Redstate

a friend who is in the military telling me, in reply to my concern over his deployment to Iraq, that the US Military is always engaged somewhere in the world and has been since WWII, even though a lot of the engagements are not highly publicized. (He was previously deployed in Bosnia.)

I would guess that the casualty figures include personnel lost during covert operations.  The deaths are probably listed as accidental deaths.

By taking statistics completely out of context and manipulating them.

Reagan 9163 deaths of an average of 2.12 million soldiers

Bush I 6223 deaths of an average of 1.96 million soldiers

Clinton 4302 deaths of an average of 1.55 million soldiers

Bush II 5187 deaths of an average of 1.40 million soldiers

That leads to an average number of deaths per 100,000 soldiers of:

Reagan: 43.22

Bush I: 31.75

Clinton: 27.75

Bush II: 37.05

So as you can see a greater percentage of soldiers die each year under George W. Bush than under either George H.W. Bush or Clinton or Carter.  And please don't even try to claim that all that matters is the absolute number of soldiers killed.

I'll grant some validity to your complaint.

But you provide some useful statistics: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II used the Army to protect American interests. Clinton used the army to bomb the former Yugoslavia from a safe altitude.

Also, Clinton drastically reduced the size of the military. Maybe if he hadn't done so, we'd have had more "boots on the ground," as you "little to the left" people like to put it this week. Along with your "dangerous incompetence."

the deaths are lower than during Reagan's first four years and in the range of Bush I and Clinton.  It's not the incredibly higher total we are lead to believe.

And yes, absolute numbers are of importance here because the press uses absolute numbers.  They don't even separate combat deaths from other deaths.  They just give total deaths in the arena.

An American soldier killed is an American soldier killed, regardless of where he/she is serving and regardless of how many people are in the armed forces at the times.  No one downgrades the number killed in Vietnam or in the Civil War by noting the deaths as percentage of the size of the Armed Forces.

If the MSM are going to present numbers killed, they should put it in perspective of losses during other years and other presidents.

The point of my post is that you are going to lose military personnel regardless of whether you are at war or not and the numbers being lost are someone similar to the "peace" years.

If we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan but doubled the size of the armed forces, we would actually lose two to three times the numbers we are losing.  Kind of a strange thought.

but no cigar.

What's next, you going to parse the numbers by the percentage of 'ground pounders' vs pilots vs sailors? How about the percentage of infantry vs the percentage of fighter pilots vs the percentage of submariners? You going to parse the percentage of Vietnam deaths by percentages of infantry vs artillery?

The number that counts is the number the press uses, the absolute number of deaths in theatre regardless of the cause. That's the number you guys on the left like to use to scare the American people into believing that we can't beat the terrorists so we might as well give up and come home and hide under the bed.

Go away.

is that Clinton gutted the military to dangerously low levels - and that we're now paying the price for that decision.

The only other thing it tells me is that Clinton got about 4300 of our best and bravest killed doing things that 1) had no positive impact whatsoever to our national security, 2) were not then, nor would have ever been, in our national interest, and 3) with the complete support of the "anti-war" left in the US.  Telling.

I'm sure you think your analysis is brilliant.  It's not.  Trust us.

Excellent Post. I'm always interested when numbers are actually used to support a position, not just opinions.

First and foremost the rate of fatal accidents has decreased consistently. My guess is that the vast majority have nothing to do with the military, just the auto crashes and other crack ups that claim many young men who have no sense of mortality. When I was in the Air Force back in the 80's they were doing a lot to try to minimize these -- alcohol and driving education, enforcing seat belt citations on base, etc. It could be that these efforts have born fruit. This along with societal changes such as a 21 drinking age and safer cars may claim part of the credit.

It would be interesting to see how these numbers compare to non military folks of a similar demographic. I would guess that a similar demographic of non military personnel would show an accidental death rate fall, though perhaps not quite so dramatic.

The homicide rate has fallen nicely also, probably reflecting both the trend in the general population and possibly relflecting closure of the Phillipines and other foreigh bases (Okinawa, German bases, etc. -- always interesting places to serve) and maybe closure of other foreign posts (Okinawa?)

It's interesting that the accident rate began climbing in 2001 after a long decline. Much of the increase after 2001 probably reflects more intense training requirements after 9/11.

