My attention was directed to this LA Times op-ed from last Thursday. It calls on us to have a little perspective when assessing Iraq casualties, successes, and scandals.
In brief - there aren't that many casualties, if you look at things in historical context; sure this whole nation building thing is taking a bit longer than expected, but hey, ease up; and that prison stuff, okay, sure it was bad, but come on! we've seen worse - hell - we've done worse in prior wars.
The best line - the one that made me go "hmmm:"
The most successful examples of nation-building, such as the British in India, required hundreds of years.
He goes on to say that no one suggest the US should stay there that long. Okay, you're right. No one does suggest that. Nevermind that such time may be what's necessary. The basic problem - the one the administration hasn't been able to fix yet - is that our reasons for going haven't panned out. So now, the unified front trying to shore up the inept admin is just answering arguments for a set of war motivations and criticisms it poo-pooed when we started. Crazy, isn't it? Forget leaving no shot unanswered, they'll just go ahead and lob their own bullets to take out. In all this rationalizing, maybe no one will notice that we was hoodwinked.
So no, you're right. It's not so bad. Have a little perspective. Of course, one could argue that when the conflict was ill-advised, any deaths are that many too many. But that kind of thinking might work to end this conflict and save the insignificant number of lives we have left to lose. And that would be unpatriotic.
[ed.'s note: yes, I was already chastised for the vacation from blogging. I know you were all sad and lonely. I'll try not to be gone so long again in the future . . . .]