And my pissy comment:
I wonder if they factored in the cost of training 53,513 troops, or the cost of burying 53,513 troops, or the cost of lowered wages for the families of 53,513 troops, or the cost of 53,513 troops not getting to see their children grow up, or the cost of the children of 53,513 troops having less educational and economic opportunities due to the deaths of 53,513 troops, or the cost to the economy of 53,513 troops' not paying a lifetime of taxes, or the cost of 53,513 troops' children having lessened tax paying ability, or of the lowered economic impact that the 53,513 troops affect or the lowered economic impact of the children of 53,513 troops?
Mind you they saved transportation costs for 53,513 dead troops, and the Russians and the Chinese can tell you how much more economical it is to throw troops at war rather than troops backed with money (ie equipment, training, INT, etc).
I mean if the cost of the war is so dang important to the CSM reporter he ought to mention all of that, since the money is so much more important than the human aspect of the loss.
Wow, that was a pissy comment.