But overall I think this chart reflects a strong and ongoing commitment by the military leaders to use the smaller military of today effectively -- keep it safe and in good shape so it can do it's job.

I shouldn't have assumed they were correct.  The following is the average annual rate of death for US troops (per 100,000) during the first term of the last four presidents:

Bush II . . . .  77.61

Clinton  . . . . 62.53

Bush I . . . . . 71.31

Reagan . . . .  101.57

We only have one year for Carter (1980) and the rate of death for that year is 110.76.  The rate for 2004 under Bush is 110.23.  In effect, US soldiers died at a higher rate during Carter's last year in office than during the last year we have data for Bush, despite the fact Carter was during peacetime and Bush was during wartime in two theaters.

As you can see, the rates are still comparable to peacetime rates, although I still believe the raw numbers are of grater importance here.

To paraphrase the moronic left, using Clinton's four years of US military deaths (4302):

Little comfort it is to 4302 families devestated by Clinton's policies whether the military was bigger or smaller at the time.

We will only see the media switch from looking at American deaths to counting Iraqi deaths or total deaths.  The sad fact is that our media is far more interested in the framing of the story to make the present administration lood bad.

It would seem that Bush and Rumsfield are actually doing a wonderful job in Iraq and, although there have been setbacks, the war is far from the tragedy the press wants us to believe.

But you won't hear this from the likes of Elenor clift.  Her latest ruse is to decry the deaths of Iraqis (which of course are our fault).

US casualties are down, since Iraqis are taking over the fighting: a plan that has been in the works for three years now. The interesting thing is that the MSM is not even distinguishing between insurgents and pro-government forces.  They now get to pad the numbers by just saying "Iraqis died".

Once again we need to put this in context of the numbers of Iraqis dying before the coalition forces entered the picture.  There already was a civil war between Kurds and Saddam loyalists, frequent extermination of Shia agitators, and deaths from sanctions not helped by the oil for palaces UN program.

I also think the military is more selective and better educated; hence, it has less hotheads who will put themselves or others at risk or will kill a fellow soldier.

Interesting post, but I believe I read somewhere that the death count is skewed by the fact that those who are injured in Iraq, then flown out of the country and who then die are not counted in the statistics. Do you trust statistics published by this Administration? Do you actually think and believe in your heart of hearts that war is a "good thing"? I'm very curious to hear your answers.

The stat is number of deaths in the entire military over a given time frame.  It doesn't matter if it's a gunshot shot in Iraq that dies in Germany, or Joe Tentpeg flipped his car in Idaho while home on leave.

Not everything is a conspiracy hatched by the Darklord Rove to crush dissent.  Or it may be, but the medication should help in that.

I believe I read somewhere that the death count is skewed by the fact that those who are injured in Iraq, then flown out of the country and who then die are not counted in the statistics.

You read and/or believe wrong, or used an erroneous source without doing any basic research at all. Even a cursory check of the published casualty figures shows that all deaths resulting from injuries received in theater are counted as deaths in theater, regardless of where the soldier actually dies. This applies whether the cause was combat or car accident. The statistics are accurate.

1. Those who die outside the theater are counted. Those who are medically discharged and subsequently die of results of wounds are counted.
   
2. Of course we don't trust the statistics by this Administration, we'd much rather just make something up that verifies our point of view.

no, actually three points.

Go away.

It's worse than that.  The original author is counting all deaths from illness, suicides and accidents as "military casualties", to make the combat deaths seem less important.  Since the article is complaining about people's attitudes toward deaths in combat operations, why would he need to sneak non-combat deaths into the figures?  

The answer is to look at the deaths in the combat categories - hostile action and terrorist attack:

George W. Bush . . . . . . 1157 (2001-2004)

Bill  Clinton . . . . . . . . . . . 56 (1993-1996)  

George H.W. Bush . . . . . 172 (1989-1992)

Ronald Reagan . . . . . . .  288 (1981-1984)

Average number of combat deaths per 100,000 soldiers:

Reagan: 13.58

Bush I: 8.78

Clinton: 3.61

Bush II: 82.64  

Not to mention how deceptive it is to complain about people in 2006 mourning the deaths of soldiers, then use stats from 2004 to try to discredit them.  In his effort to convince people the carnage in Iraq isn't happening, the author may have forgotten the 715 brave American soldiers who died in Iraq in 2005, or the 167 more who died so far this year.  But we haven't.

