Grim Milestone: War on Terror Fatalities Reach Ominous Threshold
It is not an easy decision to vote for war.
It's not easy committing your soldiers to the battlefield.
Yet, the democratic-led Congress did just that in 2002.
Surely, they knew what their vote would mean for this nation and to all of the soldiers they were sending to the front.
Surely, they knew there would be fatalities and casualties...
It was war they voted for after all!
We all know today how the democratic-led Congress feels about their decision to vote for war.
Still- the war hasn't been as tragic as what the democrats predicted.
There have been remarkably low fatalities in the Iraqi Freedom campaign- considering it is war. In fact, just this month the losses in Iraq and Afghanistan combined passed the halfway mark of military fatalities during the Clinton Years.
The US has lost 3434 soldiers and marines in Iraq and 390 soldiers and marines in Afghanistan over the past 5 years. This total of 3824 has passed half of the number of soldiers lost during the Clinton years during peacetime- Via Murdoc Online.
** The US has been fighting the War on Terror for over 5 years and has lost just over half the soldiers in battle as the Clinton Administration was losing during peacetime in 8 years.
It puts things into perspective.
Don't expect this grim milestone to be reported by the mainstream media any time too soon.
Here are some other charts that puts the Iraqi Freedom Campaign into context:
Yearly Military Deaths During Clinton Years Exceeded Iraq War (Via Murdoc)...
US war fatalities...
War losses in Iraq compared to other wars when US population is figured in as a factor...
America's willingness to sacrifice has gone down over the years...
Jason Smith has words from what Bush might say.
Previously:
How Bad Are Things in Iraq Really
Bamboozled America: The Sick "Iraq Is Vietnam" Comparisons
US Lost More Soldiers Annually Under Clinton Than in Iraq
Comparing Quagmires: Iraq, France, Brazil and the Clintons
The Unreported Good News From Iraq Vs. the Leaked News
More Duping of America: The Democrats & Media Quagmire Lie
A Couple Other Grim Milestones Missed by the Media Today
posted by Gateway Pundit at 5/24/2007 05:58:00 AM
41 Comments:
Okay, but how do the Bush years stack up against the Clinton years when all military deaths are included?
While I support the thrust of things (and have not yet trundled over to Murdoc to see what he said) a couple of observations, since it isn't clear from the data presented.
Do the Iraq War numbers *include* the non-combat training-and-other-forms-of-attrition deaths that are presumably included in the Clinton data?
The point may still be valid, in a general sense, depending on how it's presented (I myself commented on the selective nature of the grief the anti's express about the casualty rates) but we should make it clear that we are comparing Granny Smith's to Red Delicious' in the interest of being more intellectually honest than the opposition oft-times is.
Secondly, I take issue with the graph of "lesser tolerance for sacrifice".
Leave aside that the Civil War numbers include both sides, the fact that we better-managed WWII should not count as a diminution of willingness to sacrifice - and again, comparing wars with limited objectives to existential wars is also a bit of a false comparison.
In toto, the point is made, but details like that is how the oppostion will attempt to discredit the point.
I suggest you follow the links. The information is there.
You are correct again, no MSM is going to report this. It is counter productive to their anti-American agenda.
I know that I am supposed to be politically correct and say that I believe that they still support the troops, but I have checked my PC mantra at the door.
Thanks for keeping the light on in these dim media (blockouts)
Jen
Icepick, as Murdoc sosuccinctly putsit, "RTFR." At his site he has TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS comparisons. Look veeeeerrrrrrry closely at those words 'total' and 'active duty' because they tend to explain a lot.
Posting to this POS blog is something that hurts but this abuse of statistics is so glaringly incorrect that it needs to be done.
According to the DOD Monthly Medical Surveillance Report in 2003
amsa.army.mil/1MSMR/2003/V09_N01.pdf
in a paper titled "Mortality Trends Among Active Duty Personnel, 1992-2001", the avg. death rate for US military personnel during this time period was 57.38 per 100,000 troops per year. Of that only 0.84 deaths per 100,000 man-years due to hostile action.
