Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fatalities in WoT/ lower than under Clinton "peace" time
Statistics ^ | 11 23 2007 | drzz

Posted on 11/23/2007 6:53:58 AM PST by drzz

There have been remarkably low fatalities in the Iraqi Freedom campaign- considering it is war. In fact, just this month the losses in Iraq and Afghanistan combined passed the halfway mark of military fatalities during the Clinton Years.

The US has lost 3434 soldiers and marines in Iraq and 390 soldiers and marines in Afghanistan over the past 5 years. This total of 3824 has passed half of the number of soldiers lost during the Clinton years during peacetime.

** The US has been fighting the War on Terror for over 5 years and has lost just over half the soldiers in battle as the Clinton Administration was losing during peacetime in 8 years.

It puts things into perspective. Don't expect this grim milestone to be reported by the mainstream media any time too soon.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; government; iraq; wot

1 posted on 11/23/2007 6:54:00 AM PST by drzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: drzz

bookmark


2 posted on 11/23/2007 6:55:51 AM PST by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drzz

[** The US has been fighting the War on Terror for over 5 years and has lost just over half the soldiers in battle as the Clinton Administration was losing during peacetime in 8 years. ]

I would like to see sources cited.


3 posted on 11/23/2007 6:59:18 AM PST by dbacks (Taglines for sale or rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drzz

The US has lost 3434 soldiers and marines in Iraq and 390 soldiers and marines in Afghanistan over the past 5 years. This total of 3824 has passed half of the number of soldiers lost during the Clinton years during peacetime.

** The US has been fighting the War on Terror for over 5 years and has lost just over half the soldiers in battle as the Clinton Administration was losing during peacetime in 8 years.

Something to beat the Dems over the head leading up to the election.


4 posted on 11/23/2007 7:00:54 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drzz

Clinton years were NOT peacetime. Bosnia, Somalia, Cole, Yugoslavia.


5 posted on 11/23/2007 7:02:25 AM PST by hophead ("Enjoy Every Sandwich" WZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drzz

There were a lot of training accidents during the Clinton years.


6 posted on 11/23/2007 7:02:44 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (A good marriage is like a casserole, only those responsible for it really know what goes into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drzz
True.


7 posted on 11/23/2007 7:04:28 AM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drzz

Seems like an apples and oranges argument to me.


8 posted on 11/23/2007 7:06:49 AM PST by AndrewB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hophead
Does that mean that Clinton mis managed Bosnia, Somalia, the Cole? Bush, Iraq, Afganistan are deep in the heart of Indian country. I’m told every day that this is a mis manged war, and if only lefty newspaper writers, bull dyke lesbians, wimpy lefty wire rimmed glassed transgendered Democrat males were telling sergeants and generals what to do, it would be better.( Well, in the Boston Globe anyways)
9 posted on 11/23/2007 7:08:27 AM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: drzz
Democrats despise US troops, sending them to be slaughtered in useless PC actions such as Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, etc.

And let's not forget the great war against the democrat party from 1861-1865. The Republican Party of the North, fought to liberate the South from the slavery of the democrat party. 562,130 deaths in the Civil War, almost 200 times the deaths in the War on Terror.

Heck, you might even be tempted to say that the democrat party is a far, far more deadly enemy of the US than al Queda.


10 posted on 11/23/2007 7:08:49 AM PST by FormerACLUmember (“If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven’t cut taxes enough.” –Milton Friedman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Clinton mis-managed his own life too.
The only difference is D and R behind the Presidents name.


11 posted on 11/23/2007 7:10:05 AM PST by hophead ("Enjoy Every Sandwich" WZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

still no source. And, to be comparable, it would have to include whatever is the comparable “total military deaths” (training, accidents, heart attacks, whatever) that the clinton year numbers were. I don’t doubt that the spread between the two administrations would be less than some people thnk, but it will still be visible. The Iraq war isn’t just “statistical noise.” That cheapens the real sacrifices made — and isn’t accurate.


12 posted on 11/23/2007 7:10:40 AM PST by BohDaThone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dbacks

I would like this to be true, but I really have a hard time believing it. I really need to see a numbers breakdown.

While the Clinton era saw a fair number of conflicts, most were limited in scope and saw a fairly low number of US military casualties.


13 posted on 11/23/2007 7:13:25 AM PST by Comstock1 (If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: drzz
The US has lost 3434 soldiers and marines in Iraq and 390 soldiers and marines in Afghanistan over the past 5 years.

Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen. All four branches have lost personnel.

14 posted on 11/23/2007 7:14:54 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BohDaThone
You could accurate this to death and no end.
I’d say if anything, the tempo, numbers deployed, environment and enemy all make the Clinton numbers less good.
Considering the difficulties of the enemy, and the type of war, getting this information out in fact does the opposite of cheapens sacrifices. It shows how well and careful the military has been and how well it has done. Not that that will ever, ever be reported, save but for a single article here or there.

Anyways, this is about countering leftist media lies. The MSM and the Left are well on their way to cementing Iraq and Afghanistan as failure and those that fought as failures. Sorry, but it is what they are doing and when kids go to Google it in five, twenty years, the'll just get piles of lefty hits, and they believe it because their lefty teachers told them so.

15 posted on 11/23/2007 7:26:48 AM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Comstock1
Official Defense Dept numbers.American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics. Navy Historical Center Library.
16 posted on 11/23/2007 7:31:25 AM PST by Leisler (RNC, RINO National Committee. Always was, always will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dbacks

Sources FOX http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311644,00.html

SEE the figures in the link given with this thread.


17 posted on 11/23/2007 7:40:51 AM PST by drzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hophead

Yes, but that was NOT full wars.

Bosnia war is nothing compared to Iraq or Afghanistan.


18 posted on 11/23/2007 7:41:53 AM PST by drzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
"Heck, you might even be tempted to say that the democrat party is a far, far more deadly enemy of the US than al Queda."

"Might"???

What's this "might?"

19 posted on 11/23/2007 7:46:30 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BohDaThone

The Congressional Research Service, which compiled war casualty statistics from the Revolutionary War to present day conflicts, reported that 4,699 members of the U.S. military died in 1981 and ‘82 — a period when the U.S. had only limited troop deployments to conflicts in the Mideast. That number of deaths is nearly 900 more than the 3,800 deaths during 2005 and ‘06, when the U.S. was fully committed to large-scale military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

...

According to the raw figures, of the 2,380 members of the military who died during active duty in 1981, 1,524 were killed in accidents, 145 by homicide, 457 by illness and 241 from self-inflicted wounds. That compares with the 1,942 killed in 2005; of that number, 632 died from accidents, 739 from hostile action, 49 from homicide, 281 from illness, 150 from self-inflicted wounds and 72 whose causes of death were still pending. Eleven deaths in ’81 and 19 deaths in ’05 were classified as “undetermined.”

Government Report: More Military Deaths in Some Years of Peace Than War
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311644,00.html


20 posted on 11/23/2007 7:46:56 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

I assume that the Civil War comes in highest because we are counting both sides.


21 posted on 11/23/2007 8:19:01 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
I assume that the Civil War comes in highest because we are counting both sides.

Yeah, and there were more Republican Northerners killed than democrat party slavery defending Southerners.

22 posted on 11/23/2007 8:24:20 AM PST by FormerACLUmember (“If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven’t cut taxes enough.” –Milton Friedman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: drzz

BUMP


23 posted on 11/23/2007 9:41:57 AM PST by kitkat (I refuse to let the DUers chase me off FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drzz

bookmarked


24 posted on 11/23/2007 10:13:54 AM PST by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

x


25 posted on 11/23/2007 12:33:46 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thackney
The link at #16 has the best data -- total deaths in the miltary for every year 1981-2004 (Table 4). The truth seems to be that total deaths run just about .1% of active duty troops, just a little over or under. So, in the Reagan years, deaths ran 1800-2300 per year out of about 2.1 million.

As the military declined, post the end of the USSR, the deaths 1996-2001 were 800-1000 out of about 1.4-1.5 million (probably less intense training and patrolling post-USSR helped). Then 2003 jumped to 1410 and 2004 to 1887, which is just about in line with Iraq deaths of 486 in 2003 and 849 in 2004 being put on top of the baseline peacetime deaths.

So, it isn't true that total military deaths are lower now, even with the Iraq war, than they were under Clinton. It IS true that they are lower than under Carter (at least 1980) and early Reagan, with a larger military. And the basic story that no one got all weepy about the "huge waste of life" in those days when the proportionate figure for total military deaths (as a percentage of troops) was about the same as in the current Iraq war period.

26 posted on 11/23/2007 2:06:55 PM PST by BohDaThone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson