From the oldies-but-goodies file, in light of the attempted "rehabilitation" of Michael Ledeen by some on the right:
I think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. . . . What we hate is not casualties but losing. And if the war goes well and if the American public has the conviction that we're being well-led and that our people are fighting well and that we're winning, I don't think casualties are going to be the issue.
Michael Ledeen
AEI Breakfast
March 27, 2003
I think the American people are going to have great tolerance for the war taking longer, and they are going to have great tolerance for more casualties.
William Kristol
AEI Breakfast
March 27, 2003
Yeah, he's quite the compassionate guy.
posted by Jo Fish on 07.31.06 at 02:33 PM
Comments:
Just to make it clear Ledeen and Kristol were talking about American casualties here. When people like you and me were explaining (well yelling and screaming) that this was just going to get a bunch of soldiers killed the response of the chickenhawks to a man was:
"Who cares? They enlisted didn't they?"
When you start a war with the idea that American soldiers are just disposable units it is not surprising you end up with Wingnut columnists saying we should have just killed every Sunni between the ages of 19 to 35.
The choir is now singing that the problem is that we're not ruthless enough, if only we could overcome our humanity and go in for genocide we'd be turning that famous corner.
Everytime you think they can't sink any lower...
posted by: madison on 08.01.06 at 12:29 PM [permalink]
Ledeen's actually right. The sticking point, however, is the part about "And if the war goes well and if the American public has the conviction that we're being well-led."
posted by: Tony on 08.02.06 at 10:39 AM [permalink]
