Say Anything: Active Duty Deaths: Bush vs. Clinton
mcair
· 3 years ago
The media and the anti-war crowd in this country would suggest that our military is depleted. Used up. I would argue that, given the modest increase in active duty deaths despite fighting two wars in two different countries, that we haven't even scratched the surface of what our military is capable of.
To support 140,000 troops ongoing in Iraq, you need at least twice that many to cover troop rotations. That's 280,000 troops tied up in Iraq. How many tours can a given soldier be expected to pull? if Iran becomes necessary, do you seriously think that a draft will not be necessary?
And did you forget the 20,000 seriously wounded, some disabled for life, that have returned from Iraq? Shouldn't they figure into your neato Clinton vs. Bush comparo?
Get a grip, reality is calling.
Dave
· 3 years ago
Is the cost - which is high from the perspective that any U.S. soldier's death is a high price - as high as some would have us believe?
No, it's even higher. About $1 trillion.
Rob
· 3 years ago
And did you forget the 20,000 seriously wounded, some disabled for life, that have returned from Iraq? Shouldn't they figure into your neato Clinton vs. Bush comparo?
Sneering and caustic condesencion aside, that is actually a really good point. We shouldn't forget that wounded troops are an additional burden we've born on top of the deaths. Still, though, I think the numbers comparisons between deaths tends to put the war and some of the rhetoric surrounding it into perspective.
Joe Miller
· 3 years ago
Really throws a wrench in everything the media is doing and saying.
If we need to go to war with Iran I am sure there would be plenty of volunteers.
Mark
· 3 years ago
What did we accomplish, in terms of military victories, during Clinton's first four years in office?
I can't think of a thing.
Ending the war in Bosnia is a major example that springs to mind.
Rob
· 3 years ago
Right, but that was a NATO operation and certainly wasn't on the scope of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mark
· 3 years ago
Granted, but I don't think you can discount it purely because it involved other countries. Didn't Afghanistan and (albeit to a lesser extent) Iraq?
I think the example is still valid...
Rob
· 3 years ago
I don't think you can discount it purely because it involved other countries.
I wasn't discounting it, but Bosnia just isn't the same war on the same scale as Iraq and Afghanistan.
It certainly counts, but Clinton still hasn't accomplished as much.
Mark
· 3 years ago
Invasion of Haiti is another example.
Mark
· 3 years ago
And Somalia, albeit less successful.
Mark
· 3 years ago
Clinton still hasn't accomplished as much
Well, one has to take into account the number, and size, of conflicts taking place between 1992-6. I don't think you can blame Clinton for not accomplishing as much as Bush if there weren't as many conflicts to resolve.
Rob
· 3 years ago
Mark, you're missing the point. I'm not making a commentary on Clinton, rather pointing out the rather mild casualty rates America has suffered in Iraq/Afghanistan as compared to a time when America was, relatively, at peace.
Mark
· 3 years ago
Rob, I haven't missed your point, because I wasn't even aiming at it. I was responding to a claim within your point that I felt I was slightly erroneous. Namely - 'I can't think of a thing.'
On a (slight) side note, do you know what accounts for those 4302 deaths 1992-1996?
Rob
· 3 years ago
Mark, fair enough on the "I can't think of a thing" bit.
On a (slight) side note, do you know what accounts for those 4302 deaths 1992-1996?
The number is comprised of all deaths among active-duty U.S. soldiers, including deaths from illness, accidents, combat, murder, etc. Pretty much, it is a tally of every soldier who dies while on active duty regardless of the cause.
Newtown Square
· 3 years ago
Perfectly reasonable. The authorized force level was much larger during the comparable period. My recollection is that the force levels were 50% tp 80% higher.
This would account for the close numbers.
Mark
· 3 years ago
Yes, I've just spotted that by looking at the link.
Using those figures -
1992-1996 Clinton Total deaths - 4302
Due to accident - 2239 Due to hostile action - 1 Due to homicide - 288 Due to illness - 774 Self-inflicted - 906 Terrorist attack - 55 Undetermined/Pending - 37
2001-2004 Bush Total deaths - 5187
Due to accident - 2109 Due to hostile action - 1102 Due to homicide - 181 Due to illness - 859 Self-inflicted - 632 Terrorist attack - 55 Undetermined/Pending - 258
Glancing at these breakdowns, the only real difference between the two is 'hostile action', which has risen from 1 to 1102 (including 'terrorist attacks', the figure rises from 56 to 1157). All the others (accident/illness, et cetera) remain fairly constant, and can be attributed to 'background noise' - that is to say, the expected number of deaths in a military at peace.
So comparing the figure that actually matters, there really is rather a big difference.
Rob
· 3 years ago
So comparing the figure that actually matters, there really is rather a big difference.
That there was only one soldier killed from hostile action under Clinton should tell you that the time period was one of relative peace. That America's active-duty military losses only increased a rough average of about 230 - 250 soldiers a year even as this country liberated two countries and then have fought against terror insurgencies in both ever since is, frankly, significant. You can slice and dice the numbers all you want, but by historical measures the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a stunning success in terms of casualties.
Also, just FYI, you have clinton's numbers as 1992 - 1996. I caculated those same numbers from 1993 - 1996. Clinton was elected in Nov. of 1992 but didn't take office until 1993. Same with Bush who was elected in 2000 but didn't take office until 2001.
Mark
· 3 years ago
I think you're being a little bit paranoid, Rob.
If I am doing any 'slicing', it's purely to remove the meaningless statistics and present, simply, the ones that are pertinent,
Unless, of course, you can tell me why military deaths from illness under Bush compared to Clinton are relevant to the discussion you started?
Rob
· 3 years ago
I think you're being a little bit paranoid, Rob.
If I am doing any 'slicing', it's purely to remove the meaningless statistics and present, simply, the ones that are pertinent,
Mark, the "slicing and dicing" comment wasn't meant as a jab, though upon reflection I could have used a different term.
Unless, of course, you can tell me why military deaths from illness under Bush compared to Clinton are relevant to the discussion you started?
I think the numbers, as a total, are significant. Yes the number of hostile action deaths increased under Bush. This is because we are at war now and we weren't under Clinton. It makes sense that those should go up because more of our troops are in harms way.
Why it is important to look at all of the numbers, rather than any given subset, is that they tell an amazing story. This country has gone to war, liberated two countries, fought a nasty insurgency, yet the increase in active duty deaths over a time when we were at peace has been relatively minor.
If war critics are going to say that America has paid a "heavy toll" for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq don't you think it is worth mentioning that the "toll" is just a little higher then what we've paid at a time when we were relatively at peace?
I think it is, and that is my point with this entire post.
Mark
· 3 years ago
"don't you think it is worth mentioning that the "toll" is just a little higher then what we've paid at a time when we were relatively at peace?"
I can entirely agree with that. The number of deaths is only, as you say, 250 or so higher each year.
But to give you the angle I'm coming from, the media here leapt, fairly distastefully, on the '100 deaths' figure for UK troops in Iraq, despite a significant number of those being due to road accidents and illnesses, which would probably occur anyway, whether we were at war or not.
My point follows from this. Being consistent, the rise in deaths should be presented as 56 to 1157, and not 'disguised' in the 4302 - 5187 figures, because the majority of those totals are just as irrelevant as including road deaths in the '100' figure for UK deaths.
mcair
· 3 years ago
Sneering and caustic condesencion aside, that is actually a really good point.
If I didn't make myself clear, I think your comparison does not serve any particular purpose other than to say "Bush isn't so bad, look at what Clinton didn't accomplish with the deaths on his watch". Such a comparison is mindless partisanship.
You deride Bosnia as not being of the scope of Afghanistan and Iraq. Fair enough. Let me ask you, how big a war would Clinton have had to get us into to garner a modicum of your respect? Do you disrespect Reagan in the same way for not having accomplished much with his small-scale wars?
In the end, Bush's legacy will not be judged in terms of the number of dead and wounded incurred on his watch, on by comparison of that number to past presidents "accomplishments".
Please find a better metric by which to judge presidential accomplishment - sneering and condescension is about all your original post is worth.
robert108
· 3 years ago
If Clinton had been man enough to stand up to the terrorists, the deaths in Iraq probably wouldn't have happened.
jeff schaum
· 3 years ago
Since the DOD Manpower data center doc doesn't include injuries/woundings incurred by active duty soldiers during Clinton's (or W's) first term, perhaps we should leave that comparison alone until we have the data. That comparison may also not be as lopsided as one would think.
Sherard
· 3 years ago
The simple fact is that anyone who argues the "cost" of the war, either in terms of casualties or money is simply showing themselves as not serious about the war in the first place. If the "cost" of this war is too great, then the simple fact of the matter is there is no war that is worth the cost. I mean, great, if you want to oppose all war and stake your position as a "pacifist", go for it. Too bad the vast majority of the anti-Bush left are not honest enough to do that.
Otherwise, the only remaining debate is the intent and results of the war. And the problem, of course, is nobody on the left wants to be honest about THAT, either. It's all BUSH LIED! and NO WAR FOR OIL! and all that nonsense.
