The truth re: Iraq War Casualties

[Furyous]

As a member of the American Committees on Foreign Relations I receive regular newsletters regarding hot topics in foreign affairs. I found this report to be eye opening. Read it through and feel free to discuss....

ITEM 6: Doug Nagan: Casualties in Perspective

Doug Nagan
There is much hand wringing and beating of breasts about the casualties that
> are occurring in the Iraqi conflict and the war on terrorism. I got to doing
> some research to find out just how bad the story might be from a historical
> perspective. What I found surprised me and puts things in a whole new
> perspective.
>
> The Congressional Research Service (CRS), a part of the Library of Congress,
> has published a report on military fatalities that to the best of my
> knowledge has never been reported in newspapers or on
> television. Anyone accustomed to believing the views expressed on television
> or printed in newspapers is in for a dramatic surprise with respect to
> military fatalities over the years, including during the Iraq war.
>
> No one wants to have casualties at any time, and discussing them is not
> pleasant. But the CRS statistics below present an entirely different view
> of the Iraq War fatalities than the view presented to the American people by
> the media.
>
> Military Military
> Year Fatalities Year Fatalities
>
> 1980 2,392 1993 1,213
> 1981 2,380 1994 1,075
> 1982 2,318 1995 1,040
> 1983 2,465 1996 974
> 1984 1,999 1997 817
> 1985 2,252 1998 826
> 1986 1,984 1999 795
> 1987 1,983 2000 774
> 1988 1,819 2001 890
> 1989 1,636 2002 1,007
> 1990 1,508 2003 1,410 534*
> 1991 1,787 2004 1,887 900*
> 1992 1,293 2005 1,942 919*
> 2006 1.858 920*
>
> * The asterix identifies fatalities in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
> Operation Enduring Freedom only
>
> The statistics show that the loss from the two current conflicts in the
> Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during many years
> of Mr.Clinton's presidency.
>
> What this clearly indicates is that the national media and many of our
> politicians pick and choose (what a surprise) presenting only those facts
> that support their agenda or bias.
>
> Another fact presented is that these brave men and women losing their lives
> are primarily minorities. But the latest census shows the following:
>
> European descent (white) 69.12%
> Hispanic 12.4%
> African American 12.3%
> Asian 3.7%
> Native American 1.0%
> Other 2.6%
>
>
> Indeed, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
>
> European descent (white) 74.31%
> Hispanic 10.74%
> African American 9.67%
> Asian 1.81%
> Native American 1.09%
> Other 2.33%
>
>
> These statistics are published by the Department of Defense and may be
> viewed at:
>
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
>
> Attached is a full copy of the report in PDF format.
>
> It certainly appears to me that the media has been presenting a very skewed
> approach to the story. Read the report and make up your own mind.

[Stinger]

http://www.flashdemo.net/gallery/wake/index.htm

[Pirate Hooker with Monkey]

What about the 27,767 wounded since the begining of Iraqi Freedom?
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm
I'm guessing that life in a wheelchair or without their limbs is probably just as bad as death for some.

Although I must admit that the numbers above put a nice spin on the data, you have to look at the WHOLE picture. Between 1993 - 2001 (The Clinton Years), there were only 4...yes 4...military deaths due to hostile action. From 2001 to 2006, there were 2593. A 648% increase!!?!?! Can you see how easily you can spin the numbers back again?

Here's another ridiculous way that author spins numbers: "The statistics show that the loss from the two current conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during many years of Mr.Clinton's presidency."

Well DUH.....the article takes the 8 Clinton years of ALL (accidents included) military deaths and compares them to data from JUST the 4 years of Iraq war deaths (accidental deaths NOT included), and says "Wow, there were more during Clinton." No shit sherlock. Didn't they teach this guy that you can't compare apples to oranges back in elementary school? 8 years vs. 4? All deaths (accidental included) vs. hostile deaths (no accidents)? Is this a valid comparison?

Let's look at some TRUE statistics:

In the last four Clinton years, 3198 active military died (due to ALL causes of death), and in the last four Bush years, 6902 died (due to ALL causes). A 46% increase. How does this stand up to the his above statment? He might want to reconsider the name of his article, "The Truth Regarding...." LOL! Who's really skewing the picture?

So any way you spin these numbers, it is clear that a large chunk of military deaths occur regardless of whether it is wartime or not, however for EVERY ONE greiving mother draping a flag over her son's casket in the year 2000, we now have TWO. That's a statistic I'm not willing to support.



I support our troops.
I do not support US foreign policy.
Being a patriot does not require that you support the latter.


