Playing the Odds

According to this Slate article--which I initially found by linking to Intel Dump from YRHT--suggests that Iraq 2004 isn't really all that different from Vietnam 1966--if you're looking at the possibility that an individual soldier will be killed or wounded.

To be honest, I find the statistical analysis a little dry--but the conclusion is spot on accurate. That is, regardless of how you parse the numbers, the war is just that--war. As such, there's always the potential for destruction, mayhem--and the grim reaper to come a calling. And, in the case of Iraq, the war has been fought for--what?

Just think: if we hadn't spent almost $150 billion dollars and counting up to this point (with the promise that more is needed just to maintain the level of chaos there), we might be able to come through with quite a bit more for disaster relief in South Asia. By the way--note that the $35 million dollars promised thus far (more than half of it in loans, not grants) is still slightly less than the $40 million budgeted for Bush's inauguration.

After all, one must set priorities...