Very interesting stats, Rob. Basically what it says is that despite two major conflicts, the difference in active duty deaths is statistically not significant. Kinda puts a stake through the heart of those that claim the bloodshed is too much. The fact that you are twice as likely to die in an accident in the military than in combat is a pretty telling statistic.
Sherard
· 3 years ago
When the left realizes that the average citizen is more likely to die in a car accident than a soldier is to die in Iraq, it'll blow their minds.
Rob
· 3 years ago
My point follows from this. Being consistent, the rise in deaths should be presented as 56 to 1157, and not 'disguised' in the 4302 - 5187 figures, because the majority of those totals are just as irrelevant as including road deaths in the '100' figure for UK deaths.
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm just not sure I agree. Before we were at war active duty deaths were at one level, now that we're at war in two countries and fighting a terror insurgency they're at a higher level...but not that much higher.
We are at war. 100,000+ American troops are in harm's way every day...yet the number of active duty deaths has only increased about roughly 250 deaths/year? That's mind bogging. Even more so in that if we just use your numbers, which are the number of deaths from combat, its only an increase of about 275/year.
However you gut it, that is a very small number of troops. Especially by historical standards.
Dave
· 3 years ago
The simple fact is that anyone who argues the "cost" of the war, either in terms of casualties or money is simply showing themselves as not serious about the war in the first place. If the "cost" of this war is too great, then the simple fact of the matter is there is no war that is worth the cost.
That's fallacious. You can support some wars and oppose others. You can flip your reasoning on its head thusly:
If the "cost" of this was is not too great, then the simple fact of the matter is ALL wars are worth the cost.
That's plainly untrue. It reminds me of an argument a lot of opponents of the Iraq War used against supporters: "If you support going to war to take out Iraq's dictator, you'd have to support going to war to take out every other dictator in the world." But that's silly. War is not a decision to be taken lightly: we weight the costs and benefits of it before proceeding. It'd be lovely if we could spread freedom to everyone in the world through military action, but we quite simply cannot.
And if you disagree with that, than you MUST support military action in every single non-democratic region on earth.
WOOF
· 3 years ago
About 4000 Americans die in fires each year.
911 when averaged out over the Bush reign is comprable to the number of citizens who die in fires caused just by smoking. Not much of a number to go to war over.
The American limbs blown off would hardly fill a Transportation Battalons Deuce and a halves.
The number of dead Iraqis/Afgahns, why count THEM?
mcair
· 3 years ago
When the left realizes that the average citizen is more likely to die in a car accident than a soldier is to die in Iraq, it'll blow their minds.
So blow my mind with some numbers.
mcair
· 3 years ago
Something else struck me while thinking about this. The premise of the original post is that Bush has brought "freedom and liberty" to Afghanistan and Iraq - and being ultra-efficient in terms of troops casualties (Rob's view, not mine).
The question is, would Bush have had a chance to display his prowess at warmaking were it not for 9/11? Would the country have gone for it? Or would Rob and his fellow travellers be disappointed that not enough American servicemen had died on Bush's watch?
robert108
· 3 years ago
mcair: It is easy to spew about the costs of the war in Iraq. The benefits are a little harder to define, partly because of biased reporting on what is going on over there, but also because we don't know the number of 9/11s(or worse) that would have happened if we hadn't responded the way we did to the first one. Clinton's weak responses to terrorism during his regime invited, in OBL's words, boldness on the part of the jihadists. It would seem obvious then, that GW's strong response to 9/11 had the opposite effect. We will never know how many American lives have been saved by the President's actions, but we do know how many Iraqi lives have been saved by taking out Saddam. We have the numbers of how many he was killing, raping and torturing during his thirty years in power.
Rob
· 3 years ago
The question is, would Bush have had a chance to display his prowess at warmaking were it not for 9/11? Would the country have gone for it? Or would Rob and his fellow travellers be disappointed that not enough American servicemen had died on Bush's watch?
I wouldn't be angry but not enough troops getting killed. That is an absurd statement. I am only in favor of war when it is necessary. Following 9/11, war in the middle east was necessary (at least in my estimation). Afghanistan was the logical first choice, Iraq was next for a number of reasons.
Trying to cast me as some blood-thirsty troglodyte is just dumb. I'm in favor of the war in Iraq, sure, but I'm not in favor of war just for war's sake. Just because you disagree with me about the necessity of war in Iraq doesn't reflect upon the reasoning behind my opinions.
911 when averaged out over the Bush reign is comprable to the number of citizens who die in fires caused just by smoking. Not much of a number to go to war over.
9/11 wasn't much to go to war over?
Amazing. So I take it you're against the war in Afghanistan as well as the war in Iraq? What should we have done in the face of 9/11, sit and take it like good dhimmi's?
What a retard you are, Woofie.
The number of dead Iraqis/Afgahns, why count THEM?
We have counted them and we've shown you that the number who have died since the invasion are fewer than the number who died at the hand of the oppressive regimes they toiled under. We've saved lives by invading Iraq/Afghanistan. Why you don't get that is beyond me.
bbbeard
· 3 years ago
Sherard says: "When the left realizes that the average citizen is more likely to die in a car accident than a soldier is to die in Iraq, it'll blow their minds."
Sorry, I must demur. The US death rate for motor vehicle accidents is around 16 per 100,000 population per year. I think the death rate for US military personnel in Iraq must be around 500 per 100,000 per year. This is still not astronomical; it is comparable to, say, the risk of dying of heart disease when you are 60 years old, or the risk of dying of the flu when you're 85.
BBB
mcair
· 3 years ago
The difference? 885 deaths over four years, or about 221 deaths a year. Of course, during Bush's first four years in office we liberated both Afghanistan and Iraq. What did we accomplish, in terms of military victories, during Clinton's first four years in office? I can't think of a thing..
Trying to cast me as some blood-thirsty troglodyte is just dumb.
So what exactly are you trying to say with this? As another poster pointed out, in the military people die on the job. Under Bush, a disproportionate number have died due to hostile action, due to the wars that Bush has engaged in.
You are trying to minimalize the human cost of the war in Iraq. You are attempting to do it by justifying combat deaths, since you propose that, without a war, the same number would have died anyway.
That doesn't make it OK. The jury is still out on whether democracy can be established in either country that we currently occupy. In Afghanistan, they are prosecuting people for the crime of being Christian. In Iraq, the factions are playing out a centuries-old conflict between religious sects. That we can leave behind a western-style democracy in these countries is highly debateable.
XXX Military
· 3 years ago
Ending the war in Bosnia? When? Did it happen last night and hasn't made the news yet? We went in without U.N. approval, bombed a friendly country's embassy and we're still there. Oh, I forgot, the Antique MSM never tell anyone that, and the lefties are so forgetful, when it serves their purpose.
Rob
· 3 years ago
You are trying to minimalize the human cost of the war in Iraq.
No, people like you are trying to maximize it. I'm just trying to put it in perspective.
mcair
· 3 years ago
No, people like you are trying to maximize it.
I know you are, but what am I? Duh.
I'm just trying to put it in perspective.
You think anyone is going to wake up tomorrow, look at those stats and think "Gosh, war in Iraq isn't so bad after all"? Please.
Rob
· 3 years ago
I know you are, but what am I? Duh.
Ok then, maturity level established.
You think anyone is going to wake up tomorrow, look at those stats and think "Gosh, war in Iraq isn't so bad after all"? Please.
They might read this post and think, "Huh, things sure haven't gone as bad in Iraq as the liberals/media have lead us to believe."
Because these numbers look different when you put them in context rather than screaming about each and every individual casualty across the front page of the newspapers.
mcair
· 3 years ago
Ok then, maturity level established.
You claim that I'm trying to "maximize" casualties? To what end? How do you support that? You yourself stated recognized that your original post neglected to consider the numbers injured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
They might read this post and think, "Huh, things sure haven't gone as bad in Iraq as the liberals/media have lead us to believe."
Your bottom line always comes back to: we're winning the war, and it will be a glorious victory for President George W. Bush. But if by chance we lose, it's the liberals/media/RW bogeyman-of-the-day that are to blame. Fucking pathetic - excuse the language, I am angry too.
You are not prepared to hold accountable those that are responsible for the lack of planning in the Iraq debacle, nor are you prepared to accept any debate on the circumstances that lead up to the war, if it iun any way reflects badly on Bush or the GOP.