A more accurate measure would be the death rate per 100000 man years for US in theater troops. Then break it down to those based outside the main concentrations of troops secure behind the large bases and see this stupid comparison fall to pieces.
Extrapolated to this years KIAs, you get something like ~450 deaths per 100,000 man-years in Iraq. About 80% of those are due to enemy action. Therefore, according to Gateway Pundits failed logic, troops are 428 times more likely to get killed by hostile action during the Bush years.
Learn how to use stats properly and maybe you'll get somewhere!
The criticisms posted are correct, in some sense, but really not germane. The reality is that we have suffered, in a statistical sense, miniscule losses in the Iraq War. Every single life lost in any war is a tragedy, of course; but if we, as a nation, cannot tolerate the losses we have had in Iraq, we might as well shut down the Pentagon and turn it into a shopping mall. Osama Bin Laden may have been correct in thinking of us as a paper tiger, as a nation that will not really fight in its own defense. In fact, he is counting on it.
Just the facts...
The links provided are not very useful. Here's links to the raw data from DOD:
DOD Site
Some observations:
Total military deaths:
* Clinton years (1993-2000): 7500
* Bush years, through 2006: 9550
If we make a projection for the Bush years through 2008 by simply adding two years worth of deaths at the 2003 rate (I assume you'd all aggree this is a conservative estimate)than estimated total military deaths for the Bush years will be: 11,990
Of course deaths aren't the whole picture. The link I provided has 'Wounded in Action' data for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) through May 19, 2007.
Iraq, total wounded in action (not including deaths): 25,549
Afghanistan, total wounded in action(not including deaths): 1,250
At the current rate we're likely to see approx. 35,000 wounded in aciton by the end of 2008
So, to summarize:
Clinton years - approx. 7500 military deaths + unknown wounded in action (I can't find this data on the DOD site)
Bush years - 9550 military deaths so far (approx. 12000 projected) + 26799 wounded in action so far (apprx. 35000 project).
Drew,
If anyone's torturing statistics it's you by trying to narrow your group too far.
A more accurate measure would be the death rate per 100000 man years for US in theater troops. Then break it down to those based outside the main concentrations of troops secure behind the large bases and see this stupid comparison fall to pieces.
So you spent all of these words to point out that people getting shot at are more likely to die? That's pretty damn revolutionary.
The point of this post and other casualty comparison posts is to simply show how absurd all of these newspaper "Grim Milestones" are when we've only just gotten over 3,000 after many years in theater.
As for your analysis:
Suppose we do stats for 100,000 man hours for black males age 18-24 in New Orleans post Katrina, do you think you'd like those numbers?
Actually the links are quite useful, if you follow through to Murdoc's commentary on the reactions of DemUG posters. The posters here are covering the same ground (eh, underground).
Dave, don't be a Richard. (Incidentally, what is your problem that you feel compelled to be an ass-hat becuase someone asked a question?) Murdoc links to a table, and a bunch of blog posts, but not to any report that I saw.
Regardless, THIS SITE is not listing total military deaths during the GWBush years. If one includes total deaths then by 2004 US military deaths have doubled the average of the Clinton years. (Total military deaths declined consistently over Clinton's tenure, consistent with a shrinking force size.)
Furthermore, this neglects total casualties. How many additional combat wounds have been suffered since the Clinton years? How many amputations or other permanent impairments have come about because of those wounds? Also, advancing medical techniques will mask the death-rate in this war as opposed to previous wars, especially those prior to the invention of anti-biotics.
Yes, these conflicts have been remarkable in their over-all low death rates. But if one wants to "[put] things into perspective" then one needs to account for several other facets and not just the ones that tell the story one wants to present.
(Other things that could be mentioned to put things in perspective: financial costs, political costs, material losses, psycological impact on deployed forces, degredation of our military force due to increased operational tempo without comparable increases in size of military, missed oportunity costs, etc.)
Ignoring for a moment (OK, forever) your attempt to blame the Bush Doctrine on the Democrats and your ridiculous statistical shell game, how do the Bush years compare in terms of time and money spent?
