Yesterday we were treated to a bunch of headlines like this:
Trying to debate this is obviously a waste of time. Just like the ‘Iraqi Civil War’ debate, everyone is going to use their own definition of the term in question. Oh, and coincidentally, the definition they choose to use will support their political position.
“Involved” is the key term here:
- Japan didn’t sign until September 2nd. Do we note passing that count, as well?
- What about our very real involvement in supporting the Brits against the Germans long before Pearl Harbor?
- If only actual combat counts, what about the Flying Tigers in China and the Eagle Squadron in Europe?
- The occupation of Germany lasted until 1955. The occupation of Japan only lasted until 1952. Isn’t occupying a conquered nation “involvement”?
- Of course, we still have many troops stationed in both nations. Or doesn’t that count?
- If occupation doesn’t count, then the Iraqi campaign only lasted a few weeks, right?
Of course, folks will just whine and complain about any attempts to apply any sort of apples-to-apples comparison if it undermines their position.
Using these numbers, we can expect to see “US Casualties in Iraq surpass those in WWII” on or about the 27th of May in the year 2523.
Sort of makes trying to compare them seem kind of silly, doesn’t it?
UPDATE: A reader points out that the Flying Tigers didn’t enter combat until 20 Dec 1941. My bad. They had been in Burma since the summer of ’41 training, and I thought that they had already entered combat by the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. They hadn’t.