27/04 11

    Week 68: 06/20/04 13

    Week 67: 06/13/04 8

    Week 66: 06/06/04 6

    Week 65: 05/30/04 17

    Week 64: 05/23/04 16

    Week 63: 05/16/04 14

    Week 62: 05/09/04 14

    Week 61: 05/02/04 25

    Week 60: 04/25/04 28

    Week 59: 04/18/04 12

    Week 58: 04/11/04 30

    Week 57: 04/04/04 66

    Week 56: 03/28/04 12

    Week 55: 03/21/04 10

    Week 54: 03/14/04 17

    Week 53: 03/07/04 14

    Week 52: 02/29/04 2

    Week 51: 02/22/04 2

    Week 50: 02/15/04 6

    Week 49: 02/07/04 8

    Week 48: 02/01/04 4

    Week 47: 01/25/04 15

    Week 46: 01/18/04 10

    Week 45: 01/11/04 6

    Week 44: 01/04/04 11

    Week 43: 12/28/03 9

    Week 42: 12/21/03 12

    Week 41: 12/14/03 7

    Week 40: 12/07/03 12

    Capture of Saddam (12/13/03)

    Week 39: 11/30/03 5

    Week 38: 11/23/03 10

    Week 37: 11/16/03 10

    Week 36: 11/09/03 26

    Week 35: 11/02/03 34

    Week 34: 10/26/03 13

    Week 33: 10/19/03 9

    Week 32: 10/12/03 12

    Week 31: 10/05/03 6

    Week 30: 09/28/03 10

    Week 29: 09/21/03 5

    Week 28: 09/14/03 11

    Week 27: 09/07/03 6

    Week 26: 08/31/03 5

    Week 25: 08/24/03 8

    Week 24: 08/17/03 8

    Week 23: 08/10/03 7

    Week 21: 08/03/03 11

    Week 20: 07/27/03 7

    Week 19: 07/20/03 16

    Week 18: 07/13/03 9

    Week 17: 07/06/03 12

    Week 16: 06/29/03 5

    Week 15: 06/22/03 11

    Week 14: 06/15/03 8

    Week 13: 06/08/03 4

    Week 12: 06/01/03 7

    Week 11: 05/25/03 13

    Week 10: 05/18/03 9

    Week 9: 05/11/03 6

    Week 8: 05/04/03 7

    "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03)

    Week 7: 04/27/03 3

    Week 6: 04/20/03 7

    Week 5: 04/13/03 9

    Week 4: 04/06/03 21

    Week 3: 03/30/03 41

    Week 2: 03/23/03 51

    Week 1: 03/20/03 9

    Total______ 2959 dead

    (2965 dead, from prev. 2005 est. ending 2006)

    It will be higher now.

    http://www.icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/21/2006 @ 10:25am

31. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/21/2006 @ 10:25am

    HSUB....really!

    Who are you trying to "win over" with this? Those of us (the 65%, including you and me) who oppose the continueing war in Iraq...already oppose it.

    and the 35%ers, like CPT, don't CARE what the casualty count is.

    All you're doing is spamming with a massive C&P of info that EVERYBODY already knows.

    Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 10:31am

32. Mask, sounds you're speaking for CPT and the far right? You're certainly not speaking for those that are teetering on the edge. Why does my post bother you so much? Or is it that it's anathema to pro-hsuB/anti-impeachment people? Perhaps there's a reason you protect them then...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/21/2006 @ 10:54am

33. er, Mask, sounds 'like' you're speaking for CPT and the far right?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/21/2006 @ 10:57am

34. And Mask, it's not a cut and paste. I edited the information a lot just to show weekly death counts, dates, reformated and cut the percentages out plus added the quotes and events with their dates. The website is to verify the number of deaths. The numbers are dynamic, change every week and I add to the list.

    The previous post of Vietnam to Iraq war death count comparison isn't dynamic and is the same one I created a year ago.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/21/2006 @ 11:33am

35. Gots to go jog.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/21/2006 @ 11:34am

36. HSUB....seriously....who's LEFT to be "teetering on the edge"?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 12:10pm

37. All those, 20+%, that changed from approval for the Iraq war to the disappoval side these last 2 years were at one point teetering. There's still another 20-28% that could be teeteringers. Really Mask-- I know you know how to read polls as well as I do. Playing the dumb hsuB unimpeacher puller again? Hah, ask for a raise.

    BTW, start jogging now and the holiday bulge won't hurt as much in a couple of weeks... that I know for sure.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/21/2006 @ 5:59pm