The total number of American soldiers killed since the toppling of Saddam's statue is 96 by July 8, including the nine Americans killed in the bombing in Saudi Arabia. That makes a total of 199 dead so far, not including the six British soldiers killed last month.



The media is being forced to recognize this reality, but continues to minimize the numbers. Using the definition "killed in hostile encounters" and May 1 as the date when President Bush declared the cessation of hostilities, the reported death toll is lowered to "about 24" Americans, according to the New York Times front-page spin based on figures from Paul Bremer III. (NYT, July 4). The official non-fatal casualty number acknowledged since May 1 is 177 Americans. Most of the dead and wounded are grunts, "low-ranking ground troops who are performing mundane activities like buying a video, going out on patrol, or guarding a trash pit."



The manipulation of the American body count, like the earlier manipulation of the costs of war and occupation, only feeds the growing anger among military personnel and their families, as cited in the New York Times. During the Vietnam war, troop demoralization rose as Americans continued to die while President Nixon promised that the war was winding down. A similar phenomenon appears to be happening already in the 115-degree temperatures of occupied Iraq. No one wants to sacrifice his life for President Bush after he's held an aircraft-carrier press conference declaring "mission accomplished." No family wants the death of a son or daughter minimized to airbrush the President's victory image.



Contrary to the expectations promoted by the Administration and media, Iraq is now a quagmire, not a cakewalk. Remember Jay Garner? Gone. Remember the cheering Iraqis with flowers? Never appeared. Remember the nukes and weapons of mass destruction? We're bribing and threatening informants. General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that "intelligence doesn't necessarily mean something is true. I mean, that's not what intelligence is."



No one in the media, military or political establishment can use the "Q-word" apparently, for fear of dredging up the images of Vietnam that they have been trying to erase for the past generation.



Quagmire is not a metaphor for Vietnam, but has a specific meaning. It is a strategic defeat. The occupier can't declare victory and can't withdraw. It's too early to be certain, but quagmire is becoming an accurate description of the American crisis:



The occupation forces are stretched thin, forced into non-military roles such as policing and infrastructure repair, which makes them vulnerable to small-scale ambushes. A single suicide bomber could wreak havoc;



the occupation forces cannot withdraw, for that would mean humiliation and failure;



nor can the occupation forces expand significantly, not only for political reasons, but because they are bogged down in Afghanistan, Bosnia and many smaller destination spots in the U.S. Empire;



the original plan for installing a new regime has stalled for reasons never adequately explained. Gen. Garner was forced out, and the Pentagon's favorite government-in-exile led by Ahmed Chalabi is marginalized and quarreling;



Like Gulliver among the Lilliputians, the imperial mindset is dangerously incapable of understanding its opposition. The Iraqis must be fighting not because they oppose the occupation but because Saddam Hussein is secretly manipulating them from hiding.



the most dangerous characteristic of quagmires is that there is no way out for the occupiers except through acknowledging the mistake. The longer the denial, the worse the quagmire.



Opposition parties like the Democrats become sunk in quagmire as well. Some of them can declare "I told you so," but they fear the consequences of an American military withdrawal.



Often, it takes the military, starting with the soldiers on the ground, to bring the nature of the quagmire to public attention. That may be beginning to happen. Last week, military officials needed military escorts to escape "seething spouses" at a military base in Georgia. (NYT, July 4)



Ending a quagmire eventually requires a strong peace movement and public frustration. The American people have little patience with quagmires, at least those with televised casualties. That is why the percentage of Americans who think the war is going badly has shot up from 13 percent to 42 percent since Bush declared it over. In a quagmire, when body counts, costs and credibility are sufficiently worrisome, politicians step forward with plans to save the larger system by strategic retreat.



This trapped imperial mindset is always on display in Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, edited by aristocratic neo-conservatives like William Kristol, as in the glory days after President Bush's media adventure aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. "Victory!" proclaimed the neo-cons, for "The Restoration of American Awe and the Opening of the Arab Mind." (May 12, 2003). Sounding unconsciously like the Crusades, the magazine announced proudly that we had taken away Saddam's "hayba," his aura of invincible authority.



The danger to America and the world is that the Bush Administration believes this analysis, which is nothing more than a projection of our own insecurities onto Saddam as “the Other.” It is the Bush Administration, after all, that insists on projecting an American hayba, or image of invincibility, as its new National Security Strategy.



Who knows, the Americans may overpower the remaining Iraqi resistance, get the electricity and water running in due time, set up some Fort Apache outposts, manage to make the media withdraw, and create another ... Afghanistan. But for now, it's time to break through the denial of the media and the politicians before more Americans die while guarding Baghdad trash pits. It's time to call it what it is, a deepening quagmire.



Tom Hayden is a veteran progressive activist and politician. He has written nine books, including the just published “Irish on the Inside.”.