The line that liberals and the media have some nefarious agenda that revolves around dislike of the President, a dislike so intense that they would wish defeat on our own country is utterly preposterous. Every time you roll it out, it's another tacit admission that you're running low on excuses for the mistakes made by politicians that you support.
bullwinkle
· 3 years ago
I think we should pull out the troops and round up all the anti-war liberals and offer them up as appeasement to the terrorists. We could keep our soldiers safe and sound while giving the terrorists someone to decapitate and keep them busy for quite a while. We could cut our energy demand substantially, eliminate welafe as we know it and make the U.S. a decent place to live again. What we'd have left would be productive citizens who would be willing to fight for their freedom and not wasting their lives protecting usless parasitic bums. Sounds like a good deal to me.
galletador
· 3 years ago
Mark,
I think you attempt to seperate the data based on cause of death is fair, though you should be careful with doing that with statistics, which is part of why I think you shouldn't negelect the total number. For example, by some "cosmic twist of fate" a solider may actually be safer on the battle field than at home, though his likelihood of dying by enemy fire just went way up. This is a very real issue. They aren't going to be robbed as often while on duty, or to die from recreasional activities, or from casual automobile accidents (though they have enough of those on duty accidents). All this is going to pull away from the overal figure proportial to the amount of the population on active duty. Oddly, some health based deaths may also go down because they are ordered to the medic rather than sitting on an illness. Who knows.
Regardless of that, however, I think Rob's point is well made in that the numbers are very low. I still remember talking with a friend at the begining of OIF when there was the major helicopter accident when some 12 marines dies and a few british commandos talking about how the media, even at that juncture, had no appreciation for what that really meant; more people had died from an on duty accident at that point in the war than had from enemy fire. They also don't appreciate the death tolls of earlier wars and major engagments(such as Iwo Jima, Guadacanal, D-Day, Korean and Vietnam). From a military history stand point Iraq and Afghanistan have been stupendous successes, and I think it irks a lot of people when the media isn't getting that at all. When they should be praising the military services for their excellent job and thanking them for their sacrifices they yell about their blood.
Considering the low causlities I think the comment about the price being worth paying is more accurate than you claim, Dave. You can't flip eveything on its head. The point is that if you can't do something major an important and be willing to pay such a low price, is their indeed a price greater than zero that you are willing to pay. I wonder sometimes....
Cheers
pete
· 3 years ago
Yes, of course it helps with perspective.
Here's a little more:
American Deaths over the Last Three Years Put in Perspective: • Auto Accidents: 120,000 • Falling Down: 45,000 • Poisoning: 27,000 • Drowning: 12,000 • War in Iraq: 2,300
• Number of Anti-War Protestors in NYC on Sunday: 200
mcair
· 3 years ago
There are 300,000,000 people living in the United States, Pete, 140,000 Americans in Iraq.
You might have given accredited Rush Limbaugh, since he is the source of your "statistics".
robert108
· 3 years ago
What bullwinkle said.
likwidshoe
· 3 years ago
mcair said, The line that liberals and the media have some nefarious agenda that revolves around dislike of the President, a dislike so intense that they would wish defeat on our own country is utterly preposterous.
If it is "utterly preposterous", then why all of the rhetoric stating that the U.S. is "the real terrorist"? What about Dick Gulag Durbin's statements about Gitmo?
Every time you roll it out, it's another tacit admission that you're running low on excuses for the mistakes made by politicians that you support.
That's a construct of your own making.
TallDave
· 3 years ago
The line that liberals and the media have some nefarious agenda that revolves around dislike of the President, a dislike so intense that they would wish defeat on our own country is utterly preposterous.
Oh really?
Two words: Tet Offensive.
Read Giap's memoirs. The Left and the media didn't just wish defeat on America, they caused it.
5Cats
· 3 years ago
The battle of Antietam, Sept 17 1862, saw total losses of 3,654 dead and 22,719 wounded. In ONE DAY, not 3 years.
That an average of 250 or so more soldiers have died each year is nothing short of amazing, a military achievement of Epic proportions.
The gutless whiners who demand the impossible, ignore reality and make the USA look bad need a big dose of reality.
Oh mcair? Just divide by 20 (an aproximate that favours your "idea") and you'll see: 6,000 auto accidents, 2,200 falls, 1,300 poisonings, and 600 drowning, vs 2,300 killed in Iraq.
Dave
· 3 years ago
bullwinkle:
I think we should pull out the troops and round up all the anti-war liberals and offer them up as appeasement to the terrorists.
robert108:
What bullwinkle said.
Eliminationist rhetoric from the right, what a surprise...
robert108
· 3 years ago
Dave: You have no sense of humor. Must be the vegan diet. haha
likwidshoe
· 3 years ago
Dave cries, Eliminationist rhetoric from the right, what a surprise...
> > If the "cost" of this war is too great, then the simple fact of the matter is there is no war that is worth the cost.
> That's fallacious. You can support some wars and oppose others. You can flip your reasoning on its head thusly:
> If the "cost" of this was is not too great, then the simple fact of the matter is ALL wars are worth the cost.
Uhhh. SORRY, Dave -- it's YOUR reasoning which is fallacious. You're saying
"If A then B"
means
"If Not A then Not B"
The only correct logical inversion rule which applies is
"If not ***B*** then Not A"
So no, not so. simply exampled, using your scenario:
"If it's a Duck then it's a Bird"
means
"If it's not a Duck then it's not a Bird."
Duh. It's a Penguin.
Note: "Supporting some wars and opposing others" may still be a justifiable statement -- it just can't be justified using your logical argument.
Dave
· 3 years ago
Dave: You have no sense of humor. Must be the vegan diet. haha
Why'd the chicken cross the road? Let's murder all the Democrats.
I don't get it.
Jake
· 3 years ago
of BS. This is another case of the right-wing playing happy feet with numbers. First of all, yes the numbers of total deaths were pretty close in the years selected.
HOWEVER, there were in the years between 1993-1996 an average of 146,220 more active duty personnel in the armed forces, so OF COURSE, total deaths would be higher.
SECOND. When you choose the years 1997-2000 and when the armed forces were at roughly the exact same levels they were in 2001-2004, the death rate of Bush's term soars by the number of 2000 MORE dead than in Clinton's last 4 years.
Bat One
· 3 years ago
Jake,
Your numbers are most interesting... but they beg the question why were the number of active duty armed forces personnel reduced from 1993 thru 1996? If terrorism expert Richard Clarke, Defense Secretary Cohen, National Secrity Advisor "Sandy" Berger, and of course Clinton and AlGore were all doing their jobs... as they have all made such a vehement point to say that they were, why were the number of active duty personnel reduced so drastically inder their watch?
galletador
· 3 years ago
Jake,
My understanding was that the figures were for 100,000 not the total number. Correction anyone?
Thanks
Bat One
· 3 years ago
For a more thorough, and "nuanced" review and analysis of these statistics, see Wretchard's post titles "Damed Lies and Statistics" at his blog, The Belmont Club (<a href="http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/%29.
Incidentally">http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/).</..., anyone seriously interested in foreign affairs, national security, and the War on Terrorism, should be reading Belmont daily. There are other bloggers whose views and experiences are more detailed (Dan Darling) or more immediate (Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, or any number of MilBloggers), but there is no one else whose writing is as all-encompassing, insightful, or strategically pertinent. Furthermore, his cast of commenters alone would be well worth any price of admission.
derek
· 3 years ago
Another thing to note is the high use of Reserve and National Guard soldiers in Iraq.
"For the first nine months of 2005 reservists accounted for 36 percent of U.S. deaths, and for August and September it was 56 percent, according to Pentagon figures."
"Casualties in Iraq have shifted toward citizen soldiers as their combat role has grown to historic levels. National Guard officials say their soldiers have been sent into combat in Iraq in numbers not previously seen in modern times - far more than were sent to Vietnam, where active-duty troops did the vast majority of the fighting."
Ah..crap. I just looked at the stats again, it does mention Reserve and National Guard. Scratch that last post.
galletador
· 3 years ago
Despite feeling a little sheepish it is kind of nice to catch your own mistakes, isn't it?
mcair
· 3 years ago
Oh mcair? Just divide by 20 (an aproximate that favours your "idea") and you'll see: 6,000 auto accidents, 2,200 falls, 1,300 poisonings, and 600 drowning, vs 2,300 killed in Iraq.
140,000 vs 300,000,000 is ratio of about 1:2200. Where'd you get 20 from? Is that the oxycontin math?
You dropped a couple of zeroes, and still the point is bogus.
likwidshoe
· 3 years ago
Is that the oxycontin math?
Was that necessary? Seems so hateful. Just defeat the point using logic.
5Cats
· 3 years ago
Oops! Must have skipped that math class... sorry!
Still, one would expect life to be more dangerous in an active war zone, eh? My point about the losses being amazingly LOW still is valid.
Also, regarding Bosnia, Clinton got NATO to go in based on reports of mass murder and mass graves & etc. After 5 years of searching the UN found nothing! Except a couple of faked ones used for photo ops. Of course ethnic cleansing happened after that conflict. Under the watchful approval of Clinton and NATO...
The MSM didn't raise much of a fuss about that 'war under false pretenses' for that did they?
mcair
· 3 years ago
Lik whines: Was that necessary? Seems so hateful. Just defeat the point using logic.
Such a delicate flower aren't you?
Idiots who make bogus points with bogus math deserve mockery. Step right up, there's plenty for you too.
Mark
· 3 years ago
XXX Military -
Ending the war in Bosnia? When? Did it happen last night and hasn't made the news yet? We went in without U.N. approval, bombed a friendly country's embassy and we're still there. Oh, I forgot, the Antique MSM never tell anyone that, and the lefties are so forgetful, when it serves their purpose.
