we don't think about our actions until we face the price for them. Euros would follow Americans into every debacle as long as no price was attached. Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, though anti-war from the beginning, were invigorated in the anti-war sentiment when they lost soldiers in Iraq. Spaniards, hit by terrorists, directed the anger to those who got them into the debacle, - US and Aznar. Canadians are wavering in the support for the Afghan mission, each casualty adding to the support for withdrawal. The wars could not go unnoticed, and once they get noticed (and that requires funerals), it becomes clear that "this is not our war" everywhere. Hopefully a lesson has been learnt with regard to the new neocon thriller, war with Iran.

u can occupy a country for ages, if the country doesn't resist. Such occupation goes unnoticed. Formally, Americans are in same situation in Iraq as in Germany:by an agreement with the local government. I never in my life heard the question asked "Why is there a huge American military presence in Germany 60 years after WWII and 20 years after the Cold War?" (though the question holds much relevance). It is accepted as a fact of nature, a self-evident truth that Europe must be filled with American troops, from Iceland and Portugal to Estonia and Bulgaria. I bet u most Americans don't even know that they have lots of soldiers in places like Italia and Greece. Only recently Americans learnt they actually had a large military base in Turkey, when the Armenian genocide issue came to the front. They don't know where they have troops, and that's because those troops are not killed.


"insignificant" is a very bad word here. U can say, relatively minor but VERY significant. Number of casualties does not automatically determine public significance of them. U know the modern West. A single death of an average person can be the top news for days. U remember what happened in Italy when 18 Italians were killed. It was the main knews for days, if not weeks. Shock. In 1996 Russia withdrew from Chechnya after losing, officialy, only 4000 soldiers dead. That's nothing compared to the Russian losses in WWII, and yet Russia did not withdraw from WWII after losing tens of millions but withdrew from Chechnya after losing 4000 (though unofficial estimates reach 10 000). When a war is UNNECESSARY and fought OVER THERE, not over here, any single death becomes "significant".


take the deaths out of the picture, and u're looking at a normal work in progress. No one expected quick POLITICAL success in Iraq, because Iraq has a history and an enertia of ages, and stuff. Without the painful price of death, it's just a difficult and complex work that requires patience. U had election, u had a new government, a constitution, schools are built, blas blas, normal work in a country with a bad history. And nothing wrong about spending time and money helping to rebuild a country. Did that in Japan, Germany, Korea. The picture changes dramatically when dead bodies beging to arrive. When Lou Dobbs declares every freaking day "Two (three, five, seven) more American soldiers were killed in Iraq today, bringing the total to...".


and what would be a sign of improvement? What ever happens, how many elections and consitutions they have, and how ever many schools they rebuild, these would not be considered sings of "improvement" as long as dead bodies continue to arrive. On the other hand, if attacks stop, there will be a sense of "imrovement" irrespective of political and economic developments. So "improvements" and "casualties" in fact pertain to the same thing.