Lots more in the Civil War. Was it "good"? I'm not G-d, but I think so.

BTW, not even Cold Harbor.

JD - a very liberal coworker was ranting about this today. I pointed out the 2,000 over 2 yrs is still less than 9-11 (a few hours) and about the same as Pearl Harbor (again a few hours). Didn't shut him up but made others walk away from him.

As OJ and I have pointed out before, we lost almost half as many when the Indianapolis went down at the end of WWII. That was a single ship. This is an 18-month old war and counterterrorism operation in a foreign country.

The only reason anybody is paying attention to this is because the media made ghouls of themselves promoting the "Big 2,000."

Yes, Cold Harbor.

6000 Northern troops KIA in one hour. Lots more wounded. Note that isn't casualties, it is deaths. And that was just the first charge against the dug-in Southern unit.

One would think that sober-minded Democrats would not appreciate this line of editorializing, because it will box all of them into basically bloodless skirmishes (a la Kosovo), and take the military power of America off the table.

One would think.

As soon as the media stops counting, they'll stop killing.

but,but, 2,000 is a REAL,REAL, important number -- look, its got 3 ZEROES !!

What wears people down is not so much the number of deaths, but the failure of the Bush administration to manage morale and prepare people for continued sacrifice. The "Mission Accomplished" fiasco and continued bleating on "we've turned a corner" for umpteenth times have eroded Bush's credibility on bringing victory.

Maintaining morale is vitally important and the great American war presidents have done it in far worse circumstances than we face now. Bush has flubbed it, and it's his greatest failing as a war president.

Chris:

You miss the fact that Bush is not going to make it sound WORSE than it is, and the fact that if he kept asking for network time to tell the story, he wouldn't get it. That's what reporters like Michael Yon are for. I do agree that their communication has been poor, but how much of that is due to static from the press?

As a whole, OJ's point that the war is not that big relative to past wars or to America in 2005 is correct.

It could only become a BIG deal (in the media) if something dramatic happened, like if the terrorists used chemical weapons against US soldiers, or if Iranian troops crossed the border.