As you clearly don't know the difference between Bosnia and Serbia, I think we can just ignore your comment.
robert108
· 3 years ago
Mark: The point is still valid. Clinton lied us into that war, promised to be "out by Christmas" and we are still there. No carping from the MSM, though. Strange.
Mark
· 3 years ago
Robert - His claim was that the US (within NATO) didn't end the war in Bosnia.
They did.
His claim is therefore invalid.
As Kosovo occurred in 1999, it is outside the remit of the analysis of Clinton 1992-1996 versus Bush 2001-2004.
Mark Prime
· 3 years ago
Define liberated...
likwidshoe
· 3 years ago
mcair says, Such a delicate flower aren't you?
No. I just asked you a question. Was it necessary? And then I made the point that it seems so hateful. But, you can just excuse your behavior while telling yourself that I must be a "delicate flower" if it makes you feel better.
Andre
· 3 years ago
Alright Ladies and Gentlemen....
It would seem that this debate is degenerating into one of how limited the US educational system really is. However let's look at real facts and figures that really show things for what they were.
First. In the modern age the Democrats have lead the US into battle more than the republicans (major conflicts 4-2)
From WWI through Vietnam the majority of military personnel were drafted or volunteered during very intense mustering periods, often with the bare minimum of training prior to seeing combat within a very short period of time. Arguing that reservists represent a larger number of participants is true, though they are still people that have volunteered to be active members of the military.
During Clinton's eight years in office the average number of enlisted personnel in the US Forces were 1,460,037. Under Bush's first three years of office ('02-04 incl.) the average number of enlisted personnel were 1,415,245. Source: [http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf]
Now to delve further into the American partisan debate; donkey vs. elephant. Battle Deaths WWI - 53,402 - Woodrow Wilson, Democratic WWII - 291,557 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democratic Korean War - 33,741 - Harry S. Truman, Democratic Vietnam Conflict - Though 47,424 enlisted personnel deaths were recorded between November 1, 1955, (commencement date for the Military Assistance Advisory Group) through May 15, 1975, (date last American service member left Southeast Asia) I will reserve comment on republican or democratic responsibility for lack of detailed information. Desert Storm - 147 - Bush - Republican Source: [http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf] OIF&OEF - 2,048 - GWB - Republican Source: [http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-deaths-total.pdf] & [http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/OEFDEATHS.pdf]
So before closing this little history lesson I would like to say that war is not about the number of dead. It is about accomplishing objectives when diplomatic channels have failed or in response to armed attack of sovereign forces or territory. It is in its simplest form a compromise, secede position or protect it. As in all compromises one must weigh the costs, but in doing so it is generally good practice to call a spade a spade, an ass and ass and an elephant an elephant. They all have their uses, but are all useless if brought to job.
Bush as the duly elected Commander in Chief of the US Arm Forces, in a war that Congress voted to involve the country they represent, should be looked at in context. Regardless of the reasons for war, the question is how he has handled it. So far in the context of US military history, OEF&OIF can only be considered successful.
notfooooldbyW
· 2 years ago
It seems to me that if we are to compare the two, We have to base it on how many deaths were attributable to a "DECISION" by either President. Looks Like Clinton has 1 while Bush is at around 1200.
This makes Lil Dub about 1200 times more deadly than Bubba.
what
· 2 years ago
Becasue bubba never made a tough decision to defend us. Only sending a couple of missiles into a medicine factory to get our minds off of monica. What are you talking about not fooled, or fool
notfooooldbyW
· 2 years ago
I'll tell you "what".. I heard Rush blabbing about the number of soldier deaths under four years of Clinton and four years of Dubya.. which led me to this blog.... So my point is that the accidental, and illness deaths are not the result of either President's active "DECISIONS". So that is what need be compared. The "Decider" decidered to kick UN inspectors out of Iraq, A decision Bill Clinton has said was wrong. That decision by the "Decider" after promising to exhaust all peaceful means and work through the UN is Bush's alone. That decision led to 1200 combat deaths a year. Clinton's Decisions on all matters sending soldiers into combat situations resulted in (1) death.
The Decider is 1200 times more responsible for US combat deaths than Clinton. That is the true significance of the stats.
Michael
· 2 years ago
Actually - there have been no military deaths under Commander Bush during his entire term - and I can prove it with some fancy statistics.
On July 27th, from 5:57pm-5:59pm, there were no active American military deaths. If you take this 3-minute interval and extrapolate it back to 2001, when Bush took office, and then average it over the entire time period, you get an average of zero deaths per year.
The MSM and lie-berals want you to think that soldiers are dying in Iraq, but I have clearly proven above that this is a lie. There have actually been zero military deaths under our strong, steadfast leader Bush!! Don't believe the left-wing drive-by media!
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Michael, that false equivalence of yours was perhaps the worse one this blog has suffered under this past week. And it's been busy!
izak
· 2 years ago
Thank you fellow commentors for pointing out the obviously bogus statisics sited by the author. If the Author could please fill out the following blanks-
Hostile action deaths under Clinton durring major operations-
Haiti ? Somalia ? Bosnia ?
I have a hard time getting even close to 4000. So that means that the numbers you are siteing must be accidents, illness, suicide etc.. Or, mostly people who would have died with or without a war.
Bush's figures are different-
Iraq- 3700 aprox as of today
Now granted, only 2300-2500 were hostile action. But, of those 2300 to 2500, most of them would be alive today without war.
However, please don't think that I am not supportive of the war efforts. I'm just pointing out how flawed your statistics are. I truly want Iraq to be as stable as possible before we leave, and if that requires our military presense; so be it. Unfortunately, I am having a hard time seeing the benefits of the War. In fact, I think we have made things more complicated than they were.
Now we can all agree that a few innocent civilians have died in the war. In fact, Rush Limbaugh even confirmed that at least 10 have died as a result of the invasion (Sorry about the Sarcasm). You might say, "what's the big deal? More civilians died while Sadam was in power!" Which may be true; but, now the finger is being pointed at us, instead of Sadam because we are in charge. What's my point? We are creating a breading ground for people to hate us.
Every time a civilian is killed by militia gun squads, suicide bombers, or accidentel fire, you can not tell me that they don't in some way blame us for the situation. How many lives have changed for the worse due to our intervention? Do think that these people might be good terrorist canidates?
Jack
· 2 years ago
Yes, the chart skips the first year Bush was in office and during which time we went to war with Afghanistan. So admittedly it is a little intellectually dishonest in that it compares Bush's 2nd to 5th years with Clinton's 1st to 4th. However even if you shift those numbers you see that 3 of the 4 years Bush still has the lower count. Jack 'the engineer'.
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]Yes, the chart skips the first year Bush was in office and during which time we went to war with Afghanistan.[/quote]
During which time President Bush had to deal with both the Clinton recession and the Clinton-enabled losses from 9/11.
robert108
· 2 years ago
Whoops! Wrong thread. Clinton managed to get those casualties without doing anything to prevent the spread of terrorism.
Charles
· 1 year ago
Due to accident - 2239 Due to hostile action - 1 Due to homicide - 288 Due to illness - 774 Self-inflicted - 906 Terrorist attack - 55 Undetermined/Pending - 37
2001-2004 Bush Total deaths - 5187
Due to accident - 2109 Due to hostile action - 1102 Due to homicide - 181 Due to illness - 859 Self-inflicted - 632 Terrorist attack - 55 Undetermined/Pending - 258
Something those numbers are missing... Total number of active duty troops?
Provided they were at the same level please tell me what level they were and I'll correct this.
130 less died due to accident. (If I'm in a war zone I'm probably being more careful... not drinking and driving etc...) 107 less due to homicide.. (Most military homicide happens off duty in the states and more are on duty during war...) 85 more due to illness.. (A war zone is a harsh environment that takes a toll on the body.) 237 less self-inflicted.. (War usually raises this number... I'm at a loss on this number, but I guess they have more reason to live???)
Not counting undetermined.. the War has cost us 1101 war time casualties and saved 385 peacetime that would put actual "Cost" and that term I use loosely for how do you judge the cost of any life, around 700 as an actual cost. The war in Iraq has cost more Iraqi lives and saved more Iraqi lives than any other human toll... How many insurgents have been killed? terrorists? Are these numbers higher than 700? Is one U.S. Soldier's life worth killing 1, 2, 5, 10, or even 100 of your enemy?
In my own personal summary as a man who has served under both Presidents in the USMC, I take a quote from John Stuart Mill, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Today fighting for the freedom of others are 100K+ good men and women who do their job whether they agree with the war or not. It is our job as citizens to do everything we can to support them. No war is a good war, but if your going to go to war then you'd better win or even 1 life was too high of a cost. 1 life is too high of a cost for a lost war. 1 life is too high of a cost for a "good" war, but then again no war is a good war. Both the left extremist pacifists, and the far right who would exert their will upon the world have valid view points. On one hand "the left" no war is worth it. This is very true. No War has ever been or is worth the loss of a single life and in a perfect world war would be unnecessary. But, on the other hand "the right" we don't live in anything approaching a perfect world, so while still not worth the loss some wars are necessary.
