Why Don't They Anounce the Enemy Killed?

[Utah]

Just curious. Why don't they ever say how many of the enemy were killed by US soldiers? Given the number of attacks on the U.S. I am sure it has to be a s$#%load.

[Ray Zee]

they do in wars when we kill many thousands and lose a few. here we get to kill the few that attack and lose the same amount. our news is basically censored on the war or whatever it is now--occupation.

[andyfox]

The announcements aren't worth much anyway. Remember in Vietnam they used to announce things like 346 enemy were killed and 8 weapons were recovered. Hard to imagine how 346 enemy soldiers got along with 8 weapons. Of course most of the "soldiers" were civilians.

[John Cole]

Note in Shakespeare's Henry V that Henry plays fast and loose with the numbers at Agincourt. Certainly inflated body counts are not a recent development.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious. Why don't they ever say how many of the enemy were killed by US soldiers? Given the number of attacks on the U.S. I am sure it has to be a s$#%load.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people like Chris Alger and nicky use those numbers to add to an ongoing "innocent civillian" count. No reason to report the number of enemies killed when the information will be used as propaganda against a righteous war.

[John Cole]

Wake Up,

After that explanation, you must change your signature. "Righteous" war? I'm going to report you for failure to use the word "dude" in the same sentence as "righteous." I think it may be a crime. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

(Really, I'm joking, and it's been a long day, and I had to attend a sexual harassment seminar this morning, and had to get up far too early this morning to do so.)

[andyfox]

You're right, why should a democratially elected government report accurate information to its citizenry when some of those citizens with opinions its leaders don't like might use that information to possibly talk negatively about a righteous war? After all, those in disagreement with the government's policy must be spouting propaganda. The government has the monopoly on the correct news, that's why it's war is righteous.

[ACPlayer]

Is it really important how many snots are removed from the world?

Besides, they are all Islamic and we know that that is a corrupt religion, these people are all corrupted with those teachings. However, the government really should report the number of Christian civilians killed.

Also, that whole region is completely uncultured. The people are not civilized so it is not like we are killing real people.

Besides, they rut like pigs, there will soon be a few more. This way there are fewer recruits available for the Al Qaida.

[Cyrus]

Wake Up CALL nailed it, although his wording was just a little tiny bit biased. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Most of those "enemies" killed are actually just "collateral damage". So, American announcements of "hostile casualties" would result in the following :

1. They would put the lie to the Commander-in-Chief's proclamation back in May (how times flies!) that the hostilities are over.

2. They would undermine the PR spin that the United States is winning "the hearts and minds" of the "Iraqi people" through acknowledging that a significant number of Iraqis are still resisting -- and getting killed.

3. They would undermine the effort itself of winning "hearts and minds" by further infuriating the natives. Better let only those folks nearby know about the latest massacre -- is the (erroneous) official logic.

[Chris Alger]

The answer is pretty obvious. Making the figures public admits one of the human costs of a war that they'd prefer to simply describe as one of the "most humane military campaigns in history" (Bush). They would prefer people to not realize that anyone died at all, much less have to admit a higher body count than bin Laden. That's why Bush hasn't attended a single funeral of any serviceman that died there, and why the U.S. has prohibited media access to the staging point for brining the bodies back home. No pictures of aluminum caskets lined up will be tolerated by this White House.

Also, it's evidence against them at the war crimes tribunal.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right, why should a democratially elected government report accurate information to its citizenry when some of those citizens with opinions its leaders don't like might use that information to possibly talk negatively about a righteous war? After all, those in disagreement with the government's policy must be spouting propaganda. The government has the monopoly on the correct news, that's why it's war is righteous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy you being the expert on Vietnam admitted that the government body counts were innaccurate. What does it matter what number they release in this conflict? Will it assist you in forming a new opinion? Hardly likely......

[Wake up CALL]

Cyrus wrote "Most of those "enemies" killed are actually just "collateral damage". So, American announcements of "hostile casualties" would result in the following :"

You must personally know the correct body count to make this blanket statement. So why not tell the rest of us? It never ceases to amaze me the way you seem to have access to classified information. Are you a spook or just a kook Cyrus?

[Clarkmeister]

We have a new challenger to the title of Most Ignorant Poster. American Airlines, be careful, your title could be in jeopardy.

