Casualties of war

IN Tim Rutten’s latest column [“Who’s Spinning Whom on Vietnam Analogy?,” Oct. 21,], he refers to our recent casualties in Iraq as “appalling,” adding that we’re “rocketing” toward 3,000 deaths (after 43 months).

Granted, our losses have spiked recently because the insurgents have increased their attacks in the hope of influencing our upcoming election. But if 70-some Americans killed in the first three weeks of October is appalling, then what can we possibly find in our lexicon to describe the 4,000 who died in the month of the Tet offensive? How do we characterize the 6,800 we lost in five weeks on Iowa Jima, the 19,000 in six weeks in the Battle of the Bulge, or the 2,500 on Omaha Beach on the morning of June 6, 1944?

Put in the context of other wars, Rutten’s language not only reveals his liberal agenda but seems almost hallucinatory in its hyperbole. Words carelessly applied are ghosts that mock our intentions.

DAVE EDWARDS

North Hills