CC, what you are arguing is semantics. and i would agree with you, the president chose his words poorly (or his speech writers did, whatever). the fact is, it is a war, whether officially or not (i dont recall a formal declaration of war), and i dont recall Bush’s exact words, but the idea of his “mission accomplished” fiasco was that the PRIMARY fighting, that is, what is the classical interpretation of war, with two opposing sides fighting each other, in more or less formal combat, is over. we did capture saddam, we did sack the iraqi cities, we do have effective control. that is the end of major operations. the large scale troop movements and operations ceased, and they moved into a holding and solidifying phase. now that we have the country, hold onto it, and gradually rebuild it, and transfer it back to the people. the current fighting is insurgency, resistance fighters. an example similar to this is the French resistance. im not trying to make any allusions or comparisons other than that it is a resistance group fighting the controlling power (you may draw any comparisons you like, but i intended none other than the one i stated). this is not a war in the traditional sense any more, but it is still part of the larger war. insurgents have a tendency for being able to take on a greater power better than a regular army. vietcong vs. NVa regulars. militia vs. Continental Army regulars, etc. guerilla warfare is a good way at taking on a superior military force. insurgent warfare is a good way at taking on a superior military force. particularly when they collaborate with terrorists, hide amongst the general populace we try to avoid involving, dont mind who they kill in trying to hurt us, hide in holy sites we are supposed to let be, and generally just try to cause trouble. they are smarter than we give them credit for. they know how much controversy is caused by our presence in iraq. they know many people question it, and point to continuing problems as a reason to pull out. this is exactly what they want. its blind mayhem. they have an overlying goal, but id be more surprised if EVERY attack was coordinated and part of a more specific operational plan, it seems more likely that they are simply aiming to kill, destroy, and instill fear and doubt. which they are doing a good job of. all that considered, we still have had one of the best successes in our taking and holding of iraq. we arent doing the best job possible with rebuilding ,but militarily, we dominated. the conservative estimate going in was 5000 deaths. we are at less than 2000 more than a year into the fighting. that is a victory.
as to how many iraqi’s die: by either our hand or terrorists, i dont know the numbers, but i will say that any civilian deaths on our part are unintentional, and come because of the wiliness of the enemy (they hide amongst the civilians, use them for cover, and arent afraid to attack us amongst them, while we are not supposed to respond to spare civilian lives). as for terrorists killing them, thats the point. they want to cause trouble. they dont care who they kill, as long as they get their point across. killing Iraqis sends messages to the US people, who point to the turmoil over there, and to the Iraqi people, who see that as long as america is there, terrorists will continue to kill wantonly. some say that getting out is the way to respond to this, but thats just what they want. instead, take the more difficult path and stick it out.
