I doubt seriously that anyone's going to pick up the paper and think that. That's not the point, though. The reports from Iraq consist solely of American and civilian casualty totals, which gives the impression that those folks are the only ones who are dying. Imagine what would have happened if reports from some of our battles in the Pacific had contained only American casualty figures. It would matter a whole lot to the average American to know that we were killing the enemy at a 29-1 rate because it would very well lead them to believe that we were actually beating the enemy soundly every time we face them.

Do you want the Americans to get that message or not?

a) we don't know

b) it doesn't matter

Or put less succintly, we don't really know how many enemy dead there are because nobody's really counting. I seriously doubt even the insurgents have a national tally. But really…what does it matter whether we know or not? Let's say we've killed 5,000 of the "estimated" 50,000 or 100,000 insurgents/terrorists/jihadists fighting against us. So what? You think the average American is going to pick up a paper and go "

Well that's a damn shame about children getting bombed…but we must be making progress because American soldiers killed 27 insurgents in Western Iraq today." I doubt it.

Just a short Upper Crust this Saturday, since I’m honestly just not in the mood to blog today… In the News– Women Spend 60 Days in Bed for Research Now why can’t I ever get selected to do something like…