Oops.
The only thing more embarrassing than your blog is the InstaPutz continuing to link to it. I mean, he's a moron, but you occupy an entirely different stratosphere. There has got to be some sort of nepotism and/or sexual favors at work here.
Wow, THEO sure convince me with his trenchant analysis and cogent assessment of the numbers sure convinced me. I am scooting right over to the DU side....
NOT! (Irony marker required for certain dimbulbs)
Lies, damned lies, and statistics, john.
I don't need a deep analysis of these "numbers" to see it's a desperate attempt to shift blame for an unpopular, completely wasteful and tactically brainless war.
Not even the Bush administration would attempt obfuscation this lame, and that's saying something.
But you enjoy your ignorant bliss, john.
I'm puzzled as to why nobody challenged DBeckerMich's comment about Osama - as though we started this war because of Osama and as though we were pursuing him in Iraq and as though al Qaeda presence there wasn't entirely due to our destruction of Iraq.
Those who remember WW II remember how we were goaded by other idiots claiming that Germany and Japan thought of us as paper tigers. That's a good definition of history, by the way - the same old shit, time after time.
Right. The naysayers here point to the fact that the Bush figures don't include the training accidents and deaths due to non hostile actions outside Iraq and Afghanistan as hiding a much higher deathrate under GW Bush than Mr. Clinton. Surprise, surprise. America under the Bush administration has had to fight a war waged against us for 5 years now. Mr. Clinton never found a war he could fight. So there are almost no hostile actions in his administration. And when there were, he elected to retreat and remove all combat forces from the war zone unless they flew above 20,000 feet altitude. Some way to win wars, eh? Let the enemy win them.
The point is that even with a shooting war going on, more soldiers die in accidents than die in combat. That is a pretty amazing statistic, and it has nothing to do with who is President. It has to do with the technological prowess, innovation, and absolute attention to detail exemplified by the US Dept of Defense (under every President) and the professionalism of the US Armed Forces in their actions.
Any nimrod can say a life should never be lost in vain. It is far better Men who offer their lives to deter and defeat Islamofascism than to nitpick and naysay whether war against said Islamonutcases is worth it. Either you die without a fight in a homicide bombing, or you die defending your country. Which is the better use of your life to your countrymen?
Real Men choose to serve and offer their lives if needed. Pussies will argue their sacrifices weren't worth it. Honorable folk will honor their sacrifices. Simple as that to those who serve. Your protestations to the contrary just make you a dishonest asshole. If the asshole fits, then wear it.
Good post. Keep it up. Don't let the nimrods get you down.
Subsunk
There has got to be some sort of nepotism and/or sexual favors at work here.
THEO, it seems like you are judging others based on your own experience. Try putting more big, long words in your insults. Maybe that will show them.
Much more on how to debate the Iraq War, including all dimensions of the talking points thrown, over here.
I always enjoy watching the lefties immediately resort to name calling and other such childish antics when their views are challenged in the least. It's as predictable as a sunrise.
Great job GP, You know you're doing a good job when the Liberal nut jobs fly the coo coo nest and start screaming "liar liar pants on fire" Facts and figures that counter their moon bat "Tell a lie, prove me wrong" agenda always sets them off. Keep up the good fight. KC
It's funny how you'll spend time "considering it is war" until the rules and moreover laws of war need to be applied, and then it's somehow magically not a war anymore.
This post has been removed by the author.
Gateway Pundit, please learn statistics soon. You need to use the same data for both presidents, not just the data you WANT to use. First of all, you are comparing Clinton's entire presidency, 8 years, to Bush's entire presidency, 5.5 years. Except that we don't have any official figures after 2004, so you kinda can't officially use those. You need to compare Clinton's first term to Bush's first term because that is the only comparable data we have between the two presidents. Four years of official data versus four years of official data.
Second, you're comparing deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan ONLY to all military deaths under Clinton. That's apples and oranges my friend. It's combat deaths versus combat deaths, or total deaths versus total deaths, not combat deaths versus total deaths. That makes for a disparity. But I'm sure you knew that.
