A Perspective on "Grim Milestones"

The collective hearts of the mainstream media seem to pitter-patter a little happier every time a new "grim milestone" is reached in the Iraq war. Those milestones are either numbers divisible by 500, or that can somehow be attached to some other event. A few days ago we were treated to a story of how the death toll in Iraq had now equalled the death toll on 9/11. The AP even ran a story a few days later saying the death toll was now 5 more than the toll on 9/11. I wonder how long it took in WWII before the military death toll equalled the losses on December 7th? Not long.

Now we've reached the next milestone the press can celebrate - 3,000. These numbers are always lacking perspective since they are rarely mentioned in the same article as the losses experienced in previous conflicts. Nathan Thornburgh at Time.com tries to give at least a little perspective on the issue:

What can now be derived from reaching the grim milestone of 3,000 American dead in Iraq? The public's contemplation of the number should have little to do with the right or the wrong of American occupation, nor with the viability of that seed of peace America is meant to be sowing there. Wars are always paid in blood and numbered in lives lost, the value of that sacrifice doesn't rise or fall like penny stock depending on the popularity of a mission. The 3,000th death is as the first — dying being the pitiable but inextricable consequence of war.

That sort of piety is, naturally, lost on both sides, for whom the zeroes in a round number like 3,000 are instead perfect little mirrors to reflect their own hot opinions of the war in Iraq. Anti-war activists loudly mourn the senseless loss of life. Passing 3,000 is a prime opportunity to plumb the depths of their own angers about how the war was planned, sold, and executed. Hawks mourn the fact that America has lost its grit. After all, they point out, 3,000 dead is still less than half the annual toll in the worst years of Vietnam. And amid either World War I or II, an America with a far smaller population suffered larger losses on some afternoons in the Pacific or in Europe than today's America has suffered in three-and-a-half years in Iraq.

Do you want some perspective? For all those who are so desperately claiming that Iraq is the new Vietnam, why don't you go to the memorial in Washington, count out the first 3,000 names and then look to see how many are left. After that first 3,000 there will still be some 55,196 names left uncounted.

During WWII if you'd told the generals and admirals that we'd only lose 3,000 at Iwo Jima, they would have been thrilled. Instead, we lost 6,000...in 35 days.

I'm not trying to downplay the Iraq numbers. Every loss is felt deeply by their families and communities and shouldn't be minimized. However, some historical perspective is needed in the reporting of the losses we've encountered in Iraq.