Lowered expectations

As war rages in Iraq and coalition forces close in on Baghdad, some worry that the task at hand won't be as easy as was originally supposed. Many have charged that this is the fault of an overly optimistic Defense Department. Anyone who happened to turn on the television last week undoubtedly heard repeated predictions of an American military triumph and the relatively easy defeat of Saddam's regime. However, since last weekend the public has begun to question the rapidity of the Republican Guard's destruction and the subsequent liberation of the Iraqi people, due to recent casualties. But I charge that much of the fault for civilian disappointment of the war thus far lies in semantics.\nIt is true that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks were wrong to speak with such enthusiasm over our coming military victory. Their expressed optimism translated to the American public as a vision of a flawless fight where almost none of our soldiers would be killed. They forgot that Americans base success on an ever-shrinking death toll instead of accomplishing all military objectives. Of course, if we judged the war on the latter, we have reason to be pleased with the results thus far, but this is not the case.\nEven with last week's string of casualties, ours has been a successful fight thus far in military terms. The objectives are being met, and our forces are moving with stunning speed despite a much shorter bombing campaign than in 1991, sand storms and constant enemy violations of the rules of war. But as a result of Rumsfeld's statements of an overwhelming victory, many here at home thought this meant a war that would begin and end in a 72-hour period. Obviously this was not the case, and as a consequence of public impatience, the peace-at-any-cost protests will only intensify.\nAmerica has been spoiled by the impressive and speedy results we accomplished in 1991. The very reason that victory came so swiftly is the reason we are fighting in Iraq today: We failed to solve the root of the problem because we were afraid to get our hands dirty. Twelve years ago we were expelling an invading army; now we have become the invading army, and that position carries innate consequences, such as loss of life. \nIt is crucial for the sake of homeland support that the mistake of appearing overconfident to the public not be repeated. There is a happy medium between reassuring your populace and boasting of military genius. From now on, public officials should respect the extremely high regard with which we hold every life here in the West and remember the consequence of such will unavoidably cast poor light on an otherwise impressive military campaign. This is not to say that our leaders haven't done everything in their power to minimize bloodshed in this war, but rather that they failed to effectively warn our sensitive nation of the inevitable American and British casualties which will occur in such an invasion. Instead, they were too busy preparing us for perfection.\nFor our part, we cannot allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that because we're wielding the greatest fighting force ever assembled our soldiers are invincible. Even when we openly admit to the danger our armed forces will encounter, we are appalled whenever we hear of the death of a Coalition soldier. We must not let this shake our resolve. If an overwhelming majority of Americans continue to demand the toppling of Saddam's regime, our armed forces continue to make us proud, our leaders continue to act decisively and if the Russians and French can stop selling military weapons to Saddam for five minutes, then God willing, victory can still be achieved at a relatively small cost in human lives.