Iraq War hardly costing any casualties

**Wiglaf** · January 30, 2007, 20:54

American casualties during bush's first 4 years [2 wars] are basically equal to those under Clinton's first 4 years...[no wars]

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 1/29/2007
War Coverage: U.S. and Iraqi troops eliminated several hundred terrorists on Sunday, but in the twisted view of the establishment media, this significant victory was outweighed by the deaths of two Americans.
'Iraqis Raid Insurgents Near Shiite Holy City," says the Washington Post headline. "U.S. Copter Crash Kills 2 During Fight."
Across the country on the West Coast, the Los Angeles Times was going by the same book. "U.S. and Iraqi forces thwart 500 fighters apparently targeting a Najaf shrine," the Times announced in a sub-headline, but "a helicopter goes down, killing two American troops."
The deaths of the two brave American soldiers who were killed are tragic. But why lump them in with the successful gains that Americans and Iraqis are making against the insurgency?
Yes, Americans' deaths are news and their heroism deserves the respect and gratitude of a nation. But it's cheap journalism to use U.S. military casualties to dilute the progress being made in Iraq.
It is also misleading. While the media are eager to keep a running toll of U.S. soldiers' deaths in Iraq, a look at the data shows that military deaths are not at some all-time high. In fact, they're roughly similar to military deaths in the first three years of the "peaceful" Clinton administration. In 1993, 1,213 American service members died; a year later, 1,075 lost their lives; in 1995, there were 1,040 fatalities.
Compare those numbers with 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, when 1,410 soldiers died. Or 2004, when 1,887 died.
Or look at it this way. During Clinton's first four years, there were 4,302 active-duty deaths. That number rose to 5,187 during President Bush's first four years — years that were marked by two wars in response to the terrorist threat.
Though the establishment media want to filter the struggle in Iraq through the darkest lens possible, America and its allies are moving forward. In the raid mentioned above, as many as 300 terrorists were killed by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Another 60 were wounded, 120 captured. That's no trivial breakthrough. A world with nearly 500 fewer Islamic militants is a better place.
That alone is enough to celebrate. But the U.S. military has had a number of meaningful successes in recent weeks. On Jan. 9, U.S. and Iraqi troops killed 50 insurgents. On Jan. 22, 16 terrorists were killed; a day later, another 30 or so.
If it's body counts the media want, why not compare the few American troop deaths with the many terrorist deaths? Or would that be too revealing?

**Wiglaf** · January 30, 2007, 20:57

LINK FOR DOUBTERS
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003564.html

**Dinner** · January 30, 2007, 22:12

Factor in routine noncombat deaths and injuries especially since that is not counted in this survey. The realize that maimed service members suffer life long disabilities which the government must pay for and many more of those occur during war time then at peace. Lastly understand that the size of the service at the start of Clinton's term was much larger then in Bush's term. More soldiers with a lower injury/death rate equals more injuries/deaths. This is an excellent example of how statistics lie and liars use statistics. Especially selectively chosen statistics.

**SlowwHand** · January 30, 2007, 22:23

Factor in thousands killed before we got there and why we got there.

**Verto** · January 30, 2007, 22:29

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Factor in thousands killed before we got there and why we got there.

Yes, Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."

I feel much safer now.

**DinoDoc** · January 30, 2007, 22:30

I find the more interesting comparison to be the war-mongering Clinton indulged in.

**Kontiki** · January 30, 2007, 22:33

I liked his chart though. No, nothing noticeable in terms of the death rate happening here.

**Kontiki** · January 30, 2007, 22:36

But one shouldn't knock the comparison. Everyone knows the US was engaged in Iraq from Day 1 of Bush's first term. His term did start on March 20, 2003, right?

**Verto** · January 30, 2007, 22:44

Originally posted by Kontiki
But one shouldn't knock the comparison. Everyone knows the US was engaged in Iraq from Day 1 of Bush's first term. His term did start on March 20, 2003, right?

Plus I think we are to assume soldiers starting committing mass suicide the day Clinton took office.

Or something.

**SlowwHand** · January 30, 2007, 23:09

Only if they were on ships or embassy duty.

**KrazyHorse** · January 30, 2007, 23:11

20=3000

Texas math

**SlowwHand** · January 30, 2007, 23:22

Math = Math.
For fighting an enemy too ***** to distinguish themselves from surrounding civilians, pretty good.

**Berzerker** · January 30, 2007, 23:23

the Los Angeles Times was going by the same book. "U.S. and Iraqi forces thwart 500 fighters apparently targeting a Najaf shrine," the Times announced in a sub-headline, but "a helicopter goes down, killing two American troops."
The deaths of the two brave American soldiers who were killed are tragic. But why lump them in with the successful gains that Americans and Iraqis are making against the insurgency?

Umm...because they died for those gains? The author smells bias but thinks censoring their sacrifice out of the story isn't bias? I think the author who smelt it, dealt it.

**Dinner** · January 30, 2007, 23:33

Any way you look at it the death rate has spiked dramatically just as the injury rate has spiked.

**snoopy369** · January 31, 2007, 00:40

More people are dying and being injured. We're at war, that's what happens.

**Pekka** · January 31, 2007, 01:23

"If it's body counts the media want, why not compare the few American troop deaths with the many terrorist deaths? Or would that be too revealing?"

Wow, is this like a real paper?

