Last week, the Defense Department released the obituaries of 19 military personnel killed in and around Iraq, ranging in age from 19 to 46.
Total deaths through Friday, 9/1, have amounted to 2,641 in and around Iraq, and 273, in and around Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon.
Thirteen of last week's casualties were killed by roadside bombs. One, a 23 year old, died from a heart attack, possible reflecting the extreme stress related to that tour of duty.
The father of one of the casualties, Sgt. Jeffrey S. Brown, 25, of Trinity Center, California, himself a wounded veteran, bitterly accused the Pentagon of conducting a "backdoor draft," by extending his son's tour, and the tours of others, through the stop loss program, an unpopular Pentagon practice of holding on to personnel involuntarily.
"My son should not be dead, because he did live up to his contract, and the army did not live up to theirs," said Jeffrey's father. "I guess if we're going to put all our trust in (military officials), then they should be trustworthy - and they aren't," he said. "In Vietnam, you just went for 12 months and then you came home. If you went again, you did it voluntarily."
Jeffrey Brown had started at fullback on Trinity High School's football team and played on the team that won the north state championship.
While he was helping his father cut firewood when he was home this summer, after his first tour, he said "If I was out now I wouldn't have to be going back," according to his dad, who replied "Well, yeah, one more trip and you'll be done."
"And five weeks later he was dead," said Mr. Brown, who is afflicted with terminal thyroid cancer.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 18
Thank You for your interest fellow citizens
Of course, your candidacy for president of the United States suggests that you may be touting the ultra neo-con line as a tongue-in-cheek attempt to reveal its inanity, and - if so - I wish you luck.....
Whatever inanity I reveal, is in your posts, and not in the policies of the Bush administration, no matter how many there are.
Just to set the record straight, I never voted for Bush, or his daddy. Their silly ideas about a "kinder gentler nation" and "compassionate conservatitism" are antithetical to real conservative principles.
I've never repudiated global warming, I've simply refuted the unscientific claims made by those promoting global warming. I acknowledge global warming is happening, I simply refuse to believe we are the cause of it, and if we are, that we can do anything about it.
And I certainly do not encourage vigilantism, you have misperceived something I have written, apparently.
Your emotiona rhetoric isn't really much of a challenge to refute.
Thank You for your interest fellow citizens.
And if you're not in good condtion, jJack, how about any of your kids?
"I acknowledge those sacrifices sir, I simply reject your tired and empty accusation the war in Iraq is an 'illegal and tragic blunder.' "
Tired and empty? Is that why over 60% of the country has turned against an administration that once held the public in the palm of its hand? It is every patriotic American's duty, sir, to continue to criticize this fiasco until our military is out of harms way, and the profiteers are out of Iraq.
I'm not sure whether you object to the words illegal, tragic or blunder, but let's focus on blunder. Let's see, Iraq is in shambles. Tens of thousands have died. The U.S. Army admits that the country is in a state of civil war, or close to it. The oil market has been destabilized. Our standing in the world has deteriorated. 2,641 Americans have been killed, and thousands more have been crippled. Nearly $400 billion has been thrown into this black hole so far. Indications are that Iraq will gradually align itself with its now sister country, Shiite dominated Iran.
Just what then is your idea of a blunder, sir?
Paragraphs 2 and 3 are irrelevant. Paragraph 4 of Mr. Midknight's comment says:
"I've never repudiated global warming, I've simply refuted the unscientific claims made by those promoting global warming. I acknowledge global warming is happening, I simply refuse to believe we are the cause of it, and if we are, that we can do anything about it."
Curiously these "unscientific claims" have been backed up by a majority of scientists. Apparently you are saying that you don't believe there is a connection between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming, and yet there is an uncanny relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere and the average temperatures, over time.
Do you have a scientific background, or an understanding of scientific principles? When will you acknowledge the connection - when New York City is hit with a category 5 and thousands are killed - or when Rush Limbaugh tells you that its ok to change your mind?
and paragraph 5:
"And I certainly do not encourage vigilantism, you have misperceived something I have written, apparently."
Well, the publicity you gave to the Nebraska Minuteman Project doesn't amount to encouragement, is that it? Or - just because they haven't yet sent people to the border, do you feel, perhaps that therefore they are not a vigilante type of organization?
In any event, I would say that in view of your ability to twist logic, you are eminently qualified to be a right wing candidate for president and nothing woiuld make me happier than to see you on the ticket, sir.
U.S. Deaths in Iraq, War on Terror Surpass 9/11 Toll
POSTED: 1855 GMT (0255 HKT), September 3, 2006
(CNN) -- As the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States approaches, another somber benchmark has just been passed.