If you use your source data properly (at this link: http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/Death_Rates.pdf) you'll see that Clinton's first term had 4302 total military deaths. Bush's first term had 5187 total military deaths. We can't do any further comparison between Bush and Clinton until the government releases the official numbers for 2005 and 2006.
Oh and by the way, Clinton had a larger military, so the death RATE is even more favorable towards Clinton than the raw figures show.
Subsunk, does this mean you continued existence is a sign of failure? Because we may agree on something after all. Give a kiss to your posters of LBJ (got lots of guys killed for the cause) and C Thomas Howell (from "Red Dawn") and listen up.
1) Osama Bin Laden was quoted years ago in a Pakistani newspaper as saying that the US was unbeatable militarily. He'd be crazy to take us straight up. So he said his plan was to tie down the US in several regional guerilla wars in Asia and bleed us dry. How is he doing with that? Your President could not have aided him any better were he an Al Qaeda operative (as opposed to Saudi pawn).
2) You cannot compare the Civil War as the counts automatically double when totalled (all sides American). To compare ANYTHING to Antietem, under your rationale, would render things like D-Day a trvial matter. And D-Day, for your information, was not trivial.
3) The low death rate has a lot to do with advances in logistics and mdeicine. Somewhere online there is a measure of the time it took - in each war - from wound to hospital. The numbers will astound you, and give you hope that Amercia has at least figured out one thing it does as well as possible. Even comparing Iraq to Vietnam is significant. Go back to the Civil War, and you may not get a meal, a bandage, or a hospital. You probably die of disease while waiting for the battle.
4) This brings me to my last point - you need to compare the rate of casulaties inclusive of wounded to get an accurate comparison. I have not done that, so I do not know the answer. But I know the wounded rate is significant.
Looking at wounded:wounded, which is the only statisticaly honest way to analyze this, would still be skewed. After all, WWI commanders did not know how effective the machine gun was so they marched their infantry en masse towards them. Same with gas in WWI. But I think you would have an intellectually hinest story to tell on that basis, as opposed to the spin your data represents.
For the reasons indicated, your comparison is false.
To reiterate, you are comparing All military deaths for ANY reason over an 8-year period, to SOME deaths for SOME reasons during a 4-year period.
Your argument, therefore, does not hold water.
You are therefore saying something that is not true.
Please face this, admit it, and change your argument that is based on an accurate use of facts.
C'mon, guys. Anyone who has read more than two of GP's posts knows that he never, ever, ever bothers to defend his lies. He's got so many lies to tell, and so little time. As soon as he has shit one out, he's got to get to work concocting the next one.
The work of the serial fabricator is never done...
I don't see any fabrication or dishonesty at all.
GP is just pointing out that the scale of losses in Iraq and Afghanistan are not unprecedented for our country, even in recent years.
Nobody believes fewer American soldiers died because we invaded Iraq, and GP didn't say that!
Metasailor: To reiterate, you are comparing All military deaths for ANY reason over an 8-year period, to SOME deaths for SOME reasons during a 4-year period
I think his wording could have been more clear and he could have explained better how the two numbers were different, and his point in publishing the numbers (which I took to mean that the scale of losses in Iraq is not unprecedented, even in recent years), but there's no dishonesty here.
As long as war opponents are going to claim that the losses in Iraq are putting too much strain on our country and our military, it is perfectly legitimate to show that we've dealt with this kind of strain even in recent, relatively peaceful years.
Daryl-
If we hold that your naive premise is true, let me ask you a question.
Your President tells us - almost all the time since he has no other poicy of note - that we are in the defining struggle of Western Civilization vs fascism. That if we do not defeat them there they will come to our shores and kill us. A crusade, if you will.
Question - do you agree with that assessment?
If yes, then answer me this...
1- Why no draft? Surely this epic battle is worth that level of commitment. And if not, why not? We HAVE to win it, no? Failure is not an option, right?
