Charting the Iraq War
Ann Althouse (via Glenn Reynolds) posted a chart earlier today comparing Iraqi Civilian War casualties with other conflicts in recent history:
Click on picture to enlarge.
This number of civilian(?) casualties lost during war, as sad as it is, is at a rate less than when Saddam was in power and filling his mass graves.
This shows how Iraq War Casualties compares to other American Wars:
Here's more:
As noted last month in World Net Daily, California's murder rate dwarfs Iraq deaths.
Russia lost more soldiers in peacetime than we did in Iraq last year.
And, Pre-Katrina New Orleans had a murder rate that compares with both the US military and Iraqi civilian deaths combined.
Joe's Dartblog wonders what happened to the media's earlier claims.
Driftwood prepared a timeline comparison of Iraq with Germany.
Obviously, the men and women of the United States Military and fellow Allies are not "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth" but are doing a brilliant job in supporting Iraq in its transition from a murderous dictatorship to a functioning Middle Eastern democracy in just 1,000+ days!
Update: I have included the suggestion on "fatalities" verses "casualties".
posted by Gateway Pundit at 12/19/2005 04:13:00 AM
35 Comments:
Another thing to consider is the number of peactime military deaths, 2000 a year give or take throughout the 80s. Was Europe worth it?
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm
I think your numbers are wrong for the Korean War. I think the actual number is around 34,000. (see http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm)
This confusion comes from KIA's versus other deasths in theater (exposure, sickness, car accidents, etc). You can make a good case that the 'others' should be counted since the any one who dies of exposure in Korea would not have been there if not for the war. But they are not counted in the totals for the other wars so it makes the comparisons between wars off.
As noted last month in World Net Daily, California's murder rate dwarfs Iraq deaths.
As noted every time this stupid "fact" is recited, there aren't 34 million troops in Iraq. Do these people know what "murder rate" means?
It would be interesting to add in a calculation of the the number of deaths as a percentage of US population. And while I support the Iraq war effort, I have to agree that pointing out that more people were murdered in California than in Iraq is entirely besides the point.
Gosh...then a mom who lost a son should just shut the hell up, right?
How many kin have you lost, statman?
Gosh...then a mom who lost a son should just shut the hell up, right?
How many kin have you lost, statman?
You missed the most important feature of this graphic and its accompanying text. But, it is DESIGNED that way on purpose, and so I'm not surprised that you overlooked it.
Take a closer look.
The interviewer asks: "How many Iraqi citizens have died in the war."
President Bush responds: I think about 30,000.
But notice, the interviewer doesn't ask Mr. Bush how many Iraqi SOLDIERS have died in the war, but carefully phrases the question to concern CITIZENS.
Now, one can certainly be a CITIZEN AND A SOLDIER, or a CITIZEN CIVILIAN, but one cannot be a SOLDIER CIVILIAN.
The graphic takes a question about CITIZENS who have died (which would include BOTH soldiers and civilians) and reduces that to just civilians in the graphic.
The sole purpose of the graphic is thus revealed: it is subtle propoganda designed to make it appear as thought President Bush has said that innocent civilians have suffered 30,000 deaths during the war.
Consider the murder rate for the entire USA (16,000+) and Iraq (reminder 150,000 troops rotated how many times?)you could suggest our soldiers are safer in Iraq than at home.
What's the point of the casualty count comparison at all. No casualty rate is acceptable to the left. Freedom and democracy are not worth defending at any cost to them as long as Bush is in the White House. Trying to convince them of the righness of the mission based on its relative safety is a hopeless tact.
For what it's worth, the chart is mislabeled. It shows not casualties (commonly defined as both killed and wounded) but only killed. And as others have pointed out, it shows American military deaths in the wars in questiion, not civilian losses. That said, the number of American military deaths in Iraq is small compared to deaths in other wars.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Population of California is 33,871,648.
Number of US soldiers in Iraq is around 160,000
That means there are 211 times as many people in California is there are US troops in Iraq.
To hit the same death rate California would need to have suffered 44,310 murders since the invasion of Iraq.
You right-wingers really cannot add up can you?
Bunker/Breeds Hill - Jun 17, 1775 – 400 KIA
Battle of New Orleans - Jan 8, 1815 – 71 KIA
First Bull Run – Jul 21, 1861 – 460 (Union) 387 (Confederate) KIA
Antietam Sep 17, 1862 – 2,108 (Union) 1,512 (Confederate) KIA
Gettysburg Jul 1-3, 1864 – 3,155 (Union) 3,500 (Confederate) KIA
Battle of the Little Bighorn - Jun 25, 1876 – 265 KIA
Battle of San Juan Hill - Jul1, 1898 – 215 KIA
St. Mihiel – Sep 12-16, 1918 – 4,153 KIA
Battle of the Meuse-Argonne – Sep 26 – Nov 11,1918 - 50,250 KIA
Pearl Harbor – Dec 7, 1941 – 2,388 KIA
D-day – June 6, 1944 – 1,465 KIA
Inchon – Sep 9, 1950 - 222 KIA
Chosin Resevoir – Nov 26 – Dec 13, 1950 – 2,500 KIA
Siege of Khe Sanh - Jan 21 – Apr 8, 1968 - 205 KIA
Tet Offensive - Jan 30, 1968 – 1,536 KIA (includes AUS & SKOR)
9-11 Attack on US - Sep 9, 2001 - 2,986 Murdered
Operation Iraqi Freedom – Mar 21,2003 – Today - 2156 KIA
The previous can be found here:
http://sheep-dog.blogspot.com/2005/10/military-deaths-perspective.html
I think the general attitude is that even one death is too many for a people who've felt they were conned into a war.
