Posted on 04/22/2004 1:59:47 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Is the War in Iraq becoming like the War in Vietnam once was? No, if you look at the facts on the blood cost of the war. Yes, if you’re still stuck in the tie-died mind set of Woodstock. To explain:
A number of apparently reputable media outlets in the United States have fostered the equation of Iraq equals Vietnam by breathlessly reporting of late that “US casualties in Iraq have reached levels not seen since Vietnam.” This demonstrates both historical ignorance and political bias. The bias is intended to promote the “quagmire” merchants. But the facts are far easier to demonstrate as false.
First, that claim ignores the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport when Ronald Reagan was President. That killed 271 Marines. It also ignores the attacks on 9/11 which killed both civilians and uniformed fire and police personnel, almost 3,000 in total – more than were killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the US into World War II.
But more importantly, the equating of Iraq and Vietnam ignores the history of American deaths in battle in all the wars the nation has fought, beginning with the American Revolution. By this standard, the War in Iraq has been the LEAST costly war in our history as measured by the most valuable cost, young men sent in harm’s way who paid the ultimate price. Here are the statistics:
War Deaths KIA/Mo. Proportionate Revolutionary War 4,435 55 5,500 War of 1812 2,260 75 3,750 Mexican War 1,733 87 2,900 Civil War: Union 110,070 2,293 Confederate 74,524 1,553 Combined 184,594 3,846 38,460 Spanish-American 385 96 384 World War I 53,513 2,816 8,448 World War II 292,131 6,639 15,370 Korean War 33,651 909 1,636 Vietnam War 47,369 526 842 Gulf War 148 148 264 Iraq War (to date) 500 42 42
The table from the Defense Department which provides these statistics includes much additional information not shown here. It shows non-combat deaths, which were highest in the Civil War at 373,458 for both sides, or substantially more than those who were killed in combat. Disease, not bullets, was the primary killer of soldiers in that war. Military medicine was in its infancy then.
The last column is not in the Defense Department chart. I calculated it by applying the proportion of deaths in the US population during the war in question to the current population of the United States. The Census Bureau does not provide separate summaries of the populations of the Union and Confederacy during the Civil War, so only the combined total of deaths on both sides is projected as a modern blood cost....
Maybe because you're setting up a straw man. Biased or not, the media is correct. However, for one to defend the war saying essentially, 'it's not even as bad as the civil war' is illogical. What foreign soil was the civil war fought on? What country were we fighting against? Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys? What were 'we' fighting about? I think there are much better analogies one could make than using the civil war in the defense of the Iraq offensive.
In all other wars, the percentage of those who served, who died of all causes, has been 2.5%. And in the last four wars, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War and now Iraq, the percentage of deaths has been substantially less than 1% of all who served.
By printing cold statistics, by no means do I denigrate the loss of any single life in any war. These numbers represent one by one the fathers, husbands, and sons (and today mothers, wives and daughters) who took up the cause, went off to war, and returned to a decorated grave. But from these statistics, the LEAST bloody war we have ever fought is this one, with 42 deaths per month compared with the second-lowest total of 55 per month in the American Revolution.
But that isn’t a fair comparison. In all prior wars, the population of the United States was less, sometimes very much less, than it is today. The total blood cost to a society is in proportion to the total population. In 1776, the “United States of America” that was born in that war contained slightly less than 3 million people. Today the United States has slightly less than 300 million people.
So every single man who fell to British bullets, beginning with Crispus Attucks in the Boston Massacre and including the Minute Men who fell at Lexington and Concord, 229 years ago this week, was equivalent to 100 who fall in battle today. Measured against the total population of the day, the American Revolution was second only to World War II in the blood price paid by American citizens.
Looked at through the lens of facts and history, the argument that “Iraq is another Vietnam” is false on its face. Furthermore, the idea that the combat deaths of Americans in this war is “too high a price to pay” is really an argument that America should never go to war at any time and for any reason.
The idea that America should never fight another war for any reason is both honest and ancient. In 1776, in The American Crisis, Tom Paine urged the American Quakers to reconsider whether the Revolution’s cause was just, and do what they could to advance that cause, even if their service was only non-military.