...don't help     By: ka5s

I was going to use your figures on a very liberal site when it occurred to me to run them against a smaller population; US troop strength in Iraq.  If we assume 150,000 troops, and that the 4-year Bush II average rate (77.61 per 100,000) applies, then each year there should have been about 116 deaths there, for a total of 348.  In three years, though, there were actually 2310; "1,808 were killed in combat, and 502 died from accidents, illnesses or other causes" -- http://tinyurl.com/pkxpu .

If that average force strength is close, the death rate in Iraq has been about 513 per 100,000. I was a soldier for 21 years and had my war, and I'm neither surprised nor shocked. "We are the currency you spend," as the verse says. Stuff happens.  

Yes, other presidents also got soldiers killed, even the "dovish" Carter.  It goes with the job.

However, in the war/antiwar debate, as in life,  sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and I think I'll have to pass over these numbers. They don't help me.

Cortland

1. A clear reading of the post says deaths. Period. You must admit that the breathless countdown to the latest milestone of deaths in Iraq always includes non-combat as well as combat deaths. So why this is suddenly objectionable baffles me (just joking, I understand what you're doing).
   
2. It would seem to me that you are lambasting the poster for not following your argument but his own argument. This isn't quite cricket.
   
3. The poster spells out his methodology clearly in regards to the time periods. He hasn't "forgotten" anyone.

This type of pantytwisting is fun to watch for about three nanoseconds but it is really cloying. Go. Now. And stay gone.

"First it relaxed restrictions against high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test--a group, known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years.

"The bad news is twofold. First, the number of Category IV recruits is starting to skyrocket. Second, a new study compellingly demonstrates that, in all realms of military activity, intelligence does matter. Smarter soldiers and units perform their tasks better; dumber ones do theirs worse.

"Until just last year, the Army had no trouble attracting recruits and therefore no need to dip into the dregs. As late as 2004, fully 92 percent of new Army recruits had graduated high school and just 0.6 percent scored Category IV on the military aptitude test.

In response to the tightening trends, on Sept. 20, 2005, the Defense Department released DoD Instruction 1145.01, which allows 4 percent of each year's recruits to be Category IV applicants--up from the 2 percent limit that had been in place since the mid-1980s. Even so, in October, the Army had such a hard time filling its slots that the floodgates had to be opened; 12 percent of that month's active-duty recruits were Category IV. November was another disastrous month; Army officials won't even say how many Cat IV applicants they took in, except to acknowledge that the percentage was in "double digits."

"Replacing a gunner who'd scored Category IV on the aptitude test (ranking in the 10-30 percentile) with one who'd scored Category IIIA (50-64 percentile) improved the chances of hitting targets by 34 percent.

In another study cited by the RAND report, 84 three-man teams from the Army's active-duty signal battalions were given the task of making a communications system operational. Teams consisting of Category IIIA personnel had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Those consisting of Category IIIB (who'd ranked in the 31-49 percentile on the aptitude test) had a 47 percent chance. Those with Category IV personnel had only a 29 percent chance."

Interesting numbers.

But using only the first term is bit selective.  

The absolute numbers for Clinton, at least, are considerably lower during 1997-2000 (as the military contracted in size): 3200 deaths.  

As the most recent "pre-war" numbers, 97-00 are probably the most comparable, and it shows that, as we would have expected, the numbers for Bush's first term are about 2000 higher (62%) than for Clinton's second term - the difference being battlefield casualties, primarily in Iraq.

By any historical military standard, the number of battlefield deaths in the War on Terror is remarkably low, of course.  In 1943, the US lost over 1000 dead in the three-day battle for the island of Betio (Tarawa), which has an area of less than one square mile (only 17 of the 4700 Japanese defenders survived).  In 1945, we lost 6,821 KIA in about six weeks to capture Iwo Jima, which is 7.5 square miles (only 200 of the 21,000 Japanese defending the island survived).

Do you actually think and believe in your heart of hearts that war is a "good thing"? I'm very curious to hear your answers.