The only thing that comes to mind is the questioning of the start of any war, but after we are there you can't turn back, you can't withdraw or you lose, then 700 were lost for nothing. My drill instructor is listed among the casualties and having known him I'm not surprised as he was a good soldier through to the core. I have had friends injured and so far every single one of them (whether they support the war or not) has told me the same thing. We need to finish the job. I'm all for bringing the troops home, but let's get the job done first.
P.S. I was looking for some statistics when I came across this site. I am an independant who voted for both Clinton(and re-election) and Bush(and re-election as the lesser of two bad choices), based on their beliefs on individuals issues and their platform as a whole. I do not agree with most of the leadership of either party currently and am disgusted with the current state of partisan politics, but I will still vote come election day more as a tribute to all those that came before me than for any other reason.
One final note: Whether or not you support the war, please support the troops.
Charles
· 1 year ago
One more sad truth... you can only count the dead and injured not the saved...
Adam
· 1 year ago
you all do know these numbers are flat out wrong, don't you?
I just found this thread while arguing with my aunt about something. The funniest thing to me is not the numbers that are way off and used to support the idea that fewer soldiers have died under Bush II than under Clinton. The thing that is funniest to me is the characterization of Iraq and Afghanistan as "liberated." The replacement of tyranny with lawlessness is not liberation. Time for a reality check, indeed.
Adam Balsam
· 1 year ago
You are using Table-4, page 10 in the report instead of Table-5, page 11 for your data. Please see [url=http://balsamdesign.com/military-death-stats]a correct analysis of the military death stats[/url] before forming any opinions.
Adam Balsam
· 1 year ago
You are using Table-4, page 10 in the report instead of Table-5, page 11 for your data. Please see [url=http://balsamdesign.com/military-death-stats]a correct analysis of the military death stats[/url] before forming any opinions.
gschong
· 1 year ago
More updated data can be found in the Worldnetdaily article below, based on Department of Defense research of military deaths over the last 26 years. Deaths associated with the current fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are amazingly low, of course, compared to previous conflicts like WWI, WWII, Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Despite the occurrance of problems and setbacks (which happens in all wars), and appreciating the fact that the loss of each American serviceman is mourned by all Americans, the relatively low rate of military deaths are evidence of the courage, dedication, fighting skills, and resourcefulness of our current men and women in the armed forces...at all levels of command. Phased withdrawal, based on continuing increases of success on the battlefield and improvements in the political arenas of Iraq and Afghanistan, is what will be happening no matter who gets elected president. Even Junior Senator Obama (if he becomes president) doesn't want a U.S. defeat/failure, in either theatre of conflict, followed by bloody chaos and economic catastrophe, during his watch and as a result of an impulsive, self-defeating retreat.
WorldNetDaily Exclusive U.S. military deaths below 26-year average Annual toll in Bush years down despite 4,000 fatalities in Iraq Posted: April 25, 2008 12:10 am Eastern
WASHINGTON -- Despite suffering 4,000 deaths in Iraq, annual U.S. military casualties overall during the first six years of the Bush administration are well below the average for the 26-year period beginning in 1980, a WND investigation has revealed.
Even in 2005, the deadliest year of the Iraq campaign, U.S. troop fatalities around the world, including Afghanistan, were lower than the first nine years of the study -- when the Cold War was still raging in a time of relative peace.
In 2005, a total of 1,942 U.S. military personnel were killed in all causes, including accidents, hostile action, homicides, illnesses, suicides, etc. That compares to 2,392 in 1980, the last year of President Jimmy Carter's administration. In fact, twice as many U.S. military personnel were killed in accidents in that one year than were killed in hostile actions in any year of the Bush administration.
The analysis of statistics compiled by the Department of Defense also shows, despite a major increase in deaths due to hostile actions beginning in 2003 with the advent of the Iraq war, the annual toll on U.S. troops did not skyrocket above peacetime norms as many might expect. For instance, in 1993, the first year of the peacetime Clinton administration, 1,293 U.S. servicemen lost their lives -- just 649 fewer than in 2005, the hottest year of the Iraq war.
As of yesterday, a total of 4,044 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.
The British military has reported 176 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.
Iraqi military deaths since the beginning of the war are estimated at between 4,900 and 6,375, while Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at between 82,856 and 90,390.
"You regret every casualty, every loss," Vice President Dick Cheney said last month while on a trip to the Middle East. "The president is the one that has to make that decision to send young men and women into harm's way. It never gets any easier."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Americans are asking how much longer their troops must sacrifice for an Iraqi government "that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future."
"Americans also understand that the cost of the war to our national security, military readiness and our reputation around the world is immense and that the threat to our economy -- as the war in Iraq continues to take us deeper into debt -- is unacceptable," Pelosi said.
The U.S. has about 158,000 troops in Iraq. That number is expected to drop to 140,000 by summer in drawdowns meant to erase all but about 8,000 troops from last year's increase.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, told a campaign audience in Pennsylvania she would honor the fallen by ending the war and bringing home U.S. troops "as quickly and responsibly as possible." Her rival for the nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, said "It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future."
docdave
· 1 year ago
All this 'bring the troops home' stuff is silly and illogical. What is the purpose of having armed forces if you are not going to use them to engage your enemy? The not so hidden agenda of the 'bring them home' types is to disband the military thus leaving us defenseless and unable to cope with further foreign aggression against us (we have other agencies for home law enforcement and the besides military is forbidden to take part in local enforcement). Historically it has always been the goal of the liberal Democrats to marginally reduce the military. Really where else could they cut expenditures? They most certainly won't do that with any of their pet social programs.
we liberated what? as far as i know there are still people over there,our people, getting killed everyday.but they are liberated all right liberated from thier oil.reading this has left me dumber, and this just goes to show me that most americans are stupid and gullible
Nathan
· 8 months ago
So will it go down since Obama is in office?
biotch
· 8 months ago
Not a thing?... How about not giving up the hugest national security failure in US history for one.
Not getting into long term trillion dollar conflict for two.
Not pissing off the rest of the civilized world for three.
utah auto body
· 7 months ago
Hi, Glad to stumble your article. The total military dead in the first five years (2003- Feb 2008) Iraq / Afghanistan war was 3,964. We are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Protestors like code-pink protest but when peacetime arrives they have no idea of how many military die in the service of their country. In fact, their protest seem not be concerned with American deaths but for those of our enemies.
All Comments
The media and the anti-war crowd in this country would suggest that our military is depleted. Used up. I would argue that, given the modest increase in active duty deaths despite fighting two wars in two different countries, that we haven't even scratched the surface of what our military is capable of.
To support 140,000 troops ongoing in Iraq, you need at least twice that many to cover troop rotations. That's 280,000 troops tied up in Iraq. How many tours can a given soldier be expected to pull? if Iran becomes necessary, do you seriously think that a draft will not be necessary?
And did you forget the 20,000 seriously wounded, some disabled for life, that have returned from Iraq? Shouldn't they figure into your neato Clinton vs. Bush comparo?
Get a grip, reality is calling.
No, it's even higher. About $1 trillion.
Really throws a wrench in everything the media is doing and saying.
If we need to go to war with Iran I am sure there would be plenty of volunteers.
I can't think of a thing.
Ending the war in Bosnia is a major example that springs to mind.
I think the example is still valid...
I wasn't discounting it, but Bosnia just isn't the same war on the same scale as Iraq and Afghanistan.
It certainly counts, but Clinton still hasn't accomplished as much.
Well, one has to take into account the number, and size, of conflicts taking place between 1992-6. I don't think you can blame Clinton for not accomplishing as much as Bush if there weren't as many conflicts to resolve.
On a (slight) side note, do you know what accounts for those 4302 deaths 1992-1996?
Mark, fair enough on the "I can't think of a thing" bit.
The number is comprised of all deaths among active-duty U.S. soldiers, including deaths from illness, accidents, combat, murder, etc. Pretty much, it is a tally of every soldier who dies while on active duty regardless of the cause.
Perfectly reasonable. The authorized force level was much larger during the comparable period. My recollection is that the force levels were 50% tp 80% higher.
This would account for the close numbers.
Using those figures -
1992-1996 Clinton
Total deaths - 4302
Due to accident - 2239
Due to hostile action - 1
Due to homicide - 288
Due to illness - 774
Self-inflicted - 906
Terrorist attack - 55
Undetermined/Pending - 37
2001-2004 Bush
Total deaths - 5187
Due to accident - 2109
Due to hostile action - 1102
Due to homicide - 181
Due to illness - 859
Self-inflicted - 632
Terrorist attack - 55
Undetermined/Pending - 258
Glancing at these breakdowns, the only real difference between the two is 'hostile action', which has risen from 1 to 1102 (including 'terrorist attacks', the figure rises from 56 to 1157). All the others (accident/illness, et cetera) remain fairly constant, and can be attributed to 'background noise' - that is to say, the expected number of deaths in a military at peace.
So comparing the figure that actually matters, there really is rather a big difference.
