10-30-05,8:14am

In the two and a half years since the start of the Iraq conflict, the US military death toll hit 2,000 Tuesday, which is widely seen by the US media as a milestone of tragedy.

It is a tragedy to both the thousands of Americans who lost their loved ones in the bloody and persisting conflict, and the US government's policy.

However, both the Bush administration and US military tried to play down the implication of the tragic figure.

Addressing a luncheon with wives of 500 US servicemen, President George W. Bush said facing the brutal enemy who has no idea of war rules, 'no one should underestimate the difficulties ahead,' suggesting that more US casualties are inevitable.

In regard to the death toll, he admitted that 'we've lost some of our nation's finest men and women in the war on terror. A time of war is a time for sacrifice.'

However, Bush again insisted that presently a US withdrawal is not an option, because 'we got more work to do and it (withdrawal) involves great risk for Iraqis and for Americans and coalition forces.'

He was echoed by Steve Boylan, a spokesman for the US military in Baghdad, who told reporters not to make the 2,000 death toll significant.

'The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom are not a milestone,' he said.

Boylan said everyone of the 2,000 dead is equally important in 'the war against terrorism and to ensure freedom for a people who have not known freedom in two generations.'

Nevertheless, the impact of the climbing death toll is obvious in the United States.

From Washington, New York, Houston, to Hawaii, US anti-war activists are preparing more than 300 gatherings Wednesday across America to commemorate the 2,000 dead soldiers and protest Bush's war policy.

Outside the White House, the famous 'anti-war mom' Cindy Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son died in Iraq last year, told reporters Tuesday that she and some supporters plan to 'die symbolically' each night over four days to mark the 2,000 death toll and ask for a US pullout from Iraq.

'Two thousand families have been destroyed for nothing,' Sheehan said. 'Enough is enough. The killing has to stop sometime.'

US media commentaries pointed out that as the death toll becomes larger and larger, more and more Americans will ask: 'What did they die for? Why should our troops stay in Iraq?'

Anticipating the question, Bush and his cabinet members have been repeating the rhetoric that the US military missions in Iraq aim to 'win the war on terror,' promoting democracy and freedom in Iraq and the Middle East and thus enhancing security in the United States.

However, by stressing the need to stay on the course, the Bush administrations is de facto at odds with public opinion in both America and Iraq, local analysts said.

For instance, a CBS survey early this month showed that 62 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling Iraq, while 59 percent of those polled said American forces should leave Iraq as soon as possible.

According to The Independent, a British newspaper, a survey carried out in Iraq in August showed that 82 percent of Iraqis said they are 'strongly opposed' to the US-led coalition troops in their country, while less than 1 percent said the US troops are responsible for an improvement in security.

It seems ironic that such strong public opinion is disregarded while the US government said it is committed to 'freedom and democracy' in Iraq, analysts said.

In 2003, the US government accused the Saddam regime in Iraq of secretly developing weapons of mass destruction and conspiring with al-Qaeda, and used the accusations to justify the need for war.

However, after 2,000 US soldiers died and more than 15,000 were wounded in Iraq, the evidence of such allegations has never been found.

Colin Powell, the then US secretary of state, recently dismissed the existence of such evidence and said he regretted supporting the war.

Under such circumstances, it is not hard to understand why Bush made special emphasis on 'freedom and democracy' every time he talked about Iraq recently.

That is also the underlying reason why the United States was so anxious to see the outcome of the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum in Iraq and the progress of trial of Saddam Hussein, said local analysts.

However, the US public will not stop questioning what the point is in sacrificing 2,000 lives.

In a country where even US soldiers are worried about their own security, the idea of a free, democratic, peaceful and prosperous Iraq seems to go nowhere and so does the neo-conservative dream of a 'Grand Mideast Democracy.'

In the end, the implications of the 2,000 deaths will depend on the US people's perception of how well the war is going, said Deborah Avant, a professor of political science at George Washington University.

'The polls show that people don't think the war is going very well,' he said.

Given the continuous erosion of public support for the war in Iraq, even an eventual victory for the US military will not improve the public sentiment about the war, according to John Mueller, a war expert at Ohio State University.

'There is no way (for the Bush administration) to regain support. People will say it cost too much and it isn't worth the cost,' he said.