4,000

With the exception of the gas pump, we like nice round numbers and create events around them. When the odometer hits 100,000, it's a big moment for that 100,000th mile, much to the dismay of number 99,999, perhaps.

When the media needs to gin up a story, we'll focus on a politician's first 100 days in office.

And then we have Americans killed in the war in Iraq. Today, numbers 3,997, 3,998, 3,999 and 4,000 are in the news, but only because we don't know which one was actually #4,000 and when we hit these even numbers, the media does a story about how there's still a war going on and people are still dying in it, just like they were yesterday and the day before.

Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a military spokesman, expressed condolences to all the families of soldiers killed in Iraq, saying each death is "equally tragic."

Last week, ostensibly to mark the 5th anniversary of the war in Iraq, a ceremony was held at the Minnesota Capitol to read the names of those who have died. The next day, Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman gave the Capitol folks the "what for" for not stopping to honor those who have been killed:

I would like to tell you the Capitol of Minnesota came to a hushed halt Wednesday to observe the anniversary of a misbegotten war that has cost far too many lives to ever be worth it, but the country is not in the mood for special observances.

Here's why. These ceremonies aren't just "special observances," they're anti-war protests. The Capitol event was organized by the Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace, an anti-war group, which -- just so we're clear -- has every right to an opinion opposed to the war. Some people agree with it. Others do not.

This afternoon, Women Against Military Madness, is hosting a protest/vigil at Sen. Norm Coleman's office to mark the occasion of the killing of #4,000.

But for those who would rather observe the passing of a life, and maybe even express appreciation for the sacrifice without making a political statement or engaging in a political rally, you're on your own today.

It’s hard for me to reconcile my thoughts about the war.

On the one hand I think we were stupid to go into Iraq in the first place and stupider to not have a plan for what came after.

On the other hand, 4000 of our most worthy citizens have died in Iraq for ME. How can I say that what they died doing was stupid?

It makes me really mad to have been put in this situation. It makes me sad that we can’t honor our fallen soldiers without making a political statement either way.

While listening to MPR this morning, I heard the report about the 4,000 mark. Growing angry, I flipped to the Cd player, where Bobby Dylan was singing the next track, "Masters of War". How timely. I couldn't help but ponder..."haven't we learned anything?"

You simply cannot separate the military action from the soldiers. That is the reason they died! Like Brian, who posted above, I am frustrated and angry about the entire situation. I opposed the whole ignorant invasion from the very first day and I want us out...now. If you listened to TOTN yesterday, you heard how frustrated service members' families are too. I can't imagine what that must be like. They deserve a huge apology, but who will give it to them?

I agree with Brian.

I remember being very conflicted back in 2003. One the one hand, there was a bad situation over there that showed the hallmarks of only getting worse in the future as the corruption of the UN Oil-For-Food program demonstrated that the attempts to control Hussein's weapons programs were likely to fail in the short term. His documented willingness to use them and history of having dones so was certainly of grave concern.

On the other hand, it seemed that he could still be contained to some degree for at least a few more years. The incredible and unthinkable toll of the 9/11 attacks muddied the waters and raised the concern that terrorism could now reach our shores in significant quantity. Allowing the Middle East to continue to fester seemed a bad idea, but so did potentially stirring the pot to our own detriment. One can never know the future, and at times it may be the best idea to wait and see what happens. It was a very hard decision, and frankly I was happy that I was not the one that had to make it.

All that said, I have a military background, and with that in mind I decided that if we did engage Iraq in a war, I would do my best to put aside my doubts and support our soldiers' mission for better or worse.

I watched in dismay as the very people that voted to authorize the war (and no, I do not believe they were lied to or misled by the President in any way - if they were, they're incompetent dupes and not suited for national leadership positions) quickly turned their backs on the effort in order to gain political points when the going got tough and polling indicated that the public support was shifting.

Some of them had their doubts too, and stood their ground with a 'no' vote even when that went against popular positions. For them, I still have respect, but I wished that they could have at least gotten on board with the effort enough to recognize that once the decision was made, we owed it to our troops to support them and their mission.

I watched in absolute disgust as the Sheehan's of the world cynically used the deaths of our volunteer military to advance their own agendas.

I cringe when I hear various arbitrary anniversaries reported along with the obligatory additional details of the overall costs in lives and dollars, without the balancing reports of the good that has been done there.

I am repulsed when agendas are furthered by attempts to tar the entire military with the despicable actions of a very small minority of its members in places like Abu Ghraib. I find it disgusting that the vast majority of news consumers can identify Pfc. Lynndie England but very few (if any) know the names Jason Dunham or Paul R. Smith.

I would amend Bob's closing sentence by stating that I have felt that lonliness not just today, but for years now.

I agree with much of what Daveg had to say. I would only add that I am just as disgusted with the President as he is with politicians that changed their view on the war. He did the same thing they did. He sent the troops in, but then didn’t plan adequately for the future, didn’t send in enough troops, and didn’t give the troops everything they needed.

I am just as disgusted with the President...

Yes, I am too, but for a different reason. In my view, his biggest failure was in not talking to us early and often enough. There were speaches, of course, but in a time of war, particularly a war that can and may still be lost on the battlefield of information and misinformation, the communication from the White House was abysmal.

They surrendered that fight almost immediately, and the repercussions have been huge. Amongst the worst conceits and arrogances was the idea that we did not need to be included, and that we would just follow along of our own volition. One thing that I've learned in my career in what is essentially a service industry is that you are never done selling an idea.

In the last five years we have lost more of our young men to the failed "War On Poverty" in Washington DC alone, than we have in Iraq.

Why is no one protesting for an end, or at least a strategy review on this war?

Perhaps the answer resides in where the money goes.

Maybe Bush should have paid the left to run the war in Iraq, than Hillary and Barak would be proclaiming that "we will be there for 1,000 years"