A Hard Look at Casualty Numbers

I expect that any demographic of several million people would probably include a similar level of annual deaths, probably slightly lower due to less overall danger, but similar. The key thing to remember in Iraq is that the number of soldiers directly in combat has been small. The huge majority of our forces have beeen doing things other than actually shooting at insurgents. Those things can be dangerous (very much so) at times, but it's not the day-to-night fighting associated with a typical war that produces tens of thousands of casualties a year.

Excellent piece - it is good to know that attacking the wrong nation is only slightly more dangerous that sitting stateside in sewage filled barracks.

That said, did the CRS run the numbers for how many stateside-based/peacetime members of the military ended up with PTSD, amputations, burned body parts, disfigured faces, massive brain injuries?

Or does the Republican-mentality believe that death is the only injury that occures in peacetime and wartime?

Has anyone done an overall casualty rate analysis on this data? I'm sure one of the reasons overall casualty totals are down is that there are fewer people in our armed forces now than earlier.

Look at any death total in the US for anything, such as teens killed in accidents each year.

"Each Year over 5000 teens ages 16 to 20 Die due to Fatal injuries caused Car accidents" via Google.

All military and car deaths are tragedies. Yet, one needs to put things in perspective. The Iraq war deaths are low when compared with prior wars, and most other deaths by type. The Democrats are not really concerned about our soldiers, but are going after Bush. They are not concerned about what happens if we left Iraq a mess, but are going after Bush. Such hatred is unbelievable?

Here are the " Quietist numbers in Washington , The Media and on The left .
17, 327 Human Beings have been murdered in America in those same years in Iraq and Afghanistan .
Last I checked there is no War in America . No ?

The anonymous leftard above is so typical of its species. If one doesn't care for the facts and numbers presented, just change the argument to try to include things that weren't part of the original statement. Try denying that facts are facts. Blame it on the evil Republicans (it's a vast plot, you know) - even though congress and its various adjuncts are controlled by the dimocRATs. Deny! Deny! Deny! Whatever you do, don't allow an unpleasent reality intrude on Cloud-Cuckoo Land or the serenity of its brain-dead obamabots.

Anonymous,

People like me and millions upon millions of others have volunteered to serve our country; we raised our hands and gave an oath to serve...that includes giving our life, an arm or any other part of our body to serve our nation. I did not join the military to get an education or join a country club, I did it to serve people like yourself, your family and perhaps your children who I believe deserve to live in a free democratic country; the United States of America.

When our country is attacked we do not send civilians or lawyers into battle, we send the military. The invasion of Iraq was/is about far more than oil or WMD; it was about extending our own liberties to millions of innocent people trapped in a brutal part of the world, one I suspect you have never traveled to. All barbaric regimes threaten the very peace you and the rest of the free world enjoy every day; most likely you will never wake up with a gun pointed to your head or watch your children dragged from your house because you live in a civil society.

As you well know the cast of characters who perpetrated 9/11 have no country but they did and still do have sponsors; taking down those sponsors as well the enemy are what has prevented further attacks on the United States.

Death or Injury caused by war or peace within the military is not welcomed by anyone, but if you ask everyone who volunteered to serve I bet they will all say they are willing to put their lives and limbs on the line so you can have the ability to speak your mind without fear.

Best Regards,

B.A. Hokom

Anonymous brings up a good point about stateside injuries in the same time period. For instance, I saw many injuries to airborne soldiers after a training jump which did not result in death.
But I'm curious, where did the 'sewage filled barracks' comment come from? Has Anonymous lived on a military base?

To the Left, all veterans are either victims or war criminals. Don't confuse them with facts. It only makes them petulant.

Yet, one needs to put things in perspective. The Iraq war deaths are low when compared with prior wars, and most other deaths by type. The Democrats are not really concerned about our soldiers, but are going after Bush. They are not concerned about what happens if we left Iraq a mess, but are going after Bush. Such hatred is unbelievable?