The UK Foreign Office has now declared Iraq a safe place to travel for essential business purposes.

Hardworking US and UK men and women are out there every day putting that country back together after 20 years of dictatorship and crippling sanctions brought about by years of UN ineptitude. Clinton left the UN there to screw it up and hundred of thousands died as a result.

The dying has stopped now thanks to the decisiveness of President Bush.

...with lies - just as Iraq was.

There are no winners. Only survivors.

...like Oliver North are free.

I despise Hanoi Jane.

Hayden - ho hum. Who cares? Tempest in a Teapot BA. You are grasping at Straws.

Or is that Gasping?

And very harmfull.

Particularly in the hands of doctors

24 hrs a day?

I'm going to set up a macro that just posts offbeat comments at random intervals, just to keep you busy.

Just like yours.... ..

Exactly. You'll never know the difference.

We do learn from the masters. I'm not sorry. Try to stay on topic.

Your almost senator lt. Col. North had quite a diary.

I'm sure you've read it.

This is not about drugs which is another topic. You are a funny

individual, able to acquire facts yet unable to understand that most of us see through your bluster and bull shit because we are interested in such things. You may get away with this approach of your's in grade school but everyone should grow up at some point.

Not being one to cast absolute judgments but you are portraying yourself as an uncaring asshole who is oblivious to the suffering caused by our nation's actions for interests that benefited from the

blood our nation has shed. Our and theirs. If you wish to make a case for your side, it is weak and counter productive.

If your intent is to disrupt it is laughable if annoying. Drive on.

...I think Airic is going more Psychotic by the minute.

I'm sorry you're so disturbed Airic.

I hope you get better.

Peace.

Do you even know WHICH side I'm on? Tell me about my bluster and bullshit. Sheepdog, are you hitting the juice again this PM? I can always tell when you are getting your binge on. You get all cryptic.

You people are just screaming out for a friend. I'm here to fit the bill. You'll just have to make due, no one else cares but me.

Please forgive the cryptic mis placed post. If you don't, I forgive you. Isn't it funny how a thief will suspect another or a brutalizing person fears others so much or generally

that most individuals throw their own character flaws or project their own phobias upon others? Woof. But if you insist I think there may be some warm ones in the shelter. Kinda late to be drinking.....

"The dying has stopped now thanks to the decisiveness of President Bush."

Oh, really? And what color is the sky in YOUR little world?

You whining pussy.

That's about the level of (un)intelligent discourse I've come to expect from conservatives.

The dying of inocent iraqis has stopped. now it is just a vastly smalller amount of US soldiers. And stupid terrorists who try to attack them.

still US army isnt really built for peacekeeping they should be thinking about an exit strategy 9once they have sorted out whatever they need to sort out).

...you been Smoking? Put that Rope back into the corner of the Garage.

There is NO Exit Strategy because the Iraqi's still have OIL.

Innocent Iraqi's have not stopped dying because you want to live with your conscience.

No Clean Water.

Inadequate Sanitation.

No Electricity.

No Medical Supplies.

These all add up to dead and dying every day. It may not be the quick death of a Bullet or a piece of Hot Shrapnel but dead is dead. In many cases it is the much slower lingering death of disease and famine.

What you support and have supported is a GREAT Evil.

Get used to it. The cause you support is Evil.

Scootie,

Are you daft, ,man? US soldiers shot dead Iraqi civilians last Thurs after a surprise guerrilla assault.

As for: 'The dying of inocent iraqis has stopped. now it is just a vastly smalller amount of US soldiers. And stupid terrorists who try to attack them.'

First: Learn how to spell, punctuate, what Upper AND Lower case are used for and also to proofread;

Second: Tell the families of soldiers right now that the war is over and that the casualties are 'smalller';

Lastly: The 'stupid terrorists' you reference seem to be causing some serious problems for the occupying forces. Where do you think these peolpe are from?

For Eric: You should learn how to play golf!

The Antiwar Party

"It's beginning to sound a little like Watergate," Howard Dean said over the weekend, referring to last week's hubbub over a 16-word sentence in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address. MoveOn.org, the Deanite political action committee, issued an ad last week labeling the president a MISLEADER. But here's what's really interesting: The Democratic National Committee also put out an anti-Bush ad--a bit less shrill, but with essentially the same message. "President Bush Deceives the American People," screams the headline on the DNC's Web site.

The Democrats are now more united on the war than they've been at any time since that brief burst of bipartisanship immediately after Sept. 11. Trouble is, they're united behind the views of Howard Dean, and that puts the more mainstream candidates--John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman--in a logically untenable position. All are now arguing against a war they voted for.