The claim today that the blood cost is “too high” in this war is a false argument. Advances in training, equipment and tactics have seen to that. If we cannot bear this burden, we should disband our military worldwide and retreat to “fortress America,” for that would be the only option. And the attacks of 9/11 demonstrate that even such a wholesale retreat would be insufficient to protect our civilian population.
A poll by the Washington Post reported this week that “Two in three [respondents] said the nu er of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, the highest reading since the war began 13 months ago.” This is a product of the American press dwelling in gory detail on each individual death at the top of the nightly news. If war deaths were reported the way auto accident deaths are -- only on the local news -- and auto deaths were all reported above the fold, would Americans conclude that auto “casualties are unacceptable”? After all, about 40,000 Americans are killed every year on the highways.
This poll result is another proof that the American press has become a coprophage, consuming its own excrement in order to survive. The press is reporting extensively the deaths in Iraq, with no context whatever about comparisons to prior wars. Such a poll result would not occur if the press reported combat deaths in the context of history, as I have done here.
If the press in 1776 - 1781 had reported combat deaths the way it does today, Congress would have withdrawn support for the Revolution in a few years. General Washington and his troops would have fled in fear of their lives. And today, we would be singing “God Save the Queen” before baseball games. Does that make the comparison clear enough?
With the facts so obvious, what’s fueling the arguments against the Iraq War? It is emotion only, unthinking and in deliberate rejection of the truth. It’s akin to the “feel good” politics that floated through the atmosphere of Woodstock nearly forty years ago like the sweet smell of marijuana.
I may be the only non-drug user in America who knew about the phenomenon of Woodstock before it happened. I then worked for an advertising agency, whose art department had a keen familiarity with “medicinal substances used for recreational purposes,”as the Libertarian Party says. The whole art department was anxious to head for Woodstock, and kept me informed on that.
Why bring up Woodstock? Well, just this week Country Joe and the Fish got together for a new concert. Barry (the Fish) Melton couldn’t join in, because he’s now in charge of the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office. So the reassembled group is just known as the Country Joe Band.
The band will certainly reprise its “I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die Rag,” with appropriate additional lyrics concerning Iraq. You remember the lyrics to the original, don’t you? “Well, it’s one, two, three / What are we fighting for? / Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn / Next stop is Vietnam....” It’s appropriate to note that the first concert of the reconstructed band is in Berkeley, California, and that Country Joe McDonald was named after Josef Stalin, since his parents were both active Communists.
The opposition to the Iraq War has almost nothing to do with war itself, and everything to do with anti-American politics. And most of those who join in the criticism of the war now are simply stuck in Woodstock, mired in the mud of Max Yasgar’s farm. It was good fun then, but geopolitical nonsense. It’s less fun now -- even Country Joe has given up the drugs -- and it’s still geopolitical nonsense.
As I said to my colleagues in the art department so long ago, sorry to harsh your mellow, Dude, but the facts are what the facts are. - 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress. - 30 -
©) 2004, Congressman Billybob & John Armor. All rights reserved.
It took me a total of nine attempts to get all parts of this article. Twice I went to the trouble of getting all the statistics lined up. They were right in the original. The posting system scrambled them again. Here's the translation (and if anyone understands FR posting well, I'd appreciate them putting the table in order):
After the name of each war, the first number is the total who were killed in action. The second number is the rate of death, KIA per month. These came from Defense Department sources.
The third column is what that KIA per month rate would have been if the US population then was the same as it is today. For instance, in 1776 the "US" population was slightly less than 3 million. Today it is slightly less than 300 million. So one soldier killed in the American Revolution is the equivalent of 100 soldiers killed today.
I did that to turn these sometimes ancient statistics into an apples with apples comparison across time. Hope that makes sense. Comment again if it doesn't parse.
John / Billybob
As the figures plainly show, the Civil War was our MOST bloody war. This is true of all casualties on both sides. But it is STILL true if you look at only the Union casualties.
Far from setting up a "straw man," I state the plain unvarnished facts. You may disagree with them, but you cannot deny them.
John / Billybob
But you've missed my point - the civil war does not belong in this set of wars you are using to compare to the Iraq conflict. It has no similarities.
