I am surmising that the DoD citing relates to the recent House Conference Report 109ﾖ72 accompanying H.R. 121268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Public Law 109–13, posted at the DoD's website. It is a 23-page report chock full of statistics and graphs on the American effort "toward a democratic Iraq." Reading it you get a real sense of what a prodigious undertaking it is to rebuild a nation destroyed by war.

For instance, "Progress toward the objectives of the strategy for Iraq includes U.S. Government objectives:

• transitioning to security self-reliance;
• supporting freedom and democracy;
• providing essential services;
• establishing the foundation for a strong economy;
• promoting the rule of law;
• maintaining international engagement and support; and
• promoting strategic communications."

Political stability is summarized in this way: "The ultimate goal of the transitional political process is for Iraq to be governed by an effective and representative democratic system that is: supported by the Iraqi people; capable of exercising responsibility for managing Iraq's affairs, including security; accepted as legitimate by the international community; and committed to promoting civil society, the rule of law, and respect for human rights."

Security, that fleeting, ever changing on-the-ground dynamic there, is described as " the [goal] is for the Iraqis to take ownership of their own security. The Coalition is focused on these objectives:

• increasing the capacity of Iraqi security structures and forces;
• reducing the influence and effectiveness of insurgents; and
• strengthening Iraqi rule of law capabilities—law enforcement, justice, and the corrections system."

As in Vietnam, the American military is besting their adversary across the breadth and length of the land they occupy. But if winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population, if breaking the back of the resistance, if dampening terrorism and making the world safer is the flash point of success, America is not there yet, if ever. And if the point of that email writer's message was to debunk the subject title: "Yep, we're losing that war," our government's own criteria indicates, at best, a work in progress.

We all know how statistics have a way of mutating according to need. (Remember the body count controversy of the Vietnam War?) But either way, true or false, the figures in House Conference Report 109–72 are not the real issue. And that is the sad reality of so many Americans latching onto various arguments that have nothing to do with the central question: Was this war predicated for reasons that make it morally right? It was not.

It was ostensibly launched because of a stated direct link between 9/11 tand Iraq and the existence of WMD and delivery capability. We now know that there was no intelligence to support those allegations, aside from what was made up. So basically, all the statistics alleged in the email are irrelevant to the moral requirement of just cause.

But for those that want to play the statistics game, let us consider some facts: Even by the most deflated propagandist death count—which contradicts previous credible counts—the England-based Iraqi Body Count (IBC) puts Iraqi civilian casualties at between 22,838 and 25,869. (By consensual reality-mitigation policy, US-British war statistics omit Iraqi body counts [called inhumane].)

Now the IBC count is bad enough, but it's far worse when you consider two independent studies investigating the death toll of Iraqi civilians: The British medical journal, The Lancet, estimating the death toll at 100,000, mostly women and children, and Iraqiyun Humanitarian Organization in Baghdad reporting 128,000 killed (of those deaths, 55 per cent have been women and children aged 12 and under, according to Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, head of Iraqiyun). This data was compiled from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals throughout Iraq. (Global Research)

So much for schooling the kids.

And what is all of this fixing up after tearing down costing the US? How about $204.6 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005) (Cost of War) That's right, American taxpayers, on top of current US war deaths of 1,827 (Casualties), this tragic debacle is bankrupting us and mortgaging future generations to satisfy the geopolitical ambitions of neocon national supremacists and religious extremists. (Yurica Report)

Cell phones? How about water and basic electricity:

Over 18 months, American officials spent almost $2 billion to revive the capital ravaged by war and neglect, according to Army Gen. William G. Webster, who heads the 30,000 U.S. and foreign troops and 15,000 Iraqi soldiers known collectively as Task Force Baghdad. But the money goes for long-term projects that yield few visible results and for security to protect the construction sites from sabotage.

As a result, Iraqis have seen scant evidence of improvement in their homes, streets or neighborhoods. They blame American and Iraqi government corruption. (Common Dreams)

The media accused of not accentuating the positive is the same media that couldn't get enough of hanging on the administration's every lie and distortion. And, now, that the chicken hawks' chicanery in dragging us into a no-win occupation has come home to roost, with bloodshed escalating beyond a tolerable level, the former "cheerleaders" are now laughably being transmogrified by the right into the liberal press—for asking pertinent questions and scratching around the edges of investigative reporting.

As always, it will be the American troops who will catch the brunt end of an unjustified war. They will win every battle, but suffer ignominy, because of the hucksters selling democracy or some other ideal to cover a power grab. Oil production has peaked everywhere, ladies and gents. It's not about stealing oil, as some have alleged, it's about controlling it and its geopolitical reach over world geography and economics.

You may reach Carl Hitchens at drumtalk@mac.com.i>