To those of us who supported Iraq's liberation without reservation, the 16 words in the president's speech are an irrelevancy. There was an overwhelming legal, strategic and humanitarian case for removing the Baathist regime from Baghdad, whether or not it recently sought to obtain uranium in Africa. And let's be honest: For Howard Dean, the African uranium question is equally irrelevant. His Watergate comparison is telling. Watergate, after all, was a criminal conspiracy; Dean seems to view the liberation of Iraq as a crime (and Saddam Hussein as the victim?).

How many Americans found the case for regime change otherwise unpersuasive but were won over by the part about uranium in Africa? It seems likely the answer is very few; and it's surely implausible that three of the four leading Democratic candidates for president fall into this group (especially since they voted for the war 3 1/2 months before Bush mentioned the allegation). Thus the only major Democratic candidate who has a coherent position is Howard Dean--and his position now has the endorsement of his party.

What could DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe have been thinking? Surely he's savvy enough to realize that Dean is the least electable of his party's four main candidates, and that running against the liberation of Iraq is not a winning strategy.

Well, here's one possibility. The DNC ad coincided with President Bush's trip to Africa. Last week's news was dominated not by the president's eloquent speech about slavery, or by his concern about AIDS and other humanitarian crises in Africa. Instead, we saw endless stories about the president's statement that--as the DLC's dowdified version of the quote (which omits the attribution to British intelligence) has it--"Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Could this have been a pre-emptive Democratic strike against Bush's effort to win over black voters?

Thanks for your unsuccessful attempt at defending the lies I told to the American people.

1.there is no way to independently confirm the news about attacks on us military in iraq

2.even if said alleged attacks were true,there is no way to independently confirm who's behind them

3.cui prodest? who's benefiting from such alleged attacks or the hype about them?

only the bush oil/defense/reconstruction war profiteers and thugs.

indeed without such attacks blamed on the alleged saddam redivivus bush and his henchmen would long since have had to fuck off from iraq,having run out of excuses to stay and occupy on.

but since they are making zillions out of the iraqi war,who wants stabilization peace and handover when you can make a lot more money from infinite war?

but perpetual war needs perpetual enemies.

therefore I tend to deem it more plausible that the alleged attacks on americans in iraq either are false news spread by the propaganda machine or if they are real they are provoked or even directly performed by the same govt terrorist who gave us 911:

BUSH AND HIS GANG OF THUGS.

consider history:

an authentic popular resistance style ho chi min or the italian or french partisans against the nazis only surfaced when the angloamericans started to seriously kick some german ass and help sponsoring the freedom fighters.

the same goes for vietnam who was backed by russia and china.

but the alleged iraqi resistance is not backed by anyone that I can possibly think of...

so where do they get the money to buy rpgs,guns,ammunition,safe houses,logistics etc?

it is just not plausible that a bunch or iraqi ho chi mins would have survived 200,000 angloamericans for so long.

think it over people:

why does bush never capture osama?

or mullah omar?

or why does sharon never target hamas leader yassin for assassination,full knowing yassin's address?

money money money deals deals deals...

don't believe the hype hey chuck don't.

This really is becoming another Vietnam. Hopefully, the American people will recognize this and do something, but it should be happening now.

That was me. Aren't I clever? My mommy thinks so!

I'm not sure who you are, but I am Albert Whiner, and I can write my own opinions.

That was me. Aren't I clever? My mommy thinks so!

Guerrilla warfare has qualities and objectives peculiar to itself. It is a weapon that a nation inferior in arms and military equipment may employ against a more powerful aggressor nation. When the invader pierces deep into the heart of the weaker country and occupies her territory in a cruel and oppressive manner, there is no doubt that conditions of terrain, climate, and society in general offer obstacles to his progress and may be used to advantage by those who oppose him. In guerrilla warfare we turn these advantages to the purpose of resisting and defeating the enemy.

National guerrilla warfare, though historically of the same consistency, has employed varying implements as times, peoples, and conditions differ. The guerrilla aspects of the Vietnam War, those of the fighting in Afghanistan since the WTC incident, and those employed in Iraq today are all slightly different. The guerrilla warfare conducted by the Moroccans against the French and the Spanish was not exactly similar to that which we conduct today in America. These differences express the characteristics of different peoples in different periods. Although there is a general similarity in the quality of all these struggles, there are dissimilarities in form. This fact we must recognize. Clausewitz wrote, in On War: 'Wars in every period have independent forms and independent conditions, and, therefore, every period must have its independent theory of war.' Lenin, in On Guerrilla Warfare said: 'As regards the form of fighting, it is unconditionally requisite that history be investigated in order to discover the conditions of environment, the state of economic progress and the political ideas that obtained, the national characteristics, customs, and degree of civilization.' Again: 'It is necessary to be completely unsympathetic to abstract formulas and rules and to study with sympathy the conditions of the actual fighting, for these will change in accordance with the political and economic situations and the realization of the people's aspirations. These progressive changes in conditions create new methods.'