Topic category: Other/General
The Myth of the Deadly War on Terror - Time for A Reality Check
Is current public opinion strongly against the war against extremist Muslim terrorists, as "polls" proclaim?
What could motivate a nation viciously attacked by Muslim terrorists to turn against a war designed to destroy every refuge for such terrorists?
What would make a nation collectively shrug its shoulders when a major newspaper (The New York Times) commits high treason by aiding and abetting the flow of money to Muslim terrorists?
Why would a nation grow weary of fighting those who would kill every American citizen if given the means and the opportunity?
Why would so many people believe the U.S. has sustained so many casualties in the Iraqi War that they make comparisons to the Vietnam War?
The answer to these questions is rooted in the combined efforts of several factions:
While these groups all taken together represent just the far Left fringe of what most decent Americans believe, their daily propagandizing (some blatant, some subtle) eventually creates a large enough impact on public opinion that polls no longer reflect reality. This is their scheme and it appears to be working. Dishonesty is their only course because these groups always lose whenever people take a reality check.
Time for a reality check, folks.
Let's review a little history and reflect why the U.S. should be at war with Muslim terrorists who've repeatedly attacked civilized nations since 1968. Consider the bloody results of those attacks for a clear answer (death totals in parentheses, figures exclude terrorist deaths):
The total deaths attributed to these Muslim terrorist acts of war since 1968: more than 4178.
The worst single terrorist event produced nearly 3000 casualties as reflected in the total killed or missing (excluding Muslim terrorists) from the attacks on 9/11/01: 2997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Fatalities).
Now, consider the magnitude of U.S. casualties in the war on terror. U.S. casualties in the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan through 9/5/06 come to:
The combined U.S. casualties in its war against Muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 is a paltry 2990. That's less than 3000, folks. Over four years.
Do you know how many casualties on U.S. highways the National Safety Council estimates for the recent 3-day Labor Day weekend? 533. About one-sixth the casualties in the War on Terror over the past four years! Are you growing weary of driving? Will the nation pull off the highway system? Or will we continue to take the bloody carnage on our highways in stride while we focus on ending the safest and perhaps most important war this nation has ever fought?
One notable statistic from the War on Terror: Total number of Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11/01 is exactly zero. Thanks to George W. Bush and his determination to continue the struggle against Muslim terrorists until every last one of them is wiped off the face of this planet.
As part of our reality check, let's compare casualties in historic involvement of the United States in wars. Below are listed seven major wars from the Revolutionary War to the Afghan/Iraqi War on Terrorism. The years spanned by each war are shown along with the estimated U.S. population. Casualties for the war are listed together with casualties as a percent of the estimated population at the beginning of the war. Average casualties per year are also shown for comparison:
|Wars (> 1 year)||War Years||Estimated|
% of Population
|War on Terror||2002-present||288,000,000||2,990||0.001%||748|
In the U.S. Civil War alone, of 29 battles and campaigns, only two had casualties fail to exceed the 4-year total of U.S. casualties in the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those battles/campaigns that have exceeded the 4-year total of U.S. casualties in the War on Terror include:
(Union & Confederate)
|1862||Fair Oaks/Seven Pines||11,165|
|1862||Seven Days' Battle||36,463|
|1864||Peach Tree Creek||4,100|
|1864||Atlanta (Hoods Attack)||11,722|
Civil War battle data courtesy of http://americancivilwar.com/cwstats.html.
So, far from being a particularly deadly war that might justify the populace growing weary of it, the War on Terror has been by far the safest, least deadly war in the history of U.S. involvement in significant military actions. In fact, the next least deadly war was twenty times more deadly to U.S. forces than has been the War in Terror fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The next time you read, hear, or see someone attempt to smear President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld with their anti-war rhetoric, you'll know they are either grossly misinformed, an agent of Muslim terrorists, or they're trying to fool you into believing the War on Terror isn't justified or in the best interests of the U.S. It's best to limit your exposure to such people.
Finally, what is the solution of those who continue to belittle the Bush Administration's prosecution of the War on Terror? What would they do to lower the incidence of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11/01 below zero? The Bush approach to preventing acts of domestic terrorism is outstanding and simply cannot be improved upon. How do those who carp about Bush's war intend to wage a less deadly war? Given the War on Terror has been the least deadly war in U.S. history - by far - what could possibly justify attempts to prematurely pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan when we are being so successful with the current approach?
What solutions do Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the merry gang of liars have to wage the War on Terrorism any more effectively than has President Bush?
Don't hold your breath waiting for any intelligent answers from the anti-war crowd!
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)
Biography - Bob Webster
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.