Today there was a Reuters article with this headline:
US military marks end to nearly nine bloody years in Iraq
Bloody? really? It could just as accurately have read "US military marks end to a war with one of the lowest proportionate body counts in the history of warfare."
Considering the number of troops that were committed and the length of time they were there, this war was the exact opposite of bloody in terms of U.S. lives lost. Also, the "collateral" civilian damage was among the lowest in history as well. By any standard of warfare, this war was waged with the utmost care for the lives of the troops and civilians. It makes the adjective "bloody" meaningless.
No comments:
Post a Comment