Skip to comments.How do casualties in Iraq compare to peacetime casualty rates?
Posted on 10/01/2004 6:07:39 AM PDT by pjd
I keep hearing the other side claiming how badly the war in Iraq is going. Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the War in Iraq was part of the War on Terror, but that the War in Iraq was fought and won in about 6 days with less than 100 U.S. casualties. Seemed pretty well planed and executed to me.
My understanding is that we are seeing in Iraq now is Iraq reconstruction taking place in the midst of part of the continuing War on Terror. But The War in Iraq it is not.
Anyway, my question:
I seem to recall that, even during peace time, the armed forces suffer a great deal of casualties due to accidents, sickness, etc.. Does anyone have figures on this and how it compares to the casualty rate in Iraq? This might put the situation in Iraq in better perspective.
Also, can someone post up stats for the estimated Iraqi civilian death-rate (per week, say) before and after the war.
And don't forget the death rate here in the US for accidents and crime.
See this post:
Numbers came from Newsweek piece 2 years ago.
There was a post last week (I think) that showed that since the beginning of the Iraq war we have lost 1000 soldiers.
But to keep it in perspective, there were more murders in Chicago during the same period. Same for Detroit. Same for LA. Same for New York City.
Well, since you brought up the notion of perspective, all of these casualty figures, tragic in themselves, are dwarfed by the daily butcher's bill from abortions in this country. The average daily slaughter is in the range of 3000-4000, given the yearly totals since the tragedy of Roe v. Wade. Interesting how liberals never shed a tear for thousands of dead a day, their hands literally drenched in the blood of innocents, yet weep and wail and blame Bush for 1000 dead in Iraq.
Ha! Next you're going to say it's more dangerous to drive a car than to fight in Iraq. Don't get confused with statistics, Chicago is not safer than Iraq.
Sorry, I meant Iraq is not safer than Chicago. Now I'm confused.
Businessweek, 28OCT02, p12: "Casualties of War and Piece" (a small table, not an article). Most recent data read thus:
1999-2001: 1.37 million avg active duty troops
Cause and number of deaths in that period:
Terrorist attack: 70
Hostile Action: 0
Self inflicted: 405
What is the point you're trying to make? The servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq are dead. They probably wouldn't have died if we weren't in Iraq. I can come up with a number of reasons justifying the war in Iraq, but suggesting that they would have died in an accident anyway or been killed in a street crime in the states isn't one of them.
The point is - The casualty count in Iraq does indeed include self-inflected and accidental deaths. Figures show that the casualty rate in Iraq is not very different than during times of peace. What people (like you, apparently) are implying is that, if we were not in Iraq, there would be no deaths in the military. That is plainly false.
I don't know, but I've noticed that the MSM have stopped angling the U.S. death toll into every single Iraq report since they had their ghoulish orgasm when it went over their magic number of 1,000. I guess they got all the mileage from that number that they could squeeze from it.
Thing is, we know 1,000 servicemembers have either died in Iraq or in the wider WOT, not sure which.
But more importantly, is that 1,000 felled in combat in ADDITION to another 1,200 or so dead that would be the norm in nominal peacetime to vehicle accidents, training accidents, homicide, suicide, etc etc.?
I think we are also overlooking the seriously wounded in the WOT, for which I have no figure immediately available. Thinking here of wounds grievous enough to take someone out of the fight.
Subjectivity can do that. ;-)