Yes. Still. Why? Because the stasis imposed by the end of Gulf War One was unsustainable and unacceptable to anyone who believes in the self-determination of the individual. You know, Liberalism.

The current war in Iraq is still a case of 'better late than never' rather than 'should we have gone in 2003'.

It's only people who seem to be able to view the current situation in a narrow historical scope and the Reactionaries decrying a loss of 'stability' that can even ask these questions.

Michael, a "Liberal" who loathes the current Orwellian Socialist Progressives known as 'Democrats'

but as Bush only has had one complete term it is pretty logical.

I don't think the numbers do much other than demonstrate that the death rate for the GWOT, as you point out, is really low. Take for instance Sharpsburg, 22,700 killed, wounded, and missing in a single day.

Funny how all my "Reply to This" links suddenly disappeared after pointing out the factual errors in the original post, huh?  

1.  A clear reading of the post says, and I quote, "US Military Casualty figures since 1980".  Deaths from cancer, heart disease, and suicide are not military casualties, not even in the official death count reported in the media.  The DoD data is honest about this, the post is not.
   
2.  I'm pointing out facts the original poster glossed over or mislabeled in order to make a misleading point.  The OP blames Clinton for "4302 families devestated by Clinton's policies", which apparently includes his refusal to cure cancer, heart disease and and suicide, and his failure to personally prevent all equipment accidents.  

Meanwhile, "Bush and Rumsfield are actually doing a wonderful job in Iraq", in spite of the fact they're burning through soldiers' lives at 2,200% the rate of the previous administration... and even that doesn't include all the combat deaths from 2005 forward, which puts it at more like 3,500%.

3.  The poster seriously misrepresents his methodology by trying to bury combat deaths among the much greater numbers of deaths from all causes.  Proof: relabeling the data "US Military Casualty figures", when the DoD report lists them as all deaths from all causes, and never calls them casualties anywhere.  

Of course, I'm sure I'll be blocked from replying again, so feel free to gloss over these facts however you like.  Spin them, mislabel them, blame the media, tell histrionic lies about "4302 families devestated by Clinton's policies".  But at the end of the day... those thousands of American soldiers are still dead in Iraq.  And no attempts at trickery to minimize their sacrifice will change that.  Americans will never forget.  

if you post again we will inform the abuse office at your ISP.

Now off you go.

Proud Kafir's makes the argument that the media are distorting the fatality statistics from the Iraq War.

To quote him "Yet the MSM would make you think that US soldiers are dying at a high number in these zones, and at a significantly higher number than in past years or under past presidents.  This is all simlpy [sic] outright lies and distortion."

Given the data, I think this a difficult argument to make. As the table regarding U.S. military fatalities per 10,000 soldiers at the following link shows  Link

from the end of the Carter administration, the general trend for deaths by accident in the military have gone down (perhaps due to better training, better medical services, etc), to a low of 26 per 10,000 in 2000.

Since then deaths by accident have gone up (as one would expect with more troops in unfamiliar foreign terrain). Has it gone up by a lot? Debatable. Certainly though the average solider is not less likely to die from accident today than he was during most of the Clinton administration.

Basically, I would submit that the same holds true for most of the other categories of fatality -- a general trend going down since Carter, with the trend leveling off in the Bush years. We can quibble about homicide and suicide rates, but certainly I do not think anyone would argue that, outside of death by hostile action, you are less likely to die today in the military then you would have been during the Clinton years.

Moreover, I hope that no one would argue that any improvement in survival rates from causes outside of hostile action today can be attributed to anything but general improvements in keeping military people alive -- better counseling, better medical treatment, etc. If so, President Clinton was a great military leader in that he reduced military fatalities from illness, homicide and self-inflicted means by 9.6 per 10,000 over his term of office.

Of course, the number from the chart that does jump out is death from hostile action. In 2003, it was 19.4 per 10,000, which is roughly triple that of the previous high year (1991).

The next year was even higher, with an average of 43.1 solider fatalities per 10,000.

I understand that these deaths are not broken down by theatre, but still I cannot understand how one can argue that soldiers are not dying at a higher rate as a result of the Iraq war launched by the Bush Administration than, all other things being equal (death by illness, homicide etc) they did under previous administrations.

