![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Let's start with what I wrote six years ago on the War On Terror. In it, I stated that the intensity in the so-called War was nowhere near what it was in past wars, and that in some ways I had a problem with that.
Got more data yesterday.
A soldier in the National Guard who is deployed to one of the warzones (makes no difference which one: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen...) has a one in 1000 chance of getting killed and a one in 400 chance of getting wounded to the level of medical discharge eligibility. That's pretty darned low. Compare that to the men who stormed ashore at Anzio, Tarawa, Normandy or Inchon.
Granted, that's the Guard. The regular forces are sent to the hotter of the hot spots. But this is a war with no front line, no rear areas, and where the enemy is supposedly anywhere.
Al-Qaida and the Taliban are horribly ineffective enemies. We're killing far more of them than they are killing of ours. So why isn't the War On Terror won yet? The answer to that riddle may save the world.
Got more data yesterday.
A soldier in the National Guard who is deployed to one of the warzones (makes no difference which one: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen...) has a one in 1000 chance of getting killed and a one in 400 chance of getting wounded to the level of medical discharge eligibility. That's pretty darned low. Compare that to the men who stormed ashore at Anzio, Tarawa, Normandy or Inchon.
Granted, that's the Guard. The regular forces are sent to the hotter of the hot spots. But this is a war with no front line, no rear areas, and where the enemy is supposedly anywhere.
Al-Qaida and the Taliban are horribly ineffective enemies. We're killing far more of them than they are killing of ours. So why isn't the War On Terror won yet? The answer to that riddle may save the world.