2- Why no tax increase to fund the troops, since they cannot seem to beat a 3rd rate insurgency given their current assets (awful Humvees that could not survive LA rush hour, lack of body armor, substandard helmets that do not protect against concussion blasts, etc, etc, etc). We clearly are not giving them the resources they need.
So is it a big deal like your Pres says, or is it total bullshit to get more GOP reps elected and thus pass more tax cuts?
My opinion is that you've been had. The best day of W's life was 9/11 - it gave a drunk who never accomplished anything (or even held a stable job) a purpose in life.
If Bush was a football coach of your favorite NFL or NCAA football team he'd be a 3 win guy. And you'd never stand for that level of incompetence in that arena. Because football is sacred, and America is as long as we do not have to (a) spend too much defending it or (b) personally sacrifice anything in its defense. Right? Because that is what the GOP's actions tell me.
I am not a stereotypical anti-war guy. I believe that we have a right to defend ourselves. Even pre-emptive action - such as Afghanistan. Even regime change, but that should've been Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. We derive no advantage from what was done in Iraq. America derives no profit from this venture.
When it comes to Iraq we have no dog in the fight. Either you back Sunnis linked to Al Qaeda or Shi'ites links to Iran. Both are enemies.
So, what exactly are you doing now that the GOP bleeding heart policy of "they'll breath the sweet air of freedom" has failed?
Do you want Al Qaeda or Iran to benefit from the mess your President has created? Because there is no option #3.
And the last time a GOP adminstration bankrolled Al Qaeda it did not turn out so well.
OK -- it's well argued here that Gateway Pundit's argument fails because the statistics are discredited. But I'm still intrigued by the idea of this post. Is this a "better" war because fewer have died than in other wars? Certainly both Righties and Lefties are relieved Iraq has fewer casulties than Vietnam -- but obviously they disagree vastly on the "goodness" of this war. How many have to die for it to be considered "bad?"
But even I see this can't be Gateway's point. He rather seems to be stumbling to some argument that this noble war is worth the present cost and much more.
If a million Americans die to preserve our great nation, it is a cost we have paid and will bravely pay again. If one soldier dies in a conflict based on lies and misdirection, the cost is much too dear.
As HP's post so soundly implies, this administration either doesn't know how to win this war, or doesn't want to and uses our blood and treasure for unstated goals. If Bush were seeking to secure Iraq's oil for American consumption and establish a military stronghold in the Middle East, his strategy is understandable -- oil and power are not worth raising taxes and calling for a draft. But he has said this is a war to protect us from terrorism and establish democracy for Iraq -- goals that demand our national sacrifice and international cooperation similar to what we had in WWII.
The abject failure of this administration's pursuit of any objective in Iraq leaves us with only two conclusions. The Bush administration either doesn't know how to win its goals (is incompetent), or is fighting for goals it has hidden from the American public and doesn't know how to achieve them (decitful and incompetent).
Both gross incompetence and deciet are high crimes and grounds for impeachment -- not for further support of this president and his policy.
GP compared War on Terror losses to all the military deaths in the Clinton years. He put things in perspective.
Meanwhile, his critics try to put the War on Terror out of perspective again, claiming that GP should compare all Bush-years deaths to all Clinton-years deaths. But if you want to put the War on Terror deaths in perspective, should you compare two things that are not War on Terror deaths to each other? Of course not. So, the criticisms are a red herring.
But give the critics what they want. Compare all Bush-years deaths (extrapolated to 2008) to all Clinton-years deaths. The difference is marginal. It's nowhere near an order of magnitude. That's why objections to the WoT based sheerly on outrage at the losses incurred are not consistent with the stats.
"It is not an easy decision to vote for war.
It's not easy committing your soldiers to the battlefield.
Yet, the democratic-led Congress did just that in 2002".
The FIRST paragraph begs the question-
The Congress was led by the Democrats back in 2002?
HUH?
The point should be made that there was ZERO Legitimate Justification for invading Iraq.
None.
Therefore, ALL deaths resulting from Bush's War in Iraq are a tragedy.
OK, I think GP has had enough. Please stop now, or he will go the way of his right wing blog-brethren and disallow comments after having had his proverbial ass handed to him so regularly.