=====================
Fabuloius - "Iraqi war deaths are low when compared with prior wars"!! There would NOT BE ANY Iraqi deaths if GW 'No, I don't want to fly over Vietnam' Bush hadn't invaded a country that had NOT attacked us!

Those 4100+ American servicemen died for attacking a country we did not need to attack.
Face it - YOU killed them!

I think that both the reduction of accidents and the decline of overall military size have contributed to the decline in military active duty deaths which began in 1980. Here's a chart that I did for 1980-2007 as of Apr 22, 2008. http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i82/ForNow_2006/USMilDeath19802007d.gif. The chart doesn't show overall size of the military.

The anonymous leftard above is so typical of its species. If one doesn't care for the facts and numbers presented, just change the argument to try to include things that weren't part of the original statement. Try denying that facts are facts. Blame it on the evil Republicans (it's a vast plot, you know) - even though congress and its various adjuncts are controlled by the dimocRATs. Deny! Deny! Deny! Whatever you do, don't allow an unpleasent reality intrude on Cloud-Cuckoo Land or the serenity of its brain-dead obamabots.
--------------------
You crack me up!! The Bush Admin didn't care for the facts and numbers presented by CIA, Pentagon, State Department, etc etc, about Saddam so they changed them to fit their desires to be Heroic! Honestly, don't you guys read anything but RNC talking Points??

Talk about projection - eveything you accuse normal people of wanting to do, you have already done yourself!

But I'm curious, where did the 'sewage filled barracks' comment come from? Has Anonymous lived on a military base?

=================================
Here you go (and don't firget, these barracks exist despite the GOP's love of the Military - what a shame GHW Bush started cutting the military budgets, huh):

Dad's video of run-down barracks sparks military response - CNN.com
A soldier battles overflowing sewage in the Fort Bragg barracks shortly after ... Photos from the communal bathroom show some of the most disgusting images. ...
www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/28/barracks.bragg/index.html - 80k - Cached - Similar pages

As you well know the cast of characters who perpetrated 9/11 have no country but they did and still do have sponsors; taking down those sponsors as well the enemy are what has prevented further attacks on the United States.

--------------
How stupid are you all?? Most of the 9/11 attackers had a country - SAUDI ARABIA! The Saudi's are well-know for funding terrioirst activities... but did we attack Saudi Arabia..NOOOO... we can't do that because GOP Elites have major financial ties to the country!

So better to attack Iraq.

Oops! The data are not normalized, and therefore misleading. In order to compare apples to apples, we need at a minimum, active duty deaths per 1000 soldiers. Also we should compare similiar populations, i.e. combat deaths per 1000 combat soldiers of different conflicts. We already know, for example, the nature of warfare has become far less lethal, in terms of deaths wounds and sicknesses, due to the technology and forward positioned medical capabilities.

It is certainly appropriate to compare, say, the murder rate in Philidelphia to Bagdad -- from all causes. Phily, that city of brotherly love, is more dangerous than Baghdad, if I'm not mistaken. Now, if true, that's a statistic. It's less save in a Democrat controlled city than an Iraqi "hotbed."

Regardless, we lost more soldiers to death and injury in two weeks (June 6 - 20, 1944) of D-Day +14 than all of 6 years of Iraq. And of course, every casualty is a profound loss. As a percentof committed forces, France, in the summer of '44, was far more lethal.

While many Americans, including some leftists, are actually unhappy about the US military combat deaths, I tend to regard many leftists' concern about it as phony. I remember, before the invasion, leftists in conversation saying that they hoped that the US would "get bloodied," lose 20,000 or so troops in combat, and thus "learn its lesson."

Anonymous-
So the answer is no, you haven't lived on a base?
Thanks for the link but I don't understand your point.
When I was at Bragg I had to clean an unused bathroom of mold and mildew before I could use it while I was doing some training. Big deal, the Army taught me how to clean, I put it to good use. Are you a whiner all the time or just on this blog?

B.A Hokom, you are wrong, most of the 9/11 attackers did have a country - Saudi Arabia!

The Sauds have funded terrorism for decades but so we do something about it?? Of course not, not when our very own President had to be tutored on Foreign Affairs by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia!

Interesting article, guy. But how do these figures stand against people murdered/killed by drunk driving by illegal aliens since 9/11. If the figures hold up that were offered by Rep. Steve King R-Iowa, those figures are roughly 62,000 deaths. If we are at war it appears there are a lot more American being killed by another invader that the federal government refuses to deal with properly.

'Anonymous' the name sort of says it all. Can't even own up to your beliefs, huh?

Never mind that it was Pres. Clinton that made it the foreign policy of the U.S. to "actively seek regime change in Iraq". Well, the regime's been changed, pal. And those brave Americans and Iraqis who died did not do so in vain. Millions of human beings are now free to form their own self-government in a part of the world that is woefully deficient in that area. The rape rooms are closed, and the court system is functioning. Yes, many have suffered. War is horrible. That is why Saddam Hussein should have chosen another course, like maybe responding to a few of those 17 U.N. ultimatums handed down prior to the war. Or maybe by showing everybody that he really wasn't a threat--just a misunderstood fuzzy bear dictator. The fault of this war lies right on top of whatever grave So-damn Insane Hussein is buried in. Everything could have been avoided if he had chosen wisely, instead of poorly.
Libs like you crack me up. You deny the existence of evil and you refuse to confront it even when it is a clear and present danger. ( Check the votes from Congress-- it wasn't just the President who felt that way.) And you know which country is no longer threatening the US? Iraq. You can cross that one off the list, thanks to the United States Military Machine, and may God bless every one of them.

Don't forget that the overall deaths (2003: 1,410, 2004: 1,873, 2005 1,941 and 2006: 1,875) include deaths in not just Iraq, but also Afghanistan.

So we have fewer military deaths per year while we are engaged in two simultaneous wars than while we are at peace. Hmmmm.

All I can say to all of you in the military is, you are the BEST!

It certainly is reassuring to know that Mr. (or Ms.?) Anonymous is tackling the great and pressing issue of our day: Dirty Army Barracks. "Martha Stewart goes camo"? And this good news follows on the heels of Barry's plan to pump up everybody's tires. If the Lefties can just find a VP to wash our windshields they will truly be "the ones we have been waiting for"!

Anonymous: answer these questions. How did the first Gulf War end? What were the terms and conditions of that end? Who had the burden of proof to show he did NOT have a weapons program as per the terms of the end of that first war? Who did not provide that proof? What president supported a bill that called for the eventual regime change in Iraq (hint, it wasn't GWB)? What did Congress do in relation to our armed forces going into Iraq? What other causus beli were there for the Iraq War and how did they relate to the WMD issue in importance? Do we have a conscripted military force or an all volunteer force? What is Oil for Food and who/what nations were involved in it that might be resistant to changing the regime in Iraq? In the UN, what nation provides the majority of the force necessary to carry out its own Security Council Resolutions? Where is the oil that has been "stolen" if this was a war for oil? Who is now benefiting from all of that oil as we speak? Who is shouldering most of the cost of rebuilding Iraq even while that oil begins to flow again? In US History since the Spanish American War, which party has started more wars?

There are legitimate criticisms of any war America enters. That it is illegal, that it has been too costly or that it is immoral are not among them. You don't have to lie about the war (which the left does almost exclusively) to be against it.

My only initial reservation about the war was strategic and in some ways how the initial occupation was handled. In light of how it has gone, I have lost even those reservations. This is a war we have fought and won, and the region will be a better place because of a second Democratic society in this region (guess the other one. Hint: it isn't an Arab state). Soldiers understand sacrifice. They deserve our support to finish the job and make their efforts worthwhile.

You need to find a narrative that involves reality.

I find interesting that the isolationist Left devotes so much energy delving into the casualty rates of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Is the Left betraying political frustration because of their own impotence, or are they showing genuine concern for the tragic demise of some of our troops? Maybe it is a case of schadenfreude involving the misfortune of our troops. If there is genuine concern for our troops as human beings, why is there not moral concern expressed for the large number of citizens killed within the USA? During each year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more than 16,000 murders were committed in the United States. Where is the moral outrage of the Left for those victims? Yes, each and every year we were in Iraq, four times more people were killed domestically than all the combined years of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our dead heroes in Iraq volunteered for their critical but dangerous duties. We thank and respect them for that. But residents in the USA were often pure victims. I don't hear the left wailing for them, probably since there is no political benefit.

It's an Iron Law of Internet Life: if you have a blog DO NOT expel trolls, because trolls bring traffic, and traffic brings revenue-enhancing eyeballs.

Maybe five years from now what's left of AOL will tell you "five things blogs don't want you to know", and the Iron Law will be in the Top Five.

But by then you will all consider the info old news.

Until then you should all remember the Prime Directive: Do Not Feed the Trolls"!!!!!!!!

It never ceases to amaze me that men and women like B.A. Hokom can raise there right hand and swear to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States and in so doing allow men and women like "Anonymous" the opportunity to go through life in blissful ignorance spouting whatever vacuousness that happens to fall between their ears.

The real irony is that they'd be behind our armed forces 100% if their own hides are on the line. Right behind them.

Anonymous --

Go back and read the statements made by many prominent Democrats many times during the 1990's -- Clinton (both of them), Gore, Kerry, Albright, and a cast of others. Do the same with intelligence reports prepared by our European allies, the Defense and State Departments, and the CIA during the same timeframe. You can find hundreds of sources with a 5 minute Google search.

Every one of them said 1) Saddam has WMD and 2) he is a threat that needs to be dealt with (and, no, Oil for Food doesn't count as an effective deterrent). The Congress, including a majority of Democrats, approved the move into Iraq after 9/11.

Only later did you crapweasels come up with the Bush lied, people died mantra. If Bush lied, then so did all the Rats who said the same thing.

Go and sell your BS at Kos, DU, or Huffington. Those morons will believe anything as long as it is anti-US.

Anonymous -

You sure are smart. Have you ever seen the show Real Time? It's totally cool - like you - lots of really smart people that are fed up with all the crap and facism in Amerika.

Have you heard of Barack Obama? He's, like, this amazing guy that's totally above all the Bush/Cheney war crimes crap. I think I'm going to vote for him. Are you?

Hey, did you hear that there's this theory that 9/11 is actually like a thing that Bush made happen so he could kill people and get the oil? I read about it on this totally cool site called Huffington Post.

Oh, Dad's calling. He's got this bogus rule that if I'm going to live in the guest house I have to take out the trash and do chores. As soon as I snag the Asst. Mgr. spot at Starbucks I'm outta here.

Keep up the good work! People like you and me gotta stick together. Fight the Power!

If you wanted to take a hard look, you would convert those raw casualty numbers to per capita. This would control for changes in military size over those years. There is likely to be more random deaths in larger populations than smaller. And remember, we shrunk the size of the military rather dramatically following the cold war. Per capita presentation of those figures would be more informative. No matter, though, if you want an apt comparison you must include non-fatal casualties as well, including psychiatric casualties. And as a former soldier, I find something rather distressing in this type of calculus.