*EDIT* I used the data from here: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/index.html
The Department of Defense
The data in Furyous' post was supplied by The Federation of American Scientists.
Upon close examination, both tables were the same.

[TJ60]

god help if u lived during the Vietnam war era maija. Were at war and the deaths barely doubled, I think thats some sort of good news if u take in the amount of deaths in the Vietnam war. I was a Bush supporter, until he turned his back on the american people and refuses to do anything to help them. The war was started under false pretenses but i will not say there was no need for it. Its should have been done 12 years earlier. My buddy was telling me the other day that Hussien was willing to take a payoff to leave Iraq, but the terms of the deal couldn't be met. Something about the US had to admit to having helped Iraq with it's WMD program....did anyone else hear about this?

[Pirate Hooker with Monkey]

god help if u lived during the Vietnam war era maija.

Why do you say that? :dunno:

I never said anything about the number of casualties in comparison to other wars, I simply pointed out that the author of the article used a totally flawed comparison. You can't take the number of deaths (hostile and non-hostile) in the entire 8 years of the Clinton Administration and compare them to the deaths in Iraq (hostile only) over the last four years....then try to pass it on as some political dogma. It's not a valid comparison.


Look at the total military deaths in each administration....and the numbers tell the truth.

I was pointing out how people can twist the numbers to their advantage if they only take a small portion of the source population, and unfortunately some people believe everything they read without asking where the data came from and what is the big picture?

For the record, the fact that we've only doubled in annual casualties since the beginning of the Iraq war is a testament to the quality of soldiers and improved technology of today's armed services.

But can't I still be upset that young men and women are dying? :dunno:

[TJ60]

My point is everyone is so upset about the number of people dying in a war in 4 years is less than probably 6 months of the previous war that was longer than 6 months that the US has engaged in. It's still a war soldiers will die, threatening to take away funds for the soldiers is not the way to end it. It's just a way to get more soldiers killed. Believe it or not the increase in troops has lowered the amount of deaths.


p.s.
it really wasn't directed towards you maija, you were just the first person that replied.

[Colonel Sanders]

Yeah I for one hate the guys that get all emo and shit about the deaths in Iraq, sure it sad and they are dying for no reason blah blah....everyone knows that and hates Bush yeah.

But the amount of deaths is hardly anything to write home. Any given soldier fighting in Iraq right now has less than 1% chance of dying - fact. This isn't World War 2 or a major war...yes I said it. The invasion of Iraq is not a major war...Invading Iran would not be a major war either. And it will not be a major war until the acceptable losses ratio go up 50 fold.

Not to mention 70% of our "brave U.S. soldiers" there are just young guys who have full killing things, firing weapons and detonating explosives...while at the same time having fun with their buddies, you get to do all that and you still know that you have less than 1% chance of dying, and while your at it you might get to kill a Muslim. Sounds pretty fun to me, and even though the tours can last a little long I believe a lot of those young soldiers feel the same way.

[the squid of despair]

Not to mention 70% of our "brave U.S. soldiers" there are just young guys who have full killing things, firing weapons and detonating explosives...while at the same time having fun with their buddies, you get to do all that and you still know that you have less than 1% chance of dying, and while your at it you might get to kill a Muslim. Sounds pretty fun to me, and even though the tours can last a little long I believe a lot of those young soldiers feel the same way.

Speaking from experience, you have no idea what you're talking about...

[Colonel Sanders]

The only way you would have experience is if you were a soldier thats been to Iraq and carried out operations that involved a weapon and breaking shit.

And even so, you don't speak for everyone. Granted neither do I, I'm sure quite a few soldiers would disagree, but I believe I am pretty accurate for the majority. Also you have to take into account that they would not admit what I said to hardly anyone but their buddies; certainly not to officers or the media.

[the squid of despair]

The only way you would have experience is if you were a soldier thats been to Iraq and carried out operations that involved a weapon and breaking shit.

No shit, like I said from experience.

And even so, you don't speak for everyone. Granted neither do I, I'm sure quite a few soldiers would disagree, but I believe I am pretty accurate for the majority. Also you have to take into account that they would not admit what I said to hardly anyone but their buddies; certainly not to officers or the media.

You're very wrong for the majority, like I said you have no idea what you're talking about so just stop.

[HellRaiser]

In the end it all comes back to "Justification" of any war.
Very rarely is there ever any BONIFIED justification.
So what ya have here is many soldiers killed, thousands upon thousands of soldiers wounded and disabled for absolutely nothing.
A senseless war built upon major propaganda that has absolutely nothing to do with safety or security of American soil or American people.

Sad Really!