That there was only one soldier killed from hostile action under Clinton should tell you that the time period was one of relative peace. That America's active-duty military losses only increased a rough average of about 230 - 250 soldiers a year even as this country liberated two countries and then have fought against terror insurgencies in both ever since is, frankly, significant. You can slice and dice the numbers all you want, but by historical measures the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a stunning success in terms of casualties.
Also, just FYI, you have clinton's numbers as 1992 - 1996. I caculated those same numbers from 1993 - 1996. Clinton was elected in Nov. of 1992 but didn't take office until 1993. Same with Bush who was elected in 2000 but didn't take office until 2001.
If I am doing any 'slicing', it's purely to remove the meaningless statistics and present, simply, the ones that are pertinent,
Unless, of course, you can tell me why military deaths from illness under Bush compared to Clinton are relevant to the discussion you started?
Mark, the "slicing and dicing" comment wasn't meant as a jab, though upon reflection I could have used a different term.
I think the numbers, as a total, are significant. Yes the number of hostile action deaths increased under Bush. This is because we are at war now and we weren't under Clinton. It makes sense that those should go up because more of our troops are in harms way.
Why it is important to look at all of the numbers, rather than any given subset, is that they tell an amazing story. This country has gone to war, liberated two countries, fought a nasty insurgency, yet the increase in active duty deaths over a time when we were at peace has been relatively minor.
If war critics are going to say that America has paid a "heavy toll" for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq don't you think it is worth mentioning that the "toll" is just a little higher then what we've paid at a time when we were relatively at peace?
I think it is, and that is my point with this entire post.
I can entirely agree with that. The number of deaths is only, as you say, 250 or so higher each year.
But to give you the angle I'm coming from, the media here leapt, fairly distastefully, on the '100 deaths' figure for UK troops in Iraq, despite a significant number of those being due to road accidents and illnesses, which would probably occur anyway, whether we were at war or not.
My point follows from this. Being consistent, the rise in deaths should be presented as 56 to 1157, and not 'disguised' in the 4302 - 5187 figures, because the majority of those totals are just as irrelevant as including road deaths in the '100' figure for UK deaths.
Sneering and caustic condesencion aside, that is actually a really good point.
If I didn't make myself clear, I think your comparison does not serve any particular purpose other than to say "Bush isn't so bad, look at what Clinton didn't accomplish with the deaths on his watch". Such a comparison is mindless partisanship.
You deride Bosnia as not being of the scope of Afghanistan and Iraq. Fair enough. Let me ask you, how big a war would Clinton have had to get us into to garner a modicum of your respect? Do you disrespect Reagan in the same way for not having accomplished much with his small-scale wars?
In the end, Bush's legacy will not be judged in terms of the number of dead and wounded incurred on his watch, on by comparison of that number to past presidents "accomplishments".
Please find a better metric by which to judge presidential accomplishment - sneering and condescension is about all your original post is worth.
The simple fact is that anyone who argues the "cost" of the war, either in terms of casualties or money is simply showing themselves as not serious about the war in the first place. If the "cost" of this war is too great, then the simple fact of the matter is there is no war that is worth the cost. I mean, great, if you want to oppose all war and stake your position as a "pacifist", go for it. Too bad the vast majority of the anti-Bush left are not honest enough to do that.
Otherwise, the only remaining debate is the intent and results of the war. And the problem, of course, is nobody on the left wants to be honest about THAT, either. It's all BUSH LIED! and NO WAR FOR OIL! and all that nonsense.
Very interesting stats, Rob. Basically what it says is that despite two major conflicts, the difference in active duty deaths is statistically not significant. Kinda puts a stake through the heart of those that claim the bloodshed is too much. The fact that you are twice as likely to die in an accident in the military than in combat is a pretty telling statistic.
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm just not sure I agree. Before we were at war active duty deaths were at one level, now that we're at war in two countries and fighting a terror insurgency they're at a higher level...but not that much higher.
We are at war. 100,000+ American troops are in harm's way every day...yet the number of active duty deaths has only increased about roughly 250 deaths/year? That's mind bogging. Even more so in that if we just use your numbers, which are the number of deaths from combat, its only an increase of about 275/year.
However you gut it, that is a very small number of troops. Especially by historical standards.
That's fallacious. You can support some wars and oppose others. You can flip your reasoning on its head thusly:
That's plainly untrue. It reminds me of an argument a lot of opponents of the Iraq War used against supporters: "If you support going to war to take out Iraq's dictator, you'd have to support going to war to take out every other dictator in the world." But that's silly. War is not a decision to be taken lightly: we weight the costs and benefits of it before proceeding. It'd be lovely if we could spread freedom to everyone in the world through military action, but we quite simply cannot.
And if you disagree with that, than you MUST support military action in every single non-democratic region on earth.
About 4000 Americans die in fires each year.
911 when averaged out over the Bush reign is comprable to the number of citizens who die in fires caused just by smoking. Not much of a number to go to war over.
The American limbs blown off would hardly fill a Transportation Battalons Deuce and a halves.
The number of dead Iraqis/Afgahns, why count THEM?
When the left realizes that the average citizen is more likely to die in a car accident than a soldier is to die in Iraq, it'll blow their minds.
So blow my mind with some numbers.
Something else struck me while thinking about this. The premise of the original post is that Bush has brought "freedom and liberty" to Afghanistan and Iraq - and being ultra-efficient in terms of troops casualties (Rob's view, not mine).
The question is, would Bush have had a chance to display his prowess at warmaking were it not for 9/11? Would the country have gone for it? Or would Rob and his fellow travellers be disappointed that not enough American servicemen had died on Bush's watch?
I wouldn't be angry but not enough troops getting killed. That is an absurd statement. I am only in favor of war when it is necessary. Following 9/11, war in the middle east was necessary (at least in my estimation). Afghanistan was the logical first choice, Iraq was next for a number of reasons.
Trying to cast me as some blood-thirsty troglodyte is just dumb. I'm in favor of the war in Iraq, sure, but I'm not in favor of war just for war's sake. Just because you disagree with me about the necessity of war in Iraq doesn't reflect upon the reasoning behind my opinions.
9/11 wasn't much to go to war over?
Amazing. So I take it you're against the war in Afghanistan as well as the war in Iraq? What should we have done in the face of 9/11, sit and take it like good dhimmi's?
What a retard you are, Woofie.
We have counted them and we've shown you that the number who have died since the invasion are fewer than the number who died at the hand of the oppressive regimes they toiled under. We've saved lives by invading Iraq/Afghanistan. Why you don't get that is beyond me.
Sorry, I must demur. The US death rate for motor vehicle accidents is around 16 per 100,000 population per year. I think the death rate for US military personnel in Iraq must be around 500 per 100,000 per year. This is still not astronomical; it is comparable to, say, the risk of dying of heart disease when you are 60 years old, or the risk of dying of the flu when you're 85.
BBB
The difference? 885 deaths over four years, or about 221 deaths a year. Of course, during Bush's first four years in office we liberated both Afghanistan and Iraq. What did we accomplish, in terms of military victories, during Clinton's first four years in office? I can't think of a thing..
Trying to cast me as some blood-thirsty troglodyte is just dumb.
So what exactly are you trying to say with this? As another poster pointed out, in the military people die on the job. Under Bush, a disproportionate number have died due to hostile action, due to the wars that Bush has engaged in.
You are trying to minimalize the human cost of the war in Iraq. You are attempting to do it by justifying combat deaths, since you propose that, without a war, the same number would have died anyway.
That doesn't make it OK. The jury is still out on whether democracy can be established in either country that we currently occupy. In Afghanistan, they are prosecuting people for the crime of being Christian. In Iraq, the factions are playing out a centuries-old conflict between religious sects. That we can leave behind a western-style democracy in these countries is highly debateable.
No, people like you are trying to maximize it.
I know you are, but what am I? Duh.
I'm just trying to put it in perspective.
You think anyone is going to wake up tomorrow, look at those stats and think "Gosh, war in Iraq isn't so bad after all"? Please.
Ok then, maturity level established.
They might read this post and think, "Huh, things sure haven't gone as bad in Iraq as the liberals/media have lead us to believe."
Because these numbers look different when you put them in context rather than screaming about each and every individual casualty across the front page of the newspapers.
Ok then, maturity level established.
You claim that I'm trying to "maximize" casualties? To what end? How do you support that? You yourself stated recognized that your original post neglected to consider the numbers injured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Your bottom line always comes back to: we're winning the war, and it will be a glorious victory for President George W. Bush. But if by chance we lose, it's the liberals/media/RW bogeyman-of-the-day that are to blame. Fucking pathetic - excuse the language, I am angry too.
You are not prepared to hold accountable those that are responsible for the lack of planning in the Iraq debacle, nor are you prepared to accept any debate on the circumstances that lead up to the war, if it iun any way reflects badly on Bush or the GOP.
The line that liberals and the media have some nefarious agenda that revolves around dislike of the President, a dislike so intense that they would wish defeat on our own country is utterly preposterous. Every time you roll it out, it's another tacit admission that you're running low on excuses for the mistakes made by politicians that you support.