[ACPlayer]

I see you appreciated my post. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Zeno]

I recall seeing the Huntley/Brinkley report and the figures for the Vietnam War. This was in 64-66 or so (I was around 12 years old), and they always had the two black cutout soldiers with Americas killed in action and then enemies killed in action with numbers underneath. This went on day after day, month after month etc. Then one day while watching the news and seeing this same report, I turned to my dad and asked, "Why are we still fighting this war". He simply glared at me and said nothing. I suppose that was probably the best answer he could have gave.

-Zeno

[adios]

They don't know the exact body count.

[adios]

[Cyrus]

I wrote that "Most of those "enemies" killed are actually just collateral damage." It's my own personal assumption.

The assumption is based on the Iraqi war's denouement as we witnessed it on our TV screens. (Sorry, CALL, I haven't "been there" so maybe in your eyes I don't have the right to write abt it.) I witnessed the clumsiness or just plain insouciance of the American military in action that would make no distinctions between civilians and enemies when applying its overwhelming force. I witnessed the continuous and stupid slaughter (of whole families even) at the roadblocks, after hostilities had ceased, to make safely such assumptions.

If the vast majority or totality of those killed are not "collateral damage", then I believe that the U.S. military would have been more inclined to announce "enemy casualty figures", even though my reasons #2 and #3 would still be a consideration.

"Are you a spook or just a kook ? "

The word you're thinking of is gook. Thanks for the co-operation.

[Cyrus]

This has been proved mathematically.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Utah]

To the Chris Algers and the like:

If the government was intent on hiding the realities of war, why did they have the embedded reporters who could report on the war live. I remember seeing live on TV three marine tanks blow the living crap out of a building that held enemy soldiers shooting at them.

Also, there are more than a few reporters in Iraq and there are certainly many who hate Bush (so they are obviously not part of any conspiracy of silence). Why are the reporters not reporting on the enemy combat deaths?

[Chris Alger]

How would "reporting the war live" create a downside for the government? If it allowed no live reporting, the outcry would have been overwhelming. The government might prefer that no one to even knew that war happened, but since that's not possible, controlled access is the second best alternative. So they devised the "embedded" system so that Americans were only shown reassuring clips like the one you describe (us beting the crap out of them), instead of people being cut in half or burned to death, or American soldiers writhing in agony and dying. The embedded system was desinged to give the military a certain control over the media, and that's why most reporting of the war, expecially on TV, resembled a commercial for the brave sacrifices of America's best, fighting to keep us free, etc.

Compare the phony Jessica Lynch "rescue," virtually scripted by the U.S. military, to the general absence of media attention to the 8,0000 Iraqi civilians that died (to say nothing of the Iraqi military, often consisting of impoverished conscripts, many of whom were killed unarmed or trying to surrender), and the media attention given to the civilian victims of 9/11 and their families.

Why don't reporters provide estimates of enemy death?

Most news stories about the war, especially those on TV, were either dominated by information provided by official U.S. sources or tended to support something U.S. sources already said. Few in the mass media want to lose access to those sources for emphasizing information that the state deems inconvenient only to get a ton of emails from right-wing kooks accusing them of trying to embarrass the government. As a result, very few stories emphasized the human cost of the war. Indeed, few raised the paramount question of whether the war was justified, but instead focused the debate on how much "progress" was being made and how best to attain more of it.

[John Cole]

Just imagine, if you will, Chris, what kind of coverage we'd get if the media weren't so damn liberal.

[andyfox]

What I may think or not think is irrelevant. A government that hides things from its citizens because it is afraid of the court of public opinion is not worth very much.

[andyfox]

From The Best and the Brightest:

The briefing began with the military officer saying that the other side had suffered 45,000 deaths during the Tet offensive.

Arthur Goldberg then asked what our own killed-to-wounded ratios were.

Seven to one, the officer answered, because we save a lot of men with helicopters.

What, asked Goldberg was the enemy strength as of February 1, when Tet started?

Between 160,000 and 175,000, the briefer answered.

What is their killed-to-wounded ratio? Galdberg asked.

We use a figure of three and a half to one, the officer said.

Well, if that's true, then they have no effective forces left in the field, Goldberg said.

What followed was a long and very devastating silence.

[Wake up CALL]

Cyrus if you are a NV Gook I am sorry I missed meeting you 30 years ago. Perhaps I should rephrase, I am sorry I missed you!

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
What I may think or not think is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we are certainly able to agree on this point! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

I'm sure you still got'em big fat red footmarks on your danh tu.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif