Casualties in Iraq

I would like to see a breakdown, if it is possible with the information you can get, of the wounded as to how many are "life changing" wounds. In other words, how many are receiving wounds that will hamper their future lives in terms of physical and mental activity? This is certainly something that would be difficult to assess at this early date, but would be useful in gauging the total effects of the Iraq war on the troops – at least in this category.

Thank you.

~ John D. Ruckman

Mike Ewens replies:

I suspect that this type of data will only be available years after the occupation ends.

I‘d like to know if the figures you list for GI’s killed or wounded during Iraq conflict INCLUDE those soldiers who are NOT American citizens. AND if they include those members of Special Forces whose whereabouts /status /living or dead are not necessarily reported.

Thank you.

~ Burgundy N.

Mike Ewens replies:

We only record the deaths of American soldiers. The following link has the names of other coalition soldiers:

In regard to the Special Forces number, I am not certain whether those deaths are accounted for or not. I think that the US military has legal means of not disclosing such information.

Just wanted to let you know that you need to update your casualty page. … On the casualties page the link which tells coalition casualty it states after Saddam captured, 112 deaths. Also, in Afghanistan the deaths are well above the 101 you state, after the DoD audit found more soldiers dead, and the arms cache that blew up killed eight, so the number should be around 113-115. And the coalition troops killed in Iraq is (as of 3-11-04) 101. Just wanted to let you know to update, ’cause I use the page a lot. Thanks, loyal reader..

~ Abe Johnson

Mike Ewens replies:

Please send a link with regard to the Afghan numbers. I am using as a resource. Also note that our page cites American numbers, so your claim that 112 have died after Saddam is not applicable to the site. (It is now 100)

Thanks for the email!


Peter N.: I have many questions, but the first is why do you and yours call it the "War Against Iraq." If anything, it was only a war against Saddam. Another, why does no one talk about the billions of dollars siphoned out of the U.N. by Saddam himself? That would be a REALLY good reason to kick him out of Iraq, and what about the tens of thousands of dead found in mass graves? I think you people just want to find problems with the war and blow them out of proportion because you’re ‘faithful’ liberals that focus on getting people into power instead of ACTUALLY helping – please do me a favor and don’t preach biased trash, give both sides. …

Mike Ewens: First, what are we blowing out of proportion? I consider the 560 dead Americans a pretty big freaking deal coupled with 10,000 Iraqi civilians that died at the hands of liberation. (Don’t give me "more would have died otherwise." If that was true, at least it wouldn’t be on our hands.)

Second, you have a misconception of our politics. We are not "liberals"… at least in the modern sense. Some of us are registered Republicans while others are libertarians. Thus, we have a huge aversion to power and would prefer very small, nearly powerless government.

PN: By the way I’m 16 and consider myself a future Democrat, but don’t have blind hate towards Bush because he’s sent 500-some soldiers to their deaths, with their lives gone they have saved many more – and always remember that.

ME: If there is any hatred of Bush at it certainly isn’t blind. We are upset at his disregard for American interests, American security, American liberty, American taxpayers, and the American Constitution. Note my repeated use of "American." No matter the possible scenarios of "helping" or "liberating" Iraqis from Saddam, the US government and taxpayers have no responsibility to do either. In fact, in doing so the very ends that we seek – peace and freedom – may have been lessened. I refer you to the continued violence in Iraq, continued terrorist attacks abroad and loss of liberty here in America.

A Foreign-Born President?

I felt your article was very interesting. I am one of those Americans that would not like the Constitution to be changed in order to allow a foreign born preson to become president. At this point in time I think it is a dangerous thing in that any country could or could have planted a preson here in order to let them run for president. If the Constitution is changed we could have a situation where a person either uses American money to support their native country or makes America submissive to their native country. I am totally against Arnorld Schwarzenegger being president of the US. Considering it is rumored that he amired Hilter and pretended to be a SS soldier and that he told Barbara Walters that he would like to rule the world I don’t think he should be put in charge of the American Military.

At the end of your article you spoke about David Horowitz. In your last comment you referred to Horowitz as"an authoritarian commie never really changes his stripes". I believe you were referring to Horowitz’s time as a liberal. I am a liberal and I am against restricting free speech, or forcing people to have identification cards. I am totally against having a police state. I believe that most liberals are against these things. Moreover, there are some republicans that believe an authoritarian government can become a democracy. I just feel that your last statement about Horowitz makes all liberals look bad. I do not like Horowitz, but I feel you were throwing a puch at all liberals.

P.S. I read that the editors of balk talk have the right to edit people’s writing unless they say they do not want their work edited. Please do not edit any part of this email.

~ Dell Ladies

Justin Raimondo replies:

Horowitz was never a liberal. He went from fellow-traveling with the Black Panthers and the quasi-Trotskyite far left to neoconservatism.




~ Herb Sok

Eric Garris replies:

I think it is unfair to you and everyone else for you to be unwilling to see people beyond their ethnic descent. For you to say: "Palestinians are fanatical…" is to purposefully blind yourself to the value of people as individuals. Are you only able to view a person as white, black, Hispanic, etc.? Is a two-year-old Palestinian a fanatic? If not, at what point does he become one?

I am Jewish and have Palestinian friends. I also know Jews I don’t like. I make friends and enemies based on qualities beyond skin color and parentage.

The 50-Year Communist Assault on 5000 Years of Chinese Culture

From the article, I could tell the author is anti-communist. I, as a Chinese don’t like the Communist Party in China; however, I can not deny the facts that the party has improved significantly during these 20 years. The things that the author talked in the article might represent what the author has encountered, but that was only a tiny little part of the whole country – the less favorite part.

Elaborating based on this incompleteness is unfair and improper. Looking at China through a distorted lens may only distort the truth, and misleadlead the readers.

My advice to the author is travel more to China and talk more to the Chinese people.

Get rid of the bias, so that the author may get a clearer picture of the modern China.

~ H. Chan

Sascha Matuszak replies:

Thanks for the letter.

Recently I have been a little more aggressive toward China in my columns – especially concerning the detrimental effects of modernization. The Party has a lot on its plate and all eyes are on China due to the extremely rapid development during the past two decades, so its understandable that problems seem to lie unsolved or unattended to.

I have a deep appreciation for traditional Chinese culture, so I write aggressively in defense of it, because it seems most officials and businessmen would rather build highways and skyscrapers than protect what makes China so special.

Also I might add that any negative press about China is met with a "bias" argument, especially from Chinese (many of whom are currently living abroad) – perhaps you should travel to a few more Chinese cities and take a look at what’s happening.

Haiti: Barbara Lee Doesn’t Speak for Me

Bush ought not be intervening in Haiti, whether following Barbara Lee’s counsel or his own – just as no American president ever ought.

The US government has been doing so on and off since at least 1915, and there’s no evidence that it’s ever done Haiti’s political or economic system any sustained good. Throughout, American presidents have seen fit to play favorites: A few years ago, the "New Democrat" Bill Clinton intervened to save the left-of-center Aristide; lately, the "compassionate conservative" G.W. Bush intervened to overthrow that same Aristide.

Is that the foreign policy we want, where presidents vie to use the military to mold foreign regimes to their respective tastes?

~ R.P. McCosker, Kensington, CA

Anthony Gregory replies:

Nicely said. You hit the nail on the head.