Anonymous,
Thank you for your insite to military life. I'm sure this has never happened to the civilian community (I spent two days cleaning up a mess on three floors because some idiot thought it would be fun to flush a roll of toilet paper down a commode. The poor military, oh if I could have it that easy.
We have 4,100 good freedom loving Americans die in Iraq (for What?) after all Saddam Hussein was on killing 2,000 peace loving citizen a month. Bush lied there were no WMD's, even though Saddam's own Generals beleived there were? And don't forget the 500 tons of uraniun that took four years to remove.
You wnat a military budget cut? Here goes- Clinton cut all branches, active and reserve, by 30%. He then moved all combat troops(infantry, armor, and artillary) from the Reserve to National Guard (that means that the State they were in picked up 25% of their operating, training, maintaince, and supply cost. That is why the National Guard from various States are activated, not because Bush wanted to but because he had to!!
I could continue but anyone who continually signs anonymous doesn't deserve the respect that freedom loving Americans die for just defending your ignorance of the situation.

Anonymous...

When looked at rationally, the human cost of the Iraq War is militarily insignificant...deaths and serious injuries in this war are phenomenally low both in raw numbers and in rate -- no matter which statistical analysis method is used; and while each of those deaths and serious injuries is a tragedy, the price we have paid in blood and treasure during this war is minuscule compared to the price of the war we avoided by going into Iraq.

All that stuff about bringing democracy to oppressed Iraqis and freeing them from Saddam's Ba'athist oppression, while true, has almost nothing to do with the real reasons we're there. And none of those reasons have anything to do with cheap oil for us or 'our friends' in Europe and Asia. Clearly, Grand Strategic Thinking is not within your skills portfolio. The Iraq War is the kinetic phase of the unrestricted economic warfare we are conducting the greatest economic and greatest potential military adversary threat this country has ever faced or will face..this is a multi-decade war that will take many faces and is being fought on fronts that that often don't produce headlines but are just as important to our ultimate national survival as the battles in the streets of Baghdad or Fallujah.

The asymmetrical warfare and terror tactics employed by radical Islamic extremists, while dangerous, horrendous, and grotesque are of little real threat because the American political-economic structure brings a weight to the fight that the enemy's zeal cannot overcome. In the end, the United States does not merely defeat its enemies -- we grind them into oblivion, and these primitives will eventually be relegated to just another verse in the Marine Corps Hymn and the Army Song.

So great is our underlying strength that this nation can absorb and then slough-off even the sophomoric ideology of the American and internationalist political Left.

So, go whine about your trivialities and then feel morally superior to everyone -- and leave the business of defending this nation to people who know what planet they're on.

The people around George W. Bush are brilliant and our President was smart enough to understand both the problem and the solution; courageous enough to execute the actions required to conduct this phase of the effort; and strong enough to stand his ground in the face of the torrent of vitriol thrown his way by specious, self-absorbed, self-serving, power-mad buffoons whose only goal was and is to reacquire and hold onto political power -- regardless of the cost to and impact on the nation's well-being.

Anon-a-moose may only speak because there are 230 years of freedom behind him. Freedom he neither understands or respects. Freedom that allows him to sleep knowing there will be no knock-on-the-door at his house tonight. Sleep well 'moose. Enjoy Thursday, too. America's clock seems to be ticking; somewhat under 100 days to Nov. 4. Remember: my First Amendment is yours, too.

Military deaths are tragedies, any way you look at it. But the numbers are good news, overall, when put in perspective.

Hm... I wonder why I do not hear about this in the legacy media?

What "sewage filled barracks" is this dildoe Mojo talking about? I spent 30 years in the Army, as both enlisted man and officer, and I never saw any such thing. In fact, the civilian world rarely achieves the levels of cleanliness and order that are common on military installations.

Americans = Patriots
Anonymous = Hate-triot

Sometime one must simplify to establish a base of understanding. I love my country in ways that command my very soul to want the best for her. From my efforts, I shall reap the benefits and blessings earned as a citizen.
Yes, EARNED. You commie, America loathing, nut jobs need to get a more positive view on the United States and the world. That just help generate a long lost feeling of "Yes I can, for us all" rather than a sense of "Yes you will for me."

Give it a whirl, sonny!