“So… Some facts to counter your conjecture.” I said the other day that I would not trade venom, so I won’t. But I have to ask -- what exactly do you think this sentence adds to the discussion?

Thanks for numbering your points. It does make it easier to reply.

#1 - I never said that media participation reduced casualty rates in a given battle of the same size. I said that public expectations (in part produced my media participation since WW2) has put a downward pressure on deployment numbers. Yes, helicopters and improved battlefield medicine have reduced the rate of fatality in battle, and that accounts for some of the difference in total casualties between wars, but you don’t change total deployment numbers for that reason. Beginning in WW2, the US military has been on a steady trajectory of applying more and more effectively targeted force through the relatively low casualty use of air power. That, more than battlefield medicine, has made smaller deployments possible. Many soldiers in the first Gulf War found enemy soldiers ready to surrender as soon as we made contact. They were ready to surrender because their command structure and logistic support had been destroyed well in advance of the ground war. That, chiefly, was the cause of the low casualty rates.

#2 – An interesting phenomenon in its own right, and certainly not confined to bullets. Mustard gas is one excellent example of this sort of thing. Mustard Gas in WW1 actually killed a very low percentage of its victims (well, at least on the western front) but it choked the roads and the medical systems with an unmanageable number of blind, sick men. War is not a kind business.

#3 – I doubt you can account for our lighter footprint simply by the fact we carry lighter bullets. There are still plenty of M2 HMGs around, and automatic grenade launchers whose ammunition weighs a ton. Add to that the fact that we have people lugging quite heavy missile systems around and you will forgive me for being dubious. On the other hand, it may be that helicopter based supply is a net win – it would eliminate the need for some trucks and the people to drive them. Then again, helicopters need more people to maintain them and more fuel per load mile. I don’t have these numbers at hand.

#4 – “War fighter” is not my term. It originated either with the media or with the army. The contractor point is a good one as far as the total deployment goes. I will concede that I didn’t think about that at the time of writing and it is a factor. I should at least give that a footnote. However, it doesn’t badly erode my basic thesis. The media rarely announces contractor deployments, but if 100 (non-mercenary) contractors were killed in one incident there would still be a great public outcry and wringing of hands – which we didn’t get when many times that number of soldiers were killed in WW2.

#5 – Again, I agree with most of this. If we become sufficiently totalitarian about information great things are certainly possible… That is sarcasm, of course. But message control for a million troops in a long occupation would still be very problematic. The Soviets owned their press, but the Afghan War still eventually raised resentment that contributed the government’s collapse.

The current US 5.56 round (M855) does not have the same nasty terminal ballistics that the old one (M193) did. I think the reason they are casting around for something bigger is to get more effective range. You need that in a dessert. Otherwise, they would just revert to the M193.

The indignant report I heard about the helicopter shoot-down came the morning after the event, and was therefore largely unburdened by other factors.