Re: [A-List] Total casualties well above 9% - over 25, 000 - Editor and Publisher Nov 25, 2004

[bar@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Stan, Tony

More to the point becuase numbers indicate the reality of the war. If the
IRR numbers are near the ballpark then the US is in deep deep trouble
becuase it is not only being chewed to pieces in a war of attrition the
Resistance claims as its major strategy, it is evident to all those in the
know that the US is weaker than it pretends and this affects its ability
to project its power in the middle east and elsewhere as their power
depends more on the appearance of it than the reality. And when the
reality is that it is on the defensive in Iraq, well, the rest follows.
Numbers are also important for propaganda purposes as indicated by the
constant fixation on the 1,000 mark by all US politicians and newscasters.
If numbers are not important, the American people dont seem to agree.

But the IRRs are not just about numbers. They are about strategy and
tactics and possibly real events. The opposing accounts of the battle over
Fallujah are of course startling. But if the IRR accounts are the reality
and not the Pentagon version then the US has suffered its second defeat in
that town and heavy losses in suffering that defeat. It means that they
control nothing in Iraq not even their own bases which are under constant
attack. They are stronger still than the Resistance, but they have the
strength of a wounded lion, slowly dripping its blood away.

We have gone from the more important part of this discussion and diverted
into the numbers game. The question is still; are the reports of the
resistance entitled to be seen and read and heard by the outside world or
not? If not, why not? All I have heard so far are rationalizations for the
continued use of Pentagon propaganda as fact and the complete rejection of
Resistance claims of facts as mere propaganda. If one can explain this
bias and the consequent silencing of the resistance by even the left
(kudos to Stan though for his forwarding of the statement from the IPA re
the resistance.)I would like to hear it.

