Juanson World

I think we all agree that civilian deaths are unfortunate, but I think it is definitely debatable as to whether they are "unacceptable" in a time of war. Such a position is purely intellectual abstraction due to the practical impossibility of completely insulating civilian populations from violence in a war zone. When progressives argue this position it futhers the perception that we are weak on defense, etc. AND the reason that bothers me is because it decreases our credibility on my next point...

...which is that it is NOT acceptable to chalk up ALL civilian casualties to the necessities of war. At a minimum, we should track civilian casualties in the same way that we do military casualties in order to give a full picture of the cost of conflict. But I definitely agree with Reed that one must always distinguish between the soldiers who serve with honor and out of loyalty to their country above all else and the broader war effort that is directed by a few (mostly civilian) men at the Pentagon and White House. Contrary to conservative rhetoric, you CAN before FOR the troops and AGAINST the WAY we are fighting the war (if not the overall objective). (More on this in another comment...)

I have to disagree with Reed's other point. Saying we went to war to stop Saddam's human rights abuses is an ex post facto argument. If in 2003 Bush had said to the American people that he was going to invade Baghdad for human rights, it never would have happened. We went there for WMDs which were never found, then later we were told that we were there because Saddam was collaborating w/ terrorists from 9/11 (not true), and now we are told it was for human rights? Excuse me if I have a hard time believing anything the administration says about why we are there (ahem, oil..ahem, "he tried to kill my dad").
 

Let me first say I agree that because we are there, we need to support our troops. But I believe if one is consistently PRO-troops, then it IS fair to criticize the way this war is being conducted, in particular how little accountability there is for poor management. We all know about Abu Ghraib and the millions of dollars that Halliburton "lost". Some defenders of the administration might debate the facts or conclusions in those cases.

But the most egregious example of ineptitude is failing to provide sufficient resources to our troops in the field (cf, Rumsfeld's outrageous statement, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have". They had YEARS to plan for this war! What was the rush?!! Obviously not imminent WMD attack!)

Case in point, how about we provide them with armor to protect against roadside bombs? This article from the NYT yesterday about Marine Company E is depressing. This company sustained the highest casualty rate of any in the war so far, most of it due to insufficient armor on their Humvees. It's a must-read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/25/international/middleeast/25marines.html?
 

Randy,

I think that Krugman is a brilliant economist but he has used the NYTimes op-ed page more frequently than not as a soapbox for boilerplate anti-Bush rhetoric. The fact that his attacks are so one-sided and often sound vitriolic has not helped him contribute as effectively to the discourse.

There's a good Economist article on this (its old and you need to be an Economist subscriber, sorry):

Paul Krugman, one-handed economist