- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The distinctions among casualty types are obviously considered, and beside an obvious PR angle, it seems they would also serve as legitimate distinctions in various war-fighting analyses. Military operations are dangerous in peacetime, too, as the Navy's operations suspension a few years ago reminds.
What's interesting is how these larger casualty numbers seem to reinforce the contention of many officers that the military's effectiveness is being degraded, characterizing the human elements of the price of extended military campaigns. They haven't said it directly, but it seems that the true, larger human costs of campaigns (beyond combat deaths and wounds, which are well-known to military professionals) create a ripple effect in readiness, etc., more profound than wear and tear on equipment, re-enlistment rates, and so on. It is this toll to which officers make veiled reference in warning about the Iraq deployment diminishing the effectiveness of the armed services.