Chris

> Stan,
>
> Your point on the unlikelihood (not impossibility imho) of the US being
> able
> to 'disappear its own casualties' is solid and well taken...
>
> But as for numbers not counting (forgive the pun)...there you're on
> shakier
> ground. Numbers most certainly do matter (quite apart from humanitarian
> considerations) because the tactical manipulation of counts plays
> ineluctably into the strategic manipulation of those counts. Just imagine,
> for the sake of argument, if the US military *was* lying (by say a factor
> of
> two or three or five). Imagine the profound implications in domestic
> political terms for the Bush regime were it to be found out. ...Or what if
> the numbers should simply ('factually') increase as a result of increased
> Iraqi operations, or increased success of said operations, so that the
> coffins being shipped back home became more a torrent than a trickle. How
> would that affect this 'war on terror' which is already rather more a
> 'mile
> wide' than 'an inch deep'?
>
>  Frankly, I always wince a little when I hear (usually from the 'right'
> who
> have much more to gain from the manipulation of casualty figures) that
> 'numbers are not that important'. Certainly the Western propaganda machine
> (i.e. corporate media) plays on this idle notion when it suits them:
>
>  i.e. It's 'not important' , for instance, that the Lancet has
> conservatively estimated the Iraqi dead in this particular invasion as
> over
> 100,000;
> ...or...It's 'not important' that the 'Allies' lost 156 killed vs roughly
> 150,000 Iraqis in the first Gulf War
>  (I am particularly fond of using this last stat when called upon for a
> quick strategic appraisal of that little 'war'; interesting to watch the
> eyes glaze over, struggling to comprehend)....or...well you get the
> picture..
>
> ...But of course it *is* important when 'enterprising number crunchers'
> come
> up with "genocide" in Kosovo..with figures up to 100,000 murdered
> civilians...this despite post-war forensic teams' stats that put the
> number
> at 2-3000 combatants (For, of course, real 'enterprising number crunchers'
> matter squat without a media voice)
>
> (How utterly successful this propaganda is was brought home to me - once
> again - while I was in attendance recently at a highschool remembrance day
> 'celebration'. As the casualty figures for the various major conflicts of
> the 20th century were being recited by a student, the figure for Vietnam
> came up....58,000....
> I turned to my colleagues and expressed dismay. They looked at me
> uncomprehending...Later I addressed a whole room full of them. Same
> response,... "But Tony, what's your point?"..)
>
>
> Number counts (both of victims and aggressors) most certainly do
> matter...not just tactically, but strategically...and historically (Try
> telling an Israeli that numbers aren't important w.r.t. the
> Holocaust..They'd go apeshit....Moreover, what's so interesting about
> Holocaust numbers is how they have been turned on their head into 'weapons
> of mass diversion' w.r.t to both Israeli depredations, and a host of other
> Western inspired holocausts the world over since the 2nd World War).
>
>  Numbers are, then, (to respond finally to a sentiment from a related post
> by Michael) part of the context, the big picture...the 'dialectics', if
> you
> will, of the situation. How could they be anything but?
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stan Goff" <sherrynstan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'The A-List'" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:17 AM
> Subject: RE: [A-List] Total casualties well above 9% - over 25,000 -
> Editor
> and Publisher Nov 25, 2004
>
>
>> This on the run, comrades.
>>
>> It is not possible for the US to disappear its casualties.  Any
>> enterprising number cruncher can simply make the right calls and put the
>> math together.  Families on each post know each other and compare notes.
>> Even with Special Forces, whose casualties ARE reported, even if the
>> unit is not specified.  The US doesn't fake the numbers, it spins them.
>> That's different.  Many of the outrageous numbers from "Iraqi
>> Resistance" sites, however, are worthy of little more than ridicule.
>> Facts are facts, regardless of which side spins or distorts them.
>> Accusation of co-optation based on ad hominemism does little to clear
>> this up.  This focus on numbers dead, for example, does get spun by
>> eliminating the contractors - but their death figures are fairly
>> insignificant.  The real story is not how many dead (largely
>> un-spinnable) or wounded (a trickier category) or sick/crazy (not
>> counted, but showing up in the hospital).  The real story is whither the
>> war?
>>
>> I note with interest Fred Feldman's recent talk of setbacks for the left
>> and 'gains' for the Bush admin, but the question of military progress is
>> always ultimately not tactical, but political.  We need to understand
>> this and quit getting caught up in propaganda-counterpropaganda about
>> body counts.
>>
>> Whether these are 'gains' remains to be seen.  Iran's hand has been
>> immeasurably strengthened by the Shia 'standdown', which I am not yet
>> convinced will hold.  Allawi is likely to become the Manuel Noriega of
>> Iraq when he refuses to go along with a Shia win in these phony
>> elections.  The Kurds have been completely factored out - a grave error.
>> The 'progress' of the US can only be measured against its actual goals -
>> permanent bases, Quisling governments, power over the regions business
>> dealings.  While this quagmire sucks at the US feet, China is
>> negotiating with Venezuela and Brazil, y'all.  Context, context,
>> context. or should I say dialectics?
>>
>> Where is the European Left?  How stung is Russia by US intervention in
>> Ukraine?  This is far more important than a body count.
>>
>> On Fred's piece, the 'setback' of the anti-war movement is not a
>> setback.  You can't get set back from where you've never been.  It is a
>> coming to terms with the reality that the original mass movement was
>> anti-Bush not anti-imperialist.  Some of us (wink wink) have been saying
>> for some time that the effort to 'hold this pre-election anti-war
>> movement together' was based on a bad premise.  The anti-war movement
>> that rises back out of this will be more-left, more militant, more
>> conscious, and therefore stronger for the long term than the big upsurge
>> prior to the ground offensive (opposed by MANY on legalistic grounds, UN
>> etc.).  This election was a net plus for us, and the sooner we realize
>> this, the better.  The Democratic Party must be left (no pun intended)
>> to die, and the Left needs to be the one who pulls the plug.  (I'm
>> writing a fairly long piece about why and - maybe - how.)
>>
>> Gotta go to Savannah.
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> Stan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>