This item in Slate:
An unjustified comparison: An Associated Press story about Christmas Day casualties in Iraq took pains to point out that the number of American soldiers who have perished in Iraq—2,978—is now greater than the Sept. 11 death toll—2,973. Bloggers of all political persuasions are wondering why these numbers are being compared.
Conservative heavyweight Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs is all fire and brimstone at the way this milestone is being spun: "They've obviously been watching and waiting for this magic number, to file a report like this—an empty-headed, amoral attempt to equate things that are not equivalent, serving a sick, anti-American left-wing agenda."
Slate just rounds up the usual bloggery suspects, of course, but for once I agree with the wingnuts: there's no comparison between the 9/11 casualties and the troops who died in Iraq, except in one sense: they all died needlessly.
As to whether 9/11 was "preventable" or not, I will leave to another discussion. The reality is that it happened because other people wanted to kill Americans and terrorize us.
What we did and do have control over is our reaction to this crime. When we first entered into Iraq, it was a war of choice for undefined ends, since the rationale given at the time proved to be totally false. It continues to be a war of choice, because there's nothing preventing us from leaving except our will to do so.
In between the invasion of Iraq and when we exit -- if we exit -- every single casualty has been a life thrown away in a pointless cause. It's easy to make a case that OIF has in fact made the terrorism and instability problem worse. I do not disparage the blood sacrifice of my brothers and sisters in arms -- ours is not to reason why, and the essence of military duty is to be there and respond when called to duty.
Which brings me back to my point of agreement with the whackos on the right. One can't compare the 2973 souls lost on 9/11 to the Iraq body count, because when the first optional casualty too place, it was too many to pay for an emotional response to 9/11 that had nothing to do with 9/11.
If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, the question is how much prevention we're ingesting in Iraq. The answer is we're taking some kind of twisted patent medicine that's poisoning us while allowing the base disease to fester and take advantage of our poor care of the patient.
This is why, in turn, the arguments that our involvement in Iraq has prevented deaths by terrorism in the United States are speculative, irrational, and emotional. Because the idea of squandering so much life and treasure is horrible and difficult to bear, those who are responsible for supporting this action seek to wash the blood off their hands and consciences by imagining their fears would be made manifest in the absence of the Iraq invasion. Continuing support for the Iraq war on this basis is no more and no less than the equivalent of putting a sack of garlic around one's neck to ward off vampires, or leaving on a nightlight to keep away the bogeyman -- except our belief in magic spells in Iraq has fatal consequences for our brave soldiers and Iraqis of all stripes.
The lack of major terrorist attacks in the US since then proves nothing. This may be because our domestic security aparatus finally woke up. It may be because we disabled terrorist bases abroad in many other countries. It may be that the 9/11 plot was successful due to a freak set of circumstances, including "luck" on the part of the terrorists. But there's no evidence at all our military intervention in Iraq has had anything to do with this lack of an attack here, and there's certainly evidence the overall involvement provoked further terrorist attacks in Spain and the UK.
You can make the argument that we need to stay in Iraq to prevent even greater loss of life in a civil bloodbath. I'm not sure I would agree with that argument, and I think the burden of proof would rest with those making it against the balance of even one more American soldier killed, but at least it's an argument that has some connection with reality. The argument that 9/11 justifies our involvement in Iraq is senseless, though.
That is what is "sick, amoral, and Anti-American." The willingness to sacrifice a life for a lie. I don't need to count to 2,973 in Iraq to come to that conclusion.
I only need to count to one.