for example, how many wrongful deaths would you expect as REASONABLE for a doctor? even if most of the patients he treats get better. Does the fact that he had only ONE worngful death make it acceptible?
Internal Medicine Doctor
Let's face it, Doctor. Even one double post is too many.
Yes - because 16 words conned the Legislative Branch into voting for an "illegal war" based solely on the premise of WMD, and not other things like violated UN Sanctions, mass murder, etc. Of course, without those 16 words, no Democrat would have voted for war.
"Casualties" include wounded, not just killed. The heading should be "fatalites"
This graph is missing a war: the 1898 Spanish-American War.
Why am I picking this particular nit? Because the 1898 war led to a counterguerrilla war in the Phillipines that lasted several years and was the subject of cries of "American Imperialism" and political hijinks by Democrats (W.J. Bryan pressured the Dems in the Senate to vote for the Phillipine Treaty, so that he could run against it in the 1900 election) 100 years ago.
Comparison would thus be more apt than with the more high-intensity conflicts on this list.
Never mind, I've done it myself:
Spanish-American War - 2246 K&W
Phillippine Insurgency - 4234 KIA, 2818 wounded.
Interesting.
Bush's Comments are ridiculous.
How did he guesstimate 30k?
From the sanctions in 1991 till now more than 5 million Iraqi's have died.
Don't distort history.
About your wars:
Recently, I saw the film J.F.K., again, and realized how insightful it is into the world of covert operations, and saw how understanding the assassination of President Kennedy, leads to insights into the why, and how of the attacks which occurred on September 11th. In the film, Mr. X, played by Donald Sutherland, meets with Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who bravely launched the only case against one of the conspirators behind the assassination. Mr. X is based on the actual person, Fletcher Prouty http://www.prouty.org/ who spent 9 of his 23 year military career in the Pentagon (1955-1964): 2 years with the Secretary of Defense, 2 years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 5 years with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. In 1955 he was appointed the first "Focal Point" officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations per National Security Council Directive 5412. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defense (1960-1961), and for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. X patiently explains how special operations work to Garrison in the film. In real life after he resigned from the government in 1964, Fletcher Prouty, wrote many articles and two books- The Secret Team, JFK, the CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/, and spoke with my dear friend, Dave Ratcliffe, who recorded their conversations and edited them into a book entitled - Understanding Special Operations And Their Impact on The Vietnam War Era 1989 Interview with L. Fletcher Prouty Colonel USAF (Retired) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/ One of the key points that Prouty, Garrison, Ratcliffe made in the film, book, real life, was that the fingerprints of a special operation were the things that "didn’t happen." For example in the J.F.K. assassination, the Secret Service was called off that day, standard operating procedures to protect the President "especially in hostile territory like Dallas" were violated, something that only could have been done at the highest levels of government, for example, by the General who sent Prouty out of the way, to Antarctica, when Kennedy was killed in Texas.
On September 11th, the most damning evidence pointing to the complicity of top U.S. officials was the utter failure of our multi trillion dollar Defense Department to stop those planes from crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It was a violation of the most standard operating procedures. General Myers, the top Pentagon official at the time, testified that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. There were no reprimands or enquiries, no one lost their job for goofing up that day. Myers was then elevated to the highest military post in the country. There had to have been standdown orders issued at the highest level of government on that day. This was never seriously examined or questioned by the mainstream press or Congress! The alibi for the general failure of our expensive military/intelligence complex "We were so surprised, totally unprepared…" has been shown to be a complete lie.
Sofocleto said..."Recently, I saw the film J.F.K., again..."
Anything that follows an opening like that is bound to be rubbish.... and you didn't disappoint.
Here's a clue for you... it was a MOVIE... not reality.
California and Iraq are frequently compared due to similar populations and geographic size. The total raw homicide number for California for three years (2001, 2002, 2003) is 6,995. The total number of highway fatalities were 12,288. A total violent death toll in just these two categories of 19,283 - almost ten times the total number of American military deaths, and two-thirds of all Iraqi deaths by war.
The point of these comparisons is not any absolute equivalence, but to point out the uses to which the American military casualty rate is put for pure propaganda purposes.
I'd venture to guess that if the California casualties were given the daily, relentless, maudlin prominence that the Iraq military casualties are given in all forms of media, tourism would cease, the roads would be empty and the economy of California would collapse.
It is not about any one absolute death. It is about the hysterical hypocrisy and the emotional manipulation on the part of a political element and a complicit and intellectually dishonest media which wants us to lose this war.
Islamic Nation wrote:
"From the sanctions in 1991 till now more than 5 million Iraqi's have died."
And how did you guesstimate 5 million?
Taking it as fact for the sake of argument, that means if Bush is right about the 30,000, then Saddam is responsible for 4,970,000 deaths of his own countrymen. He was in charge during the bulk of the time frame you mention, not the Americans. The sanctions were calibrated to relieve the effects on the ordinary Iraqi through the Oil-For-Food Program, which Saddam looted to build his palaces and bribe the Germans, French and Russians, among others. Don't blame Bush for the sins of his enemies. And thank you for bolstering the argument for the invasion.
namedic- Come back. Often!
You get it. Your explanation was right on.
California and Iraq are frequently compared due to similar populations and geographic size. The total raw homicide number for California for three years (2001, 2002, 2003) is 6,995. The total number of highway fatalities were 12,288. A total violent death toll in just these two categories of 19,283 - almost ten times the total number of American military deaths, and two-thirds of all Iraqi deaths by war.
What a ridiculous post. When Bush said 30,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed, he meant as a direct result of the war. Do you think there are no *other* murders in Iraq besides the ones that make the newspapers? Do you think Iraq has no traffic fatalities? And how many murders do you think would take place in California if we deployed 160,000 troops there to enforce order?
It is not about any one absolute death. It is about the hysterical hypocrisy and the emotional manipulation on the part of a political element and a complicit and intellectually dishonest media which wants us to lose this war.
No, it is about the mind-boggling shamelessness of people who would seriously try to argue that Iraq is as safe as California right now. And you wonder why a lot of Americans don't believe anything that comes from the right these days? Hint: it's not the "MSM".
And for what it's worth, I supported this war from the beginning. But the trivialization of the huge amount of work that still needs to be done in Iraq is damaging to our cause. Yet that's essentially what we've seen from Bush's apologists since day one of this conflict.
No, the fact is that that's all the left has to go by for this: the media. Have they actually SEEN an Iraqi death? Have they SEEN a KIA Coalition Warrior? What about an Iraqi village? No. All they "Know" is what the news and statistics tell them. What about the liberation of Al Kut, where Task Force Tarawa was met by the locals, carrying the heads of the fedayeen they killed themselves, in anticipation of liberation? It's a riot. Fact is, the left has no business in foreign policy because they lack the constitution and resolve to uphold it. Isn't it odd that all of the servicemen, being cruelly held against their will, are notoriously right-wing voters? They want people who aren't afraid of spineless dweebs to stand up to represent them. Do a tour,then come post a reply.
OH OH! I read it on the internet!! I saw it on MSNBC! It's GOT to be true!
note to Anonymous- The 30K does include murders, terrorist deaths, coalition deaths, etc.
note to Anonymous- The 30K does include murders, terrorist deaths, coalition deaths, etc.
Gatewaypundit, what source are you getting this from? I agree with you that the # likely includes terrorist attacks, but what makes you think it includes ordinary murders or traffic fatalities? Or that it includes anything not reported in the media?
The point of these civilian death counts, as morbid as they are, is to measure the impact of the war, so counting regular murders that would have happened anyway doesn't make much sense (although there is obviously some judgment involved in deciding what to include).
Am I mistaken?
"Iraqi Body Count" includes all types of violent deaths, etc. not just necessarily from war.
And, this looks like it could be where Bush got his number.
Here is the address:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
I think you are mistaken. This is a direct quote from their site:
This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies in 2003. In the current occupation phase this database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.
Again, there can be some disagreement as to what constitutes a death resulting from the "breakdown in law and order," but I think this is pretty unambiguous that it is not trying to capture ordinary murders that would have happened regardless of the war.
Regardless of whether the casualties are civilian or military, is that the number from 2003-present (almost 3 years) is 30,000, or 10,000 per year. If the US military are such a force for destruction in Iraq, then why was the number killed during internal violence from 1988-1991 (also a 3 year period)180,000, or 60,000 per year? Granted, during that period Good ol' benelovent Saddam was performing an internal ethnic cleansing of epic proportions, behavior that has been documented to continue right on up until we invaded.
Either way you cut it, the people of Iraq are much safer now than they were before invasion, but the Left just won't acknowledge it. As NAMedic said, the point of this post is to show that the media is determined to paint a picture of doom and gloom when the realistic perspective is one of significant progress.
I think when you compare number of deaths in Iraq and Vietnam you need to compare where we are with time in country. In 1965 the number of deaths in Vietnam were 2000 (+-). So statistically you could draw the conclusion that there is not much difference between the two wars.
U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005...
There are many more deaths that have not appeared on the official lists because the DoD has taken the tricky tack of loading dying and probable fatalities onto aircraft and flying them out of Iraq to bases and hospitals outside of that country. So,if a GI is dying or has every expectation of dying, he or she is loaded on an aircraft and their subsequent deaths are not publicly reported as Combat Deaths. Of course the families or survivors are certainly notified of the death but the public is not.
I wouldn't trust any figure at all...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home