Rumsfeld Predicts Low U.S. Losses in Fallujah

Here we are, three days into the seige on Fallujah, and our losses have reached at least 10 soldiers. We're not sure how many have actually been lost, since the pentagon won't release true figures because of the risk that the numbers of dead soldiers will somehow give strategic intelligence to the insurgents. Good job, general, that'll keep 'em in the dark.

10 dead in 3 days seems low to me, especially when we've grown accustomed to hearing about that many people being blown up in a single car bomb attack at a market on a normal, non-seige-waging day. Ask yourself, "Am I becoming desensitized to death tolls?"

Prior to the beginning of the seige, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted that the losses would be low, though he didn't qualify that with what he considers "low" to be. (10? 100? 1,000?) And now, as the battle for Fallujah rages on and more of our soldiers fall, we should ask him directly, "At what point do low losses become moderate losses, Mr. Secretary? And what's the milestone for high losses? We've already sacrificed over 1,000 American soldiers in this crack-pot quest to bring freedom (as defined by George Bush) to the Middle East. Where do we draw the line? Or, is there no end to the number of soldiers you'll throw under this out-of-control locomotive to stop it?"

To help you make sense of the vagueness in Rumsfeld's brand of numerology, the editors at Turner/Phelps have devised the following scale for you. Keep in mind that in his last press conference, Rummy was probably "padding" the numbers, as most plumbers and project managers tend to do when they're forced to give an estimate. In predicitng low casualties, he's implying that unforeseen events may cause the numbers to slip into the moderate levels, which to him will still be acceptable.