You did not have to be at Woodstock to know Woodstock. Woodstock owned the mainstream TV media "news." Country Joe read the news every night on all three networks. No satellites in those days, the blood and gore film was booked on daily airline flights.
Anyone old enough should see the similarity -- here at home. Not over there.
The North Vietnamese Communists did not praise the American press and "anti-war" crowd for no reason.
The number of "anti-war" demonstrations today are fewer and the campus unrest is virtually non-existent compared to the 1960s and 1970s.
The "reporting" and the political shenanigans by the mainstream press and the "loyal" opposition are however virtually the same and have the same objective; to wit, the defeat / humiliation of the U.S. IMO. It is they who bring up Vietnam. It is they who should be on the defensive and doing the explaining.
| War | Deaths | KIA/Mo. | Proportionate | |
| Revolutionary War | 4,435 | 55 | 5,500 | |
| War of 1812 | 2,260 | 75 | 3,750 | |
| Mexican War | 1,733 | 87 | 2,900 | |
| Civil War:
|
Union | 110,070 | 2,293 | |
| Confederate | ||||
| 74,524 | 1,553 | |||
| Combined | 184,594 | 3,846 | 38,460 | |
| Spanish-American | 385 | 96 | 384 | |
| World War I | 53,513 | 2,816 | 8,448 | |
| World War II | 292,131 | 6,639 | 15,370 | |
| Korean War | 33,651 | 909 | 1,636 | |
| Vietnam War | 47,369 | 526 | 842 | |
| Gulf War | 148 | 148 | 264 | |
| Iraq War (to date) | 500 | 42 | 42 | |
| War | Deaths | KIA/Mo. | Proportionate | |
| Revolutionary War | 4,435 | 55 | 5,500 | |
| War of 1812 | 2,260 | 75 | 3,750 | |
| Mexican War | 1,733 | 87 | 2,900 | |
| Civil War:
|
Union | 110,070 | 2,293 | 22,930 |
| Confederate | ||||
| 74,524 | 1,553 | 15,530 | ||
| Combined | 184,594 | 3,846 | 38,460 | |
| Spanish-American | 385 | 96 | 384 | |
| World War I | 53,513 | 2,816 | 8,448 | |
| World War II | 292,131 | 6,639 | 15,370 | |
| Korean War | 33,651 | 909 | 1,636 | |
| Vietnam War | 47,369 | 526 | 842 | |
| Gulf War | 148 | 148 | 264 | |
| Iraq War (to date) | 500 | 42 | 42 | |
No, there aren't any numbers missing. As the article says, the Census Bureau statistics did not break out separately the Union and Confederate populations. Therefore, I didn't have a base to compute the comparable modern death rates for each side separately.
On the other hand, there was a basis to calculate the compatative death rate for the whole US population.
Again, thank you.
John / Billybob
The Emperor and Japanese culture keep that from being a close comparison. Germany, on the other hand, fits well. It took us four years to build up to a funtioning national government, elected under a constitution. We are rushing that process in Iraq, largely because the press is bone ignorant of history and is not reporting the historical patterns that were successful.
The 30 June "hand-over" will be to a token government in which all "security" decisions remain firmly in the hands of the US Military for the duration. That is EXACTLY what the US did in both Germany and Japan.
We no more need a reinstituted draft to settle the Iraqi hash, then we did to settle the German hash. History makes all this plain. But reporters don't read history, so they write and publish deceptive twaddle. Don't fall for it.
John / Billybob
Regardless of the particulars, EVERY war has a blood price to the people of the United States. ALL I am comparing is the blood prices, to make it clear that we are now in the most "sanitary" war we've ever engaged in.
And if, because of rotten reporting, Americans decide we cannot bear wvwn such a small blood burden, then the American military has just become irrelevant, politically, and we'd better start learning how to live in caves.
Got it now?
John / Billybob
I agree with your overall point. I just don't think including that reference is helpful.
By the nature of war, the total costs in blood and money, and the final results, cannot be known until the end is reached.
By that measure and from the Defense Department statistics I presented, the Civil War was the bloodiest war we have ever fought. To that measure, I added another by using Census Bureau numbers. The burden of a war is in proportion to the population who bear losses.
For instance, as I noted, at the time of the American Revolution our population was only 1% of what it is today. Therefore, the burden of deaths was 100 times as large as it is today. Each death then is the equivalent of 100 deaths today. That's the last column in the chart.
By this measure, the burden of all prior wars moves up, because there were less Americans when they were fought. The Civil War becomes even worse. By both measures, the War on Terror today is the least bloody war we have ever fought.
Does that make sense?
John / Billybob
In each case the basic question was the same. If this war had taken place today with almost 300 million Americans, all other things being equal, what would the modern comparative number of deaths been, per month?
Does that compute? It's important to me for what I write to be as clear as possible.
John / Billybob
You see their game. The "issue" of casualties is not the issue. Why play their game of numbers? Now we see polls every day like the Washington Post reporting that "Two in three [respondents] said the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable."
Such a poll result would not occur if the press reported combat deaths in the context of history, as I have done here.
It will do no good. The twenty percent or so who are just making it an "issue" (or weapon against the Administration like during the Vietnam war) cannot be swayed and the majority of the apolitical IMO are ruled by the emotion of TV images.
But, if you must let politics/press direct the debate how about a public reminder about the 3,000 9/11 deaths? TV won't touch it, of course. Afghanistan?
How to expose anti-Administration politics and press reporting as the real issue, where it belongs? Yippie-free days of boycotting ABCNNBCBS and newspapers?
The "anti-war" pro-Communist crowd lost an "issue" when the draft was first changed to a kind of lottery and then put aside. That "issue" attracted a lot of demonstrators but it was never the biggest "issue." Without checking I believe that changes started around 1972. The anti-war crowd owned the TV "news" by then via a not-so-hostile takeover starting in 1968.
Mostly it was the talk of an "immoral" war, interfering in a "civil war," condemnations of the "evil" puppet government of South Vietnam, "war crimes," Administration "lies" -- truly it was little different from nowadays.
I do not recall any "draft" riots. Most teach-ins that turned violent and other violence were about the "immoral" war and support for "the South Vietnamese people."
The "anti-war" movement pretty much died off after the draft changed IMO because their street/campus phase was over. It occupied the TV studios, newspapers and Congress by then.
Media coverage and opposition politics then are just about the same today. That is why I ask, How about a war-by-war count of the number of Americans returning from combat who got spit on at home? Then explain why Vietnam was the only one -- because of the g-ddamn politics and press!
It ain't going to happen again!
Bombard the politicians and press demanding that they defend their Vietnam. Demand that they show today's public the "Most Valuable Guerrilla" award they got from Communist General Giap.
BTW, there was opposition to the way the war was being controlled from Washington that had nothing to do with the "anti-war" movement and their Ho.
The more I think about that the more I (maybe) understand why there's so little response to the real Vietnam analogy, that is, the press/political behavior analogy. We have a free press today and the free press should be pressing the mainstream press to defend their behavior in view of the aid and comfort they gave our Communist enemies. Treason. That is the Vietnam analogy.
If youngsters (under forty :) ) believe that the Vietnam war opposition was mostly the "Hell No! We won't go!" crowd of a few draft card burners then sans the draft there is no analogy to be made, I suppose.
Fact is, there are even analogies outside the "anti-war" crowd. LBJ feared public reaction would hurt his "Great Society" legislation and thus politics got involved. Though nothing like LBJ, it appears the Bush administration may have its politcal considerations.
LBJ, et al feared provoking the Soviets and the Chi-coms. Thus Washington picked targets on this side of the tree but not on that side. It's obvious to me that the Bush administration doesn't want to offend the Muslim world. How much that affects military operations I do not know. Here at home it's maddening, "War on terror?" Hell! It's a war to defend against radical Islam!!
The mainstream press, the "anti-war" crowd, and the political oppositon give aid and comfort to the enemy.
That is the Vietnam analogy.
Make them pay for it this time! It's for all the marbles this time.
Because they never really grew up and every conflict (Well at least the ones that happen during a Republican administration)is just another excuse to relive their glory days by protesting.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1982) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.