How many casualties would you accept before you retreat?

Question

Compare ww2 (1941-1945) to Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-present). Have Americans lost the stomach for war? What happened to the "Greatest Generation?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Answer 1

What was an acceptable loss in 1940 is not acceptable today, with advances in technology and better understanding of the nature of war, the numbers should be about as low as they are.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 as much as the Nazis had to do with the bombing of Pearl Harbor

Answer 2

You cant compare the two. It is a complete different type of war fare. In the world wars men fought for ground, just like in oif1. Lets say a company lost 60% of their men and retreated. That means they will have to try again and might lose another 60%- 70%. Chesty Puller and Patton said it the best. It cost to much to take the same land twice. Today we already own the land. We are not advancing on the enemy to gain ground. In fact we are trying to give it up.
As for the guts of the modern Soldier and Marine, we are just as mean and aggresave as before and retreat is not an option!

Answer 3

Casualties would be measured differently by every leader (and his/her people) who pursues war or engages in a battle. So decisions to retreat in war or battle based solely on the number of casualties are dependent on the objectives, calculations and plans each leader or leaders have made. Some may consider certain measure of their casualties getting high or too high, while others may think of it as a necessary price to pay in order to achieve their objective/s. To all who truly engage in war or battle, the achievement of victory is the ultimate goal and price to be had, regardless of the casualties incurred.

Answer 4

The Class at Battle Staff College said 65% before the unit became ineffective. But Im only speaking of units not national
will or policy.

CHEERS

Answer 5

Day 1 on Iwo Jima cost over 7000 Marine casualties.
We really have some GUTLESS people in congress.

Answer 6

I agree with you, we have too many liberals out there crying every time someone stubs their toe. These liberals want freedom, but they don't want to pay the price for it. They are not bright enough to understand that Freedom is not free, and someone has to pay for it. I believe that there is the majority of Americans that believe that we need to fight, but our liberal media only gives time to a few liberal cry babies. I have noticed that the majority of the people that I talk to think the same way I do, but our Media wants us to believe other wise. Our Media only tells us what they want us to believe. Listen to talk radio if you want to know the truth.

Answer 7

Depends entirely upon your perspective. I could accept 100%. However, I would do my best to make the enemy die for his country. That is how you win.

Answer 8

A very old saying I heard many years ago fits your question properly -

"It is better to die on your feet, than to live on your knees."

Answer 9

I think you mistake Americans for liberal propaganda. Still, Americans don't like being "nice" to the enemy. We would rather obliterate them and sort it out later. These Iranian and Al Qaeda sponsored attacks leaves us angry for some vengeance that hasn't come.

Answer 10

This isn't WW II and Hitler just didn't attack the whole world and declare war on us.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorist so your question really doesn't deserve a response if you don't know the difference, and apparently you do not!