The announcement Sunday of four more U.S. military deaths in Iraq raises the death toll to 2,974 for U.S. military service members in Iraq and in what the Bush administration calls the war on terror.
The 9/11 attack killed 2,973 people, including Americans and foreign nationals but excluding the terrorists. The 9/11 death toll was calculated by CNN.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/death.toll/
Meanwhile, the alleged master mind behind the WTC attack, Osama bi Laden, is still loose. They say Osama is in Asia, probably Pakistan...so what are we doing in Iraq?
Oh, and incidently this whole war is one humongous war crime...it's an illegal war under international law:
From the BBC: "The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
But, when you're the Big Kahoonah among nations you can pretty much do what ever the hell you please. Just make sure you don't lose this war 'cause than it might be time to pay the fiddler. Remember...Nuremburg?
Fighting for freedoms, indeed. Is that what they are calling OIL...now!
Sports fans would never put up with such a cavalier method of compiling statistics. Why should we tolerate it with respect to military deaths. The Pentagon's numbers don't even total 2,974 with Afghanistan included.
We wouldn't want the rich folk to have to sacrifice. That would make for an uneasy feeling at the country club.
What if those of you who support this war policy stand up and volunteer to go and fight for your beliefs.
Oh that would be sooooo unfair?
and a backdoor draft isn't?
thanks for another great article. The Iraq War is many things. One of the worst aspects is what a con-job it is. The burden is being borne by a tiny portion of the population. The very rich who have the right investments are actually profiting from the continued bungling and malfeasance of the military industrial complex. Meanwhile, middle America has stopped approving of this President and his war. Let's hope this results in more rational policy after the November elections.
Thomas, I'm reminded of a song from Fiddler on the Roof, I believe.....It's a Rich Man's World......
That's certainly true in America, especially since we became the world's leading Moneyocracy
You assume far too much, and comprehend far too little it seems. There is no civil war in Iraq, despite your claims. There is no chaos either. There is only an insurgency seeking to reinstitute the barbarism of baathist totalitarian rule.
There is no civil war in Iraq, because there is less than one percent of the population engaged in violence. This in no way demonstrates a civil war. Yes, these very few people are causing localized death, it still doesn't make it a civil war.
The fact is, 15 of the 18 provinces of Iraq, report 6 acts of violence or less a day. In 12 of the 18, they report 2 acts of violence or less each day. This isn't chaos, or else there is also chaos in America.
I think you should listen to the men and women of the military more often, than the pundits you apparently seek to emulate.
You are free to declare "failure" much as Bush was free to declare "mission accomplished." Bush, at the very least had toppled the leader of a nation, and could suggest something was in fact, accomplished. You however, have nothing but your word to offer as "proof" of anything at all. You are free to call it a failure in Iraq, all you desire, but it will never make it "true."
Success or failure in Iraq will be measured over decades, not a few years. If, in fifty years we find ourselves with a free Iraq, a free Saudi Arabia, a free MIDDLE EAST, your assessments of "failure" and "chaos" will seem as naive as I believe them to be.
If on the other hand, we have none of those things in 50 years, you might be vindicated.
By the way, I'm an open borders advocate. So much for your silly assumptions.
Thank You for your interest fellow citizens.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you think that most people might perceive these statements as being diametrically opposed to each other. It seems that you are scattering your seeds in every direction.
As for the question of whether we have a condition in Iraq that is approaching civil war, and whether there is chaos or not, the answer is obvious. The military confirms it. Observors confirm it.
Your response is to pull the old bait and switch that the right wing is so noted for and shift the emphasis away from the major center of the population in Iraq - namely Baghdad - and talk about how relatively safe it is in the less densely populated areas where the Sunnis and the Shiites don't buck heads. Your point is irrelevant.
Everyone knows, for example , that right now the kurdish areas are far removed from the violence that is plaguing the Baghdad region, a fact that is totally separate from the question of whether there is a civil war commencing elsewhere.
For your comments to be the least bit relevant, you should limit your examples to large urban areas where Sunnis and Shiites coexist, and cite your sources, which hopefully won't be the same old conservative "think tanks" we always here from.
You also say that success or failure in Iraq will be measured over decades. I say it has already been measured over a period of 900 years.
The West started to try imposing its way of life on the Muslims in the 11th century and for over 200 years it encountered nothing but a series of failures. In the long scheme of things, this invasion engineered by Bush and his English lackey will be viewed historically as just another failed crusade.