The latest "news" not given much play in the United States is the number of suicides among U.S. troops in Iraq. In terms of being ignored, it is second only to the "news" of the "detainees" at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. doesn't like to hear much of 600 to 1,000 "detainees" in a U.S. prison, men and boys who have been held there in metal cages without access to lawyers, without contact with families, and without any charges against them.

There was a small burst of "news" when U.S. special forces bravely fought their way into the medical compound to rescue the injured Private Lynch and have her carried off on a stretcher to a waiting helicopter, and from there safely home to the arms of her anxious family. Of course, it helped that an Iraqi provided a key to the medical compound to make it easier for the special forces to blast their way in and "rescue" the young woman.

The U.S. was not happy to learn that Lynch never fired a shot from her weapon after her Humvee accident, when she was knocked out cold. Lynch herself has explained she doesn't consider herself a hero. This isn't false modesty. She wasn't a hero. "I'm not about to take credit for something I didn't do," Lynch has said. "I'm just a survivor."

Nothing new here either, for we all know, to the point of cliché, that truth is the first casualty of war. Remember the first Gulf War, when we heard the "news" of the horror of babies pulled to their deaths from incubators in a nursery in Kuwait?

Now let us consider those suicides, a matter that also came up in the 1960s during the quagmire of Vietnam.

Randall Richard, an Associated Press writer, reports that 17 American soldiers have killed themselves since U.S. President George W. Bush declared an official end to hostilities in Iraq last May. These are official U.S. figures, which doubtless are conservative as suicides are difficult to confirm.

When Richard wrote the story on Nov. 20, 422 U.S. troops had died in Iraq, 129 of them categorized as "non-hostile." Of these deaths, 105 happened after Bush declared an end to hostilities. Richard's report says all the confirmed suicides happened after May 1. Of the non-combat deaths, 13 were caused by weapons, two by drowning, another from "breathing difficulties." One soldier is believed to have killed himself by swallowing a bottle of Tylenol capsules.

Surfing TV last week I came across a panel discussion on the war in Iraq. One panellist, a Muslim academic, suggested the war in Iraq may have been exactly what Saddam Hussein wanted. Another panellist discounted this, saying Saddam has never been regarded as a brilliant military tactician.

But, even the dullest knife in the drawer might have realized that the Iraqi army could never defeat the military might of the U.S.-led forces. That was certainly true in the first Gulf War, when the conquerors contented themselves with winning the war in the desert, when the operative phrase was "a line in the sand."

But even a Saddam must have realized that the U.S.-led forces would have a much more difficult time conquering Baghdad, a city of five million, twice the size of Toronto. The U.S. never has been that effective against guerrillas or street fighters, as was demonstrated in Somalia when 18 U.S. body-bags convinced the U.S. to get the hell out of Mogadishu.

Comparisons with Vietnam are more frequent these days. David Broder of the Washington Post, one of the most respected of U.S. political correspondents, has been using what is being referred to as the "V-word" when writing of Iraq. In a recent story, Broder quoted Harvard historian Ernest May as saying Iraq is "eerily reminiscent" of the early days of Vietnam, though it was not clear if the "crumbling" in Iraq would be as pervasive as in South Vietnam.

This led Paul Reynolds – a hard-working online reporter who travels the world with a laptop for BBC News Online – to write: "Like generals, analysts often simply re-fight old wars when looking at a new one. In South Vietnam, the U.S. faced not only an indigenous insurrection from the Viet Cong. It faced the North Vietnamese regular army. It was also propping up a corrupt establishment."

This is about as optimistic a take on the situation in Iraq as it is possible to find.

I am writing this on the Friday before CBC-TV carries a Sunday documentary titled Deadline Iraq: Uncensored Stories of the War. It will be shown without commercials. It shows footage the U.S. would not allow televised and features perspectives from 50 journalists – from the CBC, BBC, CNN, CBS, and Al-Jazeera – who covered the invasion.

If the U.S. didn't want these things shown, chances are good they will come closer to the truth and the horror in Iraq than anything we've seen on TV since this hurry-up war began.

Letters:

Dear Mr. O'Malley,

After reading your latest instalment, I stayed up past my usual bedtime on Sunday night to watch the "Deadline: Iraq" special. It was tough to watch, but I'm glad I did. Certainly puts a different spin on the war than what was shown from the embedded journalists.

There is something that has been bothering me for the last week or so since I heard it, and considering you're a smart man, I thought I'd ask you for an explanation. Apparently, there is an ad campaign starting in some parts of the US that intimates that the Democrats are calling into the question the Bush stance--and, apparently, the U.S.' inherent right--to use force as "pre-emptive self defense".

Just what the hell is "pre-emptive self defense"?

  »Vicki Robertson
  »Halifax

Dear Mr. O'Malley,

I enjoyed reading your Viewpoint. Twenty years ago or so, I heard a historian -- it might have been Gabriel Kolko -- on the radio opine that, "technology is not a strategy and a defence budget is not a foreign policy." He was speaking about the American catastrophe in Vietnam. Not much has changed, and one wonders if the elites in Washington will ever learn.

Keep on writing the good fight.

  »Peter Saracino

Mr. O'Malley,

I read your commentary "Did Saddam plan it this way?", and I couldn't agree more. I had to share it with some of my "Bush-ite" friends and family, as I am quite the outcast out here, in regard to the popular opinion!

There's absolutely nothing I can add to this, and believe me, I'm known to be quite outspoken, especially on this Iraq idiocy. I hope this kind of journalism becomes more widespread, and soon! There's a dearth of truth in the land!

  »L.A. Wright
  »Moose Jaw, SK

Hi Martin,

Just a note to say that I think your piece, “Did Saddam....” is an excellent heads up on the reporting of the war and the U.S. reservations about having the real truth come out.

  »Jim

Mr. O'Malley,

Regarding Private Lynch and her rescue - media reports I have read indicate that her "rescuers" did not "bravely fight" their way into the hospital; in fact, hospital staff largely abandoned the area to make Lynch's retrieval less complicated. There are also reports that Americans turned back an offer of an ambulance delivery because it would have ruined their photo op.

I also have a mild disagreement over whether Lynch deserves to be called a hero. Certainly her actions before her retrieval do not denote heroism, but her refusal to be a media lapdog for the American military shows a level of moral courage rarely seen today, and worthy of celebration. As one who has occasionally refused to toe the party line in a bureaucracy, I know the forces that a bureaucracy can bring to bear, and my differences were minor, and opposed toa relatively benign group. Considering that Lynch blew the whistle to the world, in opposition to the mightiest military machine in the world, well, if that isn't heroism, I don't know what is. Since her brother is also in the military, it will be interesting to see what happens to him. My bet is that he will not be peeling potatoes. I just hope we do not read an account of how he was killed while "bravely fighting terrorists."

Regarding suicide, your figures indicate that suicide represents 13 percent of deaths from non-combat causes, or almost one American in seven. I wonder how that stacks up to Vietnam.

Another statistic you do not see in the news is what percentage British soldiers have died because of friendly fire. If you look it up, you will see that America is as deadly to its closest ally as the "enemy" is.

I wonder, also, if the CBC special will treat as "news" that Canada has more staff supporting the American effort in Iraq than any other country, or that our CPP pension funds, like it or not, are invested in most of the world's largest arms manufacturers (http://coat.openconcept.ca).

  »Kevin Longfield,
  »Winnipeg