Richard Perle Supports Terrorism

Richard Perle took time from his book tour, promoting his An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, to be a paid speaker at a January 24, 2004 “Night of Solidarity”, an Iranian fundraiser with an appearance via satellite of Maryam Rajavi, leader of a Marxist terrorist organization. Americans across the entire political spectrum need to put an end to evil this year of the influence of the “Prince of Darkness”, those who made him a member of the Defense Policy Board, the American Enterprise Institute (for naming him a fellow), and of all neoconservatives. Many members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, continue to support publicly the Marxist enemies American troops attacked and killed in Iraq. Now, American troops must protect the remaining Marxist terrorist enemies in their camps in Iraq because political leaders are afraid of the publicity of bringing these terrorists back to America and to European countries. Justin Raimondo’s “Richard Perle Supports Terrorism”, January 28, 2004, is an excellent starting point for identifying America’s worst traitors, the members of Congress and the organizations supporting the Marxist terrorists American troops fought against in Iraq.

~ Paul Sheldon Foote, Professor, California State University, Fullerton

Reality is Scary

This year the federal government will borrow about $477 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Cumulatively, the Treasury Department puts the official national debt at $7.1 trillion, 45 percent of which is held by foreigners. With future unfinanced commitments and liabilities, that brings total U.S. debt to about $30 trillion, or $100,000 for every American, David Walker, the US comptroller general, notes in a new report.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, public opinion has swung solidly against the United States, Navy Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Intelligence Committee. Support for the US war on terrorism ranges from 56 percent in Kuwait, he said, to 2 percent among Jordanians and Palestinians. Pro-American sentiment in Saudi Arabia dropped from 63 percent in May 2000 to 11 percent in October 2003.

~ Jeff Shivers

Researching the Lives of Fallen Soldiers

I am researching on the past lives of fallen soldiers and persons since the (recent) Iraqi war has begun. If any family member of a fallen soldier or government personnel is interested in contacting me, please email me at

I will have a website completed in a few days and will send the link. Thank you – I will keep updated on my progress.

~ Mary Ann Steinacker-Grimm

An Asian NATO

So the world’s two greatest democracies are spearheading the formation of an Asian Nato "to ensure security in Asia"; but who is this new threat to the world peace that need to be contained? Here it is from the horse’s mouse [sic]: "India, China and the USA," Jane’s.

We have been hearing a lot about the need for us and India, “who share many common values”, to join hand containing their common threat, China. The script never changes does it? Uncle Sham, the world’s sole hyperpower, whose military strength dwarfs the combined Europe Union and then some, feels threatened by some third world country, which has to be contained by subversion, sanctions, bombing and subsequent invasion.

If you ask me, this reeks of another of Uncle Sham’s kangaroo courts in action. In poll after poll conducted the world over, including Uncle Sham’s trusted allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia, the grass root consensus, as opposed to the official line, agrees that us is the primary threat to the world peace, not Iraq, not North Korea, never mind China. Surely the country with these credentials needs no introduction? On the other hand, India is not often called a hegemon in polite diplomatic cocktail parties, but its track record speaks for itself; fact is, India has quarrels with all its neighours (China, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc.), annexed Sikkim, Goa, and subjugated Bhutan. It would be interesting to poll the citizens of countries in South Asia, whom do they feel is a threat, China or India? Here is one sample. And another.

India and the US do share some common values it seems, the only difference being that while India is (for the moment at least) operating in its neighourhood, Uncle Sham is operating over four seas. …

~ Deng ix chang

Prosecuting the Cabal

Justin mentions officials taking the fifth. I’m surprised that the Fifth Amendment is available to government officials. It seems to me it shouldn’t be precisely because it is the people’s responsibility to see that their servants behave.

Years ago the US Supreme Court HALE v. HENKEL, 201 US 43 (1906), held that Edwin Hale, as a treasurer of a corporation was not entitled to claim a fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination as he was acting as an officer of a corporation and not in his personal capacity. Government, you see, creates corporations and is charged with seeing that they behave themselves.

Aren’t civil servants acting in a privileged capacity? Isn’t it the citizens’ responsibility to see that they carry out their duties appropriately? I remember Oliver North invoking the fifth amendment. Seems like the congressional committee he appeared in front of should have laughed him right into jail.

~ Roger Barker

Previous Backtalk