« on the menu | Main | The wednesday edition of "Presented without commentary" »

hello, has anyone seen my quagmire?

coalition_graph.jpe


[Via Samizdatat]

When you're done with that, read this.

Comments

I'd say the quagmire is here, but we all know the U.N. would never be involved in one of those.

If the "it's a quagmire!" people need any injection of perspective, here's three historical anecdotes. We assume that time and bodycounts are measures of quagmire.

Vietnam, the mother of all quagmires, saw the average of 25 Americans killed [I]a day[/I].

The 1939 invasion of Poland by Germany, often considered one of the most lopsided military victories in history, took 24 days at the cost of over [I]10,572[/I] German lives. In a victory.

The Italian Campaign in World War II, considered by some to be a sideshow, saw the Allies take 20 months to conquer Italy at the cost of around 312,000 Allied lives. In a victory.

I can't imagine what modern day reporters would think had they attended the D-Day beach head.

When Truman sent his poorly trained and equipped Army to Korea they were slaughtered by the thousands. Shortly after MacArthur told the troops they would be home for Christmas, about 4,000 soldiers in the 2nd ID were killed in one day. But the war dragged on for another two years, that was a quagmire.

Dude, Where's My Quagmire?

Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of the U.S. Central Command and a special envoy to the Middle East:

"It kills me when I hear of the continuing casualties and the sacrifice that's being made. It also kills me when I hear someone say that, well, each one of those is a personal tragedy, but in the overall scheme of things, they're insignificant statistically. Never should we let any political leaders utter those words. This is the greatest treasure the United States has, our enlisted men and women. And when we put them into harm's way, it had better count for something. It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out.

They should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting—our generals will take care of that—but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries—our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam; where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? And you're going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are. And remember, everyone of those young men and women that come back is not a personal tragedy, it's a national tragedy."

Full transcript: http://www.mca-usniforum2003.org/forum03zinni.htm

O. P. Smith wouldn't tolerate Zinni talking in a negative way while his troops were in harms way.

Instead of a "strategic plan" for people executing tactics, the US military has given its units flexibility in evaluating issues. I'm unsure why that is a bad idea.

I don't listen to anyone who uses the phrase 'policy wonk".

Good for you! What does that left Moonbat Zinni know about war, anyway?