OK since they want to play a game, saying casualties are so low, did they forget the Iraqis, taking the biggest hit in casualties? I guess so.... but they don't matter, they're brown.

**Dinner** · January 31, 2007, 01:47

Originally posted by snoopy369
More people are dying and being injured. We're at war, that's what happens.

I agree. the problem is the idiot in the OP claims other wise.

**Drake Tungsten** · January 31, 2007, 09:01

The casualty rate in Iraq is insignificant. The fact that it's as big an issue as it is just shows how much perspective we've lost as a society.

**Geronimo** · January 31, 2007, 09:08

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The casualty rate in Iraq is insignificant. The fact that it's as big an issue as it is just shows how much perspective we've lost as a society.

True, but it could be a long war. The rate of casualties iirc wasn't that high in Vietnam either but by the end there was enough names to fill quite an imposing black stone wall.

**KrazyHorse** · January 31, 2007, 09:14

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The casualty rate in Iraq is insignificant.

Not to members of the active Army and Marines. It's made their job very dangerous in comparison to civilian life.

It doesn't, of course, present any danger of bleeding the US white, but it can present problems for an all-volunteer force in a country which doesn't actually believe in the usefulness of the Iraq war any more.

**Drake Tungsten** · January 31, 2007, 09:14

True, but it could be a long war. The rate of casualties iirc wasn't that high in Vietnam either but by the end there was enough names to fill quite an imposing black stone wall.

Assuming the current yearly US casualty rate in Iraq holds, we'd have to stay in Iraq for 71 more years to reach the ~58,000 dead we suffered in Vietnam.

Not to members of the active Army and Marines. It's made their job very dangerous in comparison to civilian life.

It's true that members of the Army and the Marines have the most reason to be concerned by the increase in casualties. In actuality, though, they are far from the most anguished about it. It's been really weird following the disconnect between the press and the military on the significance of the casualties in Iraq...

**Wycoff** · January 31, 2007, 09:19

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I find the more interesting comparison to be the war-mongering Clinton indulged in.

Clinton and W. share a love for sending U.S. soldiers on Crusading adventures.

I remember when the Republican party used to complain about such adventures, and when W. campaigned against nation building...

**KrazyHorse** · January 31, 2007, 09:21

It's true that members of the Army and the Marines have the most reason to be concerned by the increase in casualties. In actuality, though, they are far from the most anguished about it. It's been really weird following the disconnect between the press and the military on the significance of the casualties in Iraq...

The ones who you should be worried about are those who are thinking of joining the Army and Marines...

**Drake Tungsten** · January 31, 2007, 09:26

The press is going to have much more of an effect on their perception than the military, I fear.

**Lorizael** · January 31, 2007, 09:28

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Assuming the current yearly US casualty rate in Iraq holds...

Bad assumption in the long run, I'd say.

**Geronimo** · January 31, 2007, 09:30

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

True, but it could be a long war. The rate of casualties iirc wasn't that high in Vietnam either but by the end there was enough names to fill quite an imposing black stone wall.

Assuming the current yearly US casualty rate in Iraq holds, we'd have to stay in Iraq for 71 more years to reach the ~58,000 dead we suffered in Vietnam.

Not to members of the active Army and Marines. It's made their job very dangerous in comparison to civilian life.

It's true that members of the Army and the Marines have the most reason to be concerned by the increase in casualties. In actuality, though, they are far from the most anguished about it. It's been really weird following the disconnect between the press and the military on the significance of the casualties in Iraq...

It won't have to last 71 years to provide a good fraction of the casualties suffered in Vietnam. It would only have to last about as long as the vietnam war did for that.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · January 31, 2007, 09:31

30 years to result in same casualties as revolutionary war

25 years to result in same casualties as War of 1812

16 years to result in same casualties as Mexican War of 1846

765 years to result in same casualties as Civil war

142 years to result in same casualties as WW1

560 years to result in the same dead as WW2.

55 years to result in Korean War casualties

**Wezil** · January 31, 2007, 09:33

Where did Wiglaf go?

**Arrian** · January 31, 2007, 09:39

Hit 'n run troll.

The casualties clearly are much lower than many other wars the US has fought... and given how unnecessary and stupid this war is, that's something to thankful for. A comparison between the casualties suffered in the invasion and occupation of Iraq and those suffered in WWII (or WWI, or the Civil War... etc) is disingenuous. Different eras of combat (all things being equal, casualties would be lower now than in the 1940s), and VASTLY different scope-of-conflict. WWII was, well, a world war, and a war we all agree had to be fought. Iraq is a war of choice... something that was deemed "doable" by our government. It was a long way from necessary. So the casualties are, rightly IMO, viewed differently than casualties in WWII. Or even Korea.

Having said all of that, my distain for the war and those who supported it does not revolve solely around US casualties.

-Arrian

p.s. Do we have casualty figures for the US occupations of West Germany and Japan post-WWII? Since proponents of "spreading democracy in Iraq" love to draw parallels between Iraq and those two successful examples, perhaps an examination of the casualty rates would be instructive...

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · January 31, 2007, 09:40

Originally posted by Geronimo

It won't have to last 71 years to provide a good fraction of the casualties suffered in Vietnam. It would only have to last about as long as the vietnam war did for that.

How does one figure that? Casualty rates had dropped to almost nil as the US entered the Vietnamization phase. Isn't that the phase we are talking about now namely the hand over of security to Iraq?