Of course, we should expect this -- we are fighting a war in which we have taken invaded and control much more territory and have to deal with a much more hostile population for a longer period of time than at another military conflict over the past 24 years.

As far as whether 43 per 10,000 soldiers is a "high number" or a "low casualty rate" is a matter for debate.

Those who support the Iraq war might argue that these deaths are a small price to pay for the increased security they have provided to the U.S., and the freedom they have provided to the Iraqis. Those who do not support the war might argue that even one death in this war is one too many, since it has destabilized the region and increased support for radical Islam, weakening U.S. security.

Nonetheless, I think it is unfair to say that the media is lying and distorting fatality numbers.

If the U.S. had not gone to war in Iraq, 1,817 American soldiers would not have been killed due to hostile action. If not for this war, they would most likely be alive, with their families, today.  

Is this not true?

The chart I referred to used fatality rates per 100,000, not per 10,000.

Sorry.

I have seen a number of articles over the last 3 years that talked about the advances in battlefield medicine that allows more and more soldiers to survive their wounds.  Things like QuickClot that prevent death from blood loss.

One thing that I do find misleading is using just the death statistics.  There are a lot of other factors that are worth measuring to determine how our soldiers are doing.  How about a comparison of amputees?  Or those who have suffered permanent disability because of battlefield injuries?  Or divorce rates?  PTSD... crime rates... there are a lot of stories those statistics just don't tell.

Some numbers to consider:  Discussing death in this manner runs the risk of others viewing you as callous, or worse- but one has to put losses in perspective, or they truly are meaningless

At Gettysburg, over 7000 killed in three days (both sides).

In ONE DAY, the Romans lost approx. 65,000 dead to Hannibal's forces at Cannae. ONE DAY.

That's nearly double what we lost in Korea in three years, and about 7000 less than we lost in Viet Nam in around eight years.

Saddam may have killed as many as "between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

That's 780,000 give or take a few ten thousand.

780,000 is a big number, and it is difficult to fully comprehend what the numbers mean, but there are ways to bring it into the realm of understanding-- 70-125 per day is pretty tangible (2-4 high school classrooms), and 8,000 days is only 22 years- certainly tangible to anyone over 35 or so.

In 2002, in the United States, for the age range of 16-34 (covering the main ages of our military casualies in Iraq), 27,267 died just from Motor Vehicle Crashes and Homocides.  More than THIRTY FOUR times our yearly average KIA in Iraq.  I think everyone knows someone firsthand who either died as a result of a motor vehicle crash or a homocide. Multiply that personal tragedy times the population of Laramie, Wyoming, and you start to get the picture. Every year America wipes out a Laramie in car crashes and homocides, and that's just 16-34 year olds.

Does it really make sense to say things that imply that our military personnel are getting killed in unacceptable numbers in Iraq? Each individual death is a tragedy, immeasurable in it's own reach- but one has to see things in context... Death can mean something, and should- but if we do not look at it closely, and understand it, and get over any irrational fears about it, we will be paralyzed into inaction. If we are willing to allow 17,706 people from 16-34 to die in a year so we can drive cars, then we sure as hell can risk losing a few thousand in three years to change a dangerous world.

If one still holds to a belief that our losses in Iraq are too great, than I am sure you would also believe that over 17,000 deaths of 16-34's per year is far too many, and personal automobile transport should be severely limited, or even eliminated, right?

Our losses in Iraq are, by historical standards, phenomenally low.  Anyone who contests that must be asked what their metric is for considering `acceptable' losses.  I'm sure their answer would be revealing.

JMF2's post was apparently not refutable. As a new reader of RedState, am I to believe that simply pointing out obvious flaws in a post constitutes abuse?

I rather doubt any ISP would take your complaint seriously.

He was not banned because of his post. He was banned because he'd been banned before, then came back under a different name. Hence, the "again" language, and the IP threat.

his post was stupid, ergo nothing to refute, which was part of a larger pattern of misconduct.

As Thomas pointed out he'd been banned before.

I'd further observe that we have real professionals who help ISPs decide what they will and will not take seriously.

Finally, you'd do well to stay in your lane on matters that are really none of your business... or get your own blog.