Comparing Quagmires: Iraq, France, Brazil and the Clintons
It's been a rough year for the French police...
A spokesman for the French police union says:
"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada ..."Infidel Bloggers Alliance examines the desperate situation in France.
2005 was a terribly violent year... in Brazil.
According to the Justice Ministry:
Some 55,000 Brazilians died of homicide in 2005 -- a few thousand more civilians than in three years of war in Iraq, according to leading estimates.If we use the Lancet Model, murders in Brazil would topple 87 gazillion.
Finally, comparing US Active Duty military fatality numbers during the Clinton years verses US fatalities in Iraq...
Results taken from Iraq Coalition Casualties and Murdoc Online - Official Department of Defense Report
So, where was the outrage during the Clinton years?
Previously:
So, How Bad Are Things in Iraq Really?
In One Year, Brazilian Murders Eclipse Total Iraqi War Deaths
US Lost More Soldiers Annually Under Clinton Than in Iraq
Update: My apologies to Pastorius, that was 4.5% not 14.5% casualty rate as originally posted.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 10/20/2006 03:37:00 AM
9 Comments:
In one of my postings I found an interesting bit of info way back in 1999 that two of the 10 Army divisions in Kosovo had dropped to a C-4 readiness status. Remember that the bulk of the US Armed Forces is at C-2 to C-3 and very, very few reach C-1 as even a single piece of equipment that is vital going out or one transfer of a good officer can instantly degrade the readiness of the unit to C-2. It is a high honor and a Unit gets a Unit Award for achieving and *keeping* a C-1 status. How did these two divisions drop to C-4?
These units had nor received regular rotation for R&R and resupply, were not given the proper equipment and training, and were dropping readiness capability because they had been *forgotten*. They had been neglected of those things that keep up morale and capability and unit cohesion and were stating that if they had to extract themselves out of a bad situation they could not do so. This was during a *peacetime* deployment.
So, not only are casualties lighter over the entire force, but the morale is much, much higher and training and equipment upkeep is now part of an integrated cycle that *works*. We are transforming the very art of warfare just as it is changing back to non-State actors as the source of it. Unfortunately non-State actors require something *else* in the way of warpowers.
My Ivy League education taught me something that you failed to do here, graphs should never start at anything other than zero. Your numbers are not accurately depicted without accounting for zero on the graph.
Adorable- Tell that to Microsoft.
Gateway Pundit,
According to my calculations the casualty rate of American forces in Iraq is 4.5% a year. Where did you get 14.5%?
Was I off?
Pastorius- Thank you. If blogger ever lets me update I will correct that. It is down right now.
GP,
It looks like someone took over your blog. How did that happen?
It was a rough day with blogger. I think it is under control now. Thanks.
I hope you keep a ready archive of your posts, GP.
With Blogger being owned by Google I wouldn't be a bit surprised that they somehow manage to "accidentally" wipe your blog.
This is a classic case of either willful or inept misreading of statistics. Anyone who actually bothers to check the sources cited for military deaths can see the following: During the eight Clinton years our military lost one (1) soldier to hostile action and 75 to terrorist attack. Thus far, the Iraq War toll is past 3,000 and rising. Meanwhile, the "background" rate of military deaths (accident, illness, suicide, etc.) declined steadily under Clinton, reaching a modern low in 2000, only to begin climbing again (for whatever reason) during the Bush II years.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home