Mark,
I think you attempt to seperate the data based on cause of death is fair, though you should be careful with doing that with statistics, which is part of why I think you shouldn't negelect the total number. For example, by some "cosmic twist of fate" a solider may actually be safer on the battle field than at home, though his likelihood of dying by enemy fire just went way up. This is a very real issue. They aren't going to be robbed as often while on duty, or to die from recreasional activities, or from casual automobile accidents (though they have enough of those on duty accidents). All this is going to pull away from the overal figure proportial to the amount of the population on active duty. Oddly, some health based deaths may also go down because they are ordered to the medic rather than sitting on an illness. Who knows.
Regardless of that, however, I think Rob's point is well made in that the numbers are very low. I still remember talking with a friend at the begining of OIF when there was the major helicopter accident when some 12 marines dies and a few british commandos talking about how the media, even at that juncture, had no appreciation for what that really meant; more people had died from an on duty accident at that point in the war than had from enemy fire. They also don't appreciate the death tolls of earlier wars and major engagments(such as Iwo Jima, Guadacanal, D-Day, Korean and Vietnam). From a military history stand point Iraq and Afghanistan have been stupendous successes, and I think it irks a lot of people when the media isn't getting that at all. When they should be praising the military services for their excellent job and thanking them for their sacrifices they yell about their blood.
Considering the low causlities I think the comment about the price being worth paying is more accurate than you claim, Dave. You can't flip eveything on its head. The point is that if you can't do something major an important and be willing to pay such a low price, is their indeed a price greater than zero that you are willing to pay. I wonder sometimes....
Cheers
Yes, of course it helps with perspective.
Here's a little more:
American Deaths over the Last Three Years Put in Perspective:
• Auto Accidents: 120,000
• Falling Down: 45,000
• Poisoning: 27,000
• Drowning: 12,000
• War in Iraq: 2,300
• Number of Anti-War Protestors in NYC on Sunday: 200
There are 300,000,000 people living in the United States, Pete, 140,000 Americans in Iraq.
You might have given accredited Rush Limbaugh, since he is the source of your "statistics".
If it is "utterly preposterous", then why all of the rhetoric stating that the U.S. is "the real terrorist"? What about Dick Gulag Durbin's statements about Gitmo?
Every time you roll it out, it's another tacit admission that you're running low on excuses for the mistakes made by politicians that you support.
That's a construct of your own making.
The line that liberals and the media have some nefarious agenda that revolves around dislike of the President, a dislike so intense that they would wish defeat on our own country is utterly preposterous.
Oh really?
Two words: Tet Offensive.
Read Giap's memoirs. The Left and the media didn't just wish defeat on America, they caused it.
The battle of Antietam, Sept 17 1862, saw total losses of 3,654 dead and 22,719 wounded. In ONE DAY, not 3 years.
That an average of 250 or so more soldiers have died each year is nothing short of amazing, a military achievement of Epic proportions.
The gutless whiners who demand the impossible, ignore reality and make the USA look bad need a big dose of reality.
Oh mcair? Just divide by 20 (an aproximate that favours your "idea") and you'll see: 6,000 auto accidents, 2,200 falls, 1,300 poisonings, and 600 drowning, vs 2,300 killed in Iraq.
bullwinkle:
robert108:
Eliminationist rhetoric from the right, what a surprise...
"Eliminationist"? That a word? Heh.
Thanks for the laugh at the irony infanticide boy.
> > If the "cost" of this war is too great, then the simple fact of the matter is there is no war that is worth the cost.
> That's fallacious. You can support some wars and oppose others. You can flip your reasoning on its head thusly:
> If the "cost" of this was is not too great, then the simple fact of the matter is ALL wars are worth the cost.
Uhhh. SORRY, Dave -- it's YOUR reasoning which is fallacious. You're saying
"If A then B"
means
"If Not A then Not B"
The only correct logical inversion rule which applies is
"If not ***B*** then Not A"
So no, not so. simply exampled, using your scenario:
"If it's a Duck then it's a Bird"
means
"If it's not a Duck then it's not a Bird."
Duh. It's a Penguin.
Note: "Supporting some wars and opposing others" may still be a justifiable statement -- it just can't be justified using your logical argument.
Why'd the chicken cross the road? Let's murder all the Democrats.
I don't get it.
First of all, yes the numbers of total deaths were pretty close in the years selected.
HOWEVER, there were in the years between 1993-1996 an average of 146,220 more active duty personnel in the armed forces, so OF COURSE, total deaths would be higher.
SECOND. When you choose the years 1997-2000 and when the armed forces were at roughly the exact same levels they were in 2001-2004, the death rate of Bush's term soars by the number of 2000 MORE dead than in Clinton's last 4 years.
Jake,
Your numbers are most interesting... but they beg the question why were the number of active duty armed forces personnel reduced from 1993 thru 1996? If terrorism expert Richard Clarke, Defense Secretary Cohen, National Secrity Advisor "Sandy" Berger, and of course Clinton and AlGore were all doing their jobs... as they have all made such a vehement point to say that they were, why were the number of active duty personnel reduced so drastically inder their watch?
Jake,
My understanding was that the figures were for 100,000 not the total number. Correction anyone?
Thanks
For a more thorough, and "nuanced" review and analysis of these statistics, see Wretchard's post titles "Damed Lies and Statistics" at his blog, The Belmont Club (<a href="http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/%29.
Incidentally">http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/).</..., anyone seriously interested in foreign affairs, national security, and the War on Terrorism, should be reading Belmont daily. There are other bloggers whose views and experiences are more detailed (Dan Darling) or more immediate (Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, or any number of MilBloggers), but there is no one else whose writing is as all-encompassing, insightful, or strategically pertinent. Furthermore, his cast of commenters alone would be well worth any price of admission.
Another thing to note is the high use of Reserve and National Guard soldiers in Iraq.
"For the first nine months of 2005 reservists accounted for 36 percent of U.S. deaths, and for August and September it was 56 percent, according to Pentagon figures."
"Casualties in Iraq have shifted toward citizen soldiers as their combat role has grown to historic levels. National Guard officials say their soldiers have been sent into combat in Iraq in numbers not previously seen in modern times - far more than were sent to Vietnam, where active-duty troops did the vast majority of the fighting."
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,78441,00.html
Oh mcair? Just divide by 20 (an aproximate that favours your "idea") and you'll see: 6,000 auto accidents, 2,200 falls, 1,300 poisonings, and 600 drowning, vs 2,300 killed in Iraq.
140,000 vs 300,000,000 is ratio of about 1:2200. Where'd you get 20 from? Is that the oxycontin math?
You dropped a couple of zeroes, and still the point is bogus.
Was that necessary? Seems so hateful. Just defeat the point using logic.
Oops! Must have skipped that math class... sorry!
Still, one would expect life to be more dangerous in an active war zone, eh? My point about the losses being amazingly LOW still is valid.
Also, regarding Bosnia, Clinton got NATO to go in based on reports of mass murder and mass graves & etc. After 5 years of searching the UN found nothing! Except a couple of faked ones used for photo ops. Of course ethnic cleansing happened after that conflict. Under the watchful approval of Clinton and NATO...
The MSM didn't raise much of a fuss about that 'war under false pretenses' for that did they?
Lik whines: Was that necessary? Seems so hateful. Just defeat the point using logic.
Such a delicate flower aren't you?
Idiots who make bogus points with bogus math deserve mockery. Step right up, there's plenty for you too.
Ending the war in Bosnia? When? Did it happen last night and hasn't made the news yet? We went in without U.N. approval, bombed a friendly country's embassy and we're still there. Oh, I forgot, the Antique MSM never tell anyone that, and the lefties are so forgetful, when it serves their purpose.
As you clearly don't know the difference between Bosnia and Serbia, I think we can just ignore your comment.
His claim was that the US (within NATO) didn't end the war in Bosnia.
They did.
His claim is therefore invalid.
As Kosovo occurred in 1999, it is outside the remit of the analysis of Clinton 1992-1996 versus Bush 2001-2004.
Define liberated...
No. I just asked you a question. Was it necessary? And then I made the point that it seems so hateful. But, you can just excuse your behavior while telling yourself that I must be a "delicate flower" if it makes you feel better.
It would seem that this debate is degenerating into one of how limited the US educational system really is. However let's look at real facts and figures that really show things for what they were.
First.
In the modern age the Democrats have lead the US into battle more than the republicans (major conflicts 4-2)
From WWI through Vietnam the majority of military personnel were drafted or volunteered during very intense mustering periods, often with the bare minimum of training prior to seeing combat within a very short period of time. Arguing that reservists represent a larger number of participants is true, though they are still people that have volunteered to be active members of the military.
During Clinton's eight years in office the average number of enlisted personnel in the US Forces were 1,460,037. Under Bush's first three years of office ('02-04 incl.) the average number of enlisted personnel were 1,415,245. Source: [http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf]
Now to delve further into the American partisan debate; donkey vs. elephant.