And deprive me of my daily dose of comedy.
"The Congress was led by the Democrats back in 2002?"
mtn twn,
GP does not let little inconveniences like facts get in the way of his propaganda.
Sometimes I wonder if this blog isn't just a big joke; a parody of the right wing.
Wow, such a low number! I guess the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths don't count, because they're not people. Great job! Go USA!
Geez. GP is not even defending his misuse and abuse of statistics for partisan purposes. Looks like he just dropped this turd and hung it out on the internet to dry.
Where is the GP enforcement squad?
alex,
well then if you're going to make the argument that we're not counting Iraqi deaths you'd have to also include in your calculations all the deaths that occured during peace time under Sadaams rule. And don't forget to include all the deaths from the sanctions and oil for food, which the left was using as a cudgel before the war to try to get the sanctions eased. And don't forget all Iraqis killed in mass graves, plus marsh arabs, plus Kurds, plus general deaths that occured simply because Sadaam was Sadaam.
You can be glib and sanctimonious all you want, but as you clearly should recognize, having peace didnt' mean that Iraqis weren't dying because of the cost of maintaining that peace. Don't make it sound like but for our involvement in Iraq the IRaqis would otherwise be flying kites in utopialand.
Alex -
Can we then count the Kurds who were murdered with poison gas supplied by The USA and HW Bush?
Since Saddam was the friend of the GOP (and thus, your friend as you would've followed the GOP talking points blindly) back when he was granted those weapons from US armories should the dead Kurdish children be counted as enemies of the US?
And since you are speaking for the Iraqi peole, consider this. Most people would take back the random death squads and oppression over outright anarchy. That was a system that could be gamed. Anarchy, you are at its mercy. Most people just want security and to live with the devil they know.
And the US was much safer with Saddam controlling Iraq. Kept fundamentalist Isalm out of Iraq, held the Iranians ay bay. Your bleeding heart conservative statements do not make sense from a practical standpoint. You wanna police the world? Right all the wrongs? What an idealist you are!
And your President knew that beofre they tried to kill his daddy. This is why he campaigned in 2000 under a program of transforming the US military into logistical support for NATO. Digging latrines for French troops. Then again, his own military record was limited to snorting coke and getting drunk while AWOL, so maybe he though logisitcs was an epic duty!
Gateway, you're getting all these anti so and so propagandists because you hit a central nerve cluster. Keep it up.
I had already seen these stats before, and understanding it does put into perspective the cost of war as opposed to the cost of whining about the war by the Left.
People like to play the blame game, others just defend women and children without blaming things on whomever.
We entered this war because Bush linked Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. His misinformation campaign was so effective that 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. This created a political climate that forced legislators to vote for the war powers act - it would have been political suicide to vote against something that was perceived as a direct response to 9/11. Weak of them, but they are political critters.
Now the public has woken up to the deception. The American people are willing to make major sacrifices for a just and/or necessary war. But this war was built on sand.
And any unnecessary death is wrong. We are unwilling to sacrifice any soldier unnecessarily. Not one.
Shame on you for playing with statistics, comparing apples to oranges, to argue the deaths are a minor inconvenience. Please come and talk to my neighbor who lost her only son and tell her that.
Plus you forgot to mention the 24,000 seriously injured soldiers, many with brain injuries or lost limbs. I guess their sacrifice is minor, too?
Major sacrifice have been made in the past to preserve our Constitution and our Country. We will always support such efforts. Nobody had any trouble with Afghanistan. But this war has nothing to do with that. It's simply Bush's war, one he started on very false pretentious, cynically misusing the tragedy of 9/11 to have his way politically. Shame on him and shame on you.
.... GP, you might want to put a note for those who flunked at reading comprehension: your graphs are showing how VERY FEW have died IN THE IRAQI WAR by comparing them to a number that should be very, very small-- that of the total military deaths when THERE WAS NO WAR.
From many of the comments, I think folks just aren't getting the point. Jeeze, I know I did unusually well on reading comprehension, but...that's just SAD.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home