Battle Deaths
WWI - 53,402 - Woodrow Wilson, Democratic
WWII - 291,557 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democratic
Korean War - 33,741 - Harry S. Truman, Democratic
Vietnam Conflict - Though 47,424 enlisted personnel deaths were recorded between November 1, 1955, (commencement date for the Military Assistance Advisory Group) through May 15, 1975, (date last American service member left Southeast Asia) I will reserve comment on republican or democratic responsibility for lack of detailed information.
Desert Storm - 147 - Bush - Republican
Source: [http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf]
OIF&OEF - 2,048 - GWB - Republican
Source: [http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-deaths-total.pdf] & [http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/OEFDEATHS.pdf]
So before closing this little history lesson I would like to say that war is not about the number of dead. It is about accomplishing objectives when diplomatic channels have failed or in response to armed attack of sovereign forces or territory. It is in its simplest form a compromise, secede position or protect it. As in all compromises one must weigh the costs, but in doing so it is generally good practice to call a spade a spade, an ass and ass and an elephant an elephant. They all have their uses, but are all useless if brought to job.
Bush as the duly elected Commander in Chief of the US Arm Forces, in a war that Congress voted to involve the country they represent, should be looked at in context. Regardless of the reasons for war, the question is how he has handled it. So far in the context of US military history, OEF&OIF can only be considered successful.
This makes Lil Dub about 1200 times more deadly than Bubba.
The Decider is 1200 times more responsible for US combat deaths than Clinton. That is the true significance of the stats.
On July 27th, from 5:57pm-5:59pm, there were no active American military deaths. If you take this 3-minute interval and extrapolate it back to 2001, when Bush took office, and then average it over the entire time period, you get an average of zero deaths per year.
The MSM and lie-berals want you to think that soldiers are dying in Iraq, but I have clearly proven above that this is a lie. There have actually been zero military deaths under our strong, steadfast leader Bush!! Don't believe the left-wing drive-by media!
Hostile action deaths under Clinton durring major operations-
Haiti ?
Somalia ?
Bosnia ?
I have a hard time getting even close to 4000. So that means that the numbers you are siteing must be accidents, illness, suicide etc.. Or, mostly people who would have died with or without a war.
Bush's figures are different-
Iraq- 3700 aprox as of today
Now granted, only 2300-2500 were hostile action. But, of those 2300 to 2500, most of them would be alive today without war.
However, please don't think that I am not supportive of the war efforts. I'm just pointing out how flawed your statistics are. I truly want Iraq to be as stable as possible before we leave, and if that requires our military presense; so be it. Unfortunately, I am having a hard time seeing the benefits of the War. In fact, I think we have made things more complicated than they were.
Now we can all agree that a few innocent civilians have died in the war. In fact, Rush Limbaugh even confirmed that at least 10 have died as a result of the invasion (Sorry about the Sarcasm). You might say, "what's the big deal? More civilians died while Sadam was in power!" Which may be true; but, now the finger is being pointed at us, instead of Sadam because we are in charge. What's my point? We are creating a breading ground for people to hate us.
Every time a civilian is killed by militia gun squads, suicide bombers, or accidentel fire, you can not tell me that they don't in some way blame us for the situation. How many lives have changed for the worse due to our intervention? Do think that these people might be good terrorist canidates?
During which time President Bush had to deal with both the Clinton recession and the Clinton-enabled losses from 9/11.
Due to hostile action - 1
Due to homicide - 288
Due to illness - 774
Self-inflicted - 906
Terrorist attack - 55
Undetermined/Pending - 37
2001-2004 Bush
Total deaths - 5187
Due to accident - 2109
Due to hostile action - 1102
Due to homicide - 181
Due to illness - 859
Self-inflicted - 632
Terrorist attack - 55
Undetermined/Pending - 258
Something those numbers are missing...
Total number of active duty troops?
Provided they were at the same level please tell me what level they were and I'll correct this.
130 less died due to accident. (If I'm in a war zone I'm probably being more careful... not drinking and driving etc...)
107 less due to homicide.. (Most military homicide happens off duty in the states and more are on duty during war...)
85 more due to illness.. (A war zone is a harsh environment that takes a toll on the body.)
237 less self-inflicted.. (War usually raises this number... I'm at a loss on this number, but I guess they have more reason to live???)
Not counting undetermined.. the War has cost us 1101 war time casualties and saved 385 peacetime that would put actual "Cost" and that term I use loosely for how do you judge the cost of any life, around 700 as an actual cost. The war in Iraq has cost more Iraqi lives and saved more Iraqi lives than any other human toll... How many insurgents have been killed? terrorists? Are these numbers higher than 700? Is one U.S. Soldier's life worth killing 1, 2, 5, 10, or even 100 of your enemy?
In my own personal summary as a man who has served under both Presidents in the USMC, I take a quote from John Stuart Mill, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Today fighting for the freedom of others are 100K+ good men and women who do their job whether they agree with the war or not. It is our job as citizens to do everything we can to support them. No war is a good war, but if your going to go to war then you'd better win or even 1 life was too high of a cost. 1 life is too high of a cost for a lost war. 1 life is too high of a cost for a "good" war, but then again no war is a good war. Both the left extremist pacifists, and the far right who would exert their will upon the world have valid view points. On one hand "the left" no war is worth it. This is very true. No War has ever been or is worth the loss of a single life and in a perfect world war would be unnecessary. But, on the other hand "the right" we don't live in anything approaching a perfect world, so while still not worth the loss some wars are necessary.
The only thing that comes to mind is the questioning of the start of any war, but after we are there you can't turn back, you can't withdraw or you lose, then 700 were lost for nothing. My drill instructor is listed among the casualties and having known him I'm not surprised as he was a good soldier through to the core. I have had friends injured and so far every single one of them (whether they support the war or not) has told me the same thing. We need to finish the job. I'm all for bringing the troops home, but let's get the job done first.
P.S. I was looking for some statistics when I came across this site. I am an independant who voted for both Clinton(and re-election) and Bush(and re-election as the lesser of two bad choices), based on their beliefs on individuals issues and their platform as a whole. I do not agree with most of the leadership of either party currently and am disgusted with the current state of partisan politics, but I will still vote come election day more as a tribute to all those that came before me than for any other reason.
One final note: Whether or not you support the war, please support the troops.
[url=http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_more_soldiers_die_during_bill_clintons.html]http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_more_soldiers_die_during_bill_clintons.html[/url]
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
U.S. military deaths below 26-year average
Annual toll in Bush years down despite 4,000 fatalities in Iraq
Posted: April 25, 2008
12:10 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON -- Despite suffering 4,000 deaths in Iraq, annual U.S. military casualties overall during the first six years of the Bush administration are well below the average for the 26-year period beginning in 1980, a WND investigation has revealed.
Even in 2005, the deadliest year of the Iraq campaign, U.S. troop fatalities around the world, including Afghanistan, were lower than the first nine years of the study -- when the Cold War was still raging in a time of relative peace.
In 2005, a total of 1,942 U.S. military personnel were killed in all causes, including accidents, hostile action, homicides, illnesses, suicides, etc. That compares to 2,392 in 1980, the last year of President Jimmy Carter's administration. In fact, twice as many U.S. military personnel were killed in accidents in that one year than were killed in hostile actions in any year of the Bush administration.
The analysis of statistics compiled by the Department of Defense also shows, despite a major increase in deaths due to hostile actions beginning in 2003 with the advent of the Iraq war, the annual toll on U.S. troops did not skyrocket above peacetime norms as many might expect. For instance, in 1993, the first year of the peacetime Clinton administration, 1,293 U.S. servicemen lost their lives -- just 649 fewer than in 2005, the hottest year of the Iraq war.
As of yesterday, a total of 4,044 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.
The British military has reported 176 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.
Iraqi military deaths since the beginning of the war are estimated at between 4,900 and 6,375, while Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at between 82,856 and 90,390.
"You regret every casualty, every loss," Vice President Dick Cheney said last month while on a trip to the Middle East. "The president is the one that has to make that decision to send young men and women into harm's way. It never gets any easier."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Americans are asking how much longer their troops must sacrifice for an Iraqi government "that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future."
"Americans also understand that the cost of the war to our national security, military readiness and our reputation around the world is immense and that the threat to our economy -- as the war in Iraq continues to take us deeper into debt -- is unacceptable," Pelosi said.
The U.S. has about 158,000 troops in Iraq. That number is expected to drop to 140,000 by summer in drawdowns meant to erase all but about 8,000 troops from last year's increase.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, told a campaign audience in Pennsylvania she would honor the fallen by ending the war and bringing home U.S. troops "as quickly and responsibly as possible." Her rival for the nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, said "It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future."
Not getting into long term trillion dollar conflict for two.
Not pissing off the rest of the civilized world for three.
Glad to stumble your article. The total military dead in the first five years (2003- Feb 2008) Iraq / Afghanistan war was 3,964. We are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Protestors like code-pink protest but when peacetime arrives they have no idea of how many military die in the service of their country. In fact, their protest seem not be concerned with American deaths but for those of our enemies.