|
|
Casualty Statistics
The casualties along the airport road have occurred during a string of attacks that have killed 34 U.S. soldiers in Iraq since May 1. A soldier was killed today when his convoy was hit by rocket-propelled grenades on a highway just west of here.--Washington Post, July 17, 2003
At least 79 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since Bush announced an end to major fighting May 1. Of those, 32 have been killed by hostile fire and 47 were victims of non-hostile fire or accidents.
--CNN.com, July 11, 2003
The solider was at least the 34th killed since major combat operation ended May 1, and the 149th to die in combat since the war began. Counting accidents, 226 Americans have died in the war, which began a day shy of four months ago.
--CBSnews.com, July 18, 2003
Dreaded calls continue to arrive in the still of night.
This week alone, nine soldiers died and another dozen were wounded. Among the dead were Sgt. Michael B. Quinn, 37, who went to high school, married and lived in the Tampa area before reenlisting in November 1994, and Sgt. Thomas F. Broomhead, 34, who was raised in Fort Myers.
--WMBBTV.com (a local news station in Panama City, FL), May 30, 2003
Two months after President Bush declared major combat over in Iraq, stealthy enemies are still killing and wounding American and allied soldiers - five killed and 22 wounded in May, 20 killed and 39 wounded in June.
--Knight Ridder News Service, June 30, 2003
It's depressing, isn't it? We went to all that effort, spent all that money, lost all those men and women, and now we're losing the peace. Every time you pick up a newspaper, turn on a TV, or listen to a radio, you hear it over and over and over again... US troops are getting killed constantly, nothing's going right in Iraq, and no real progress is being made. We might as well pack up and head out before we're inflicted with another Mogadishu or, even worse, Vietnam.
It's crap. Crap perpetrated by a press corps far more interested in a career-enhancing story than in providing an even balance of reporting. Pictures of blood splattered humvees and tear-stained parents sell. Stories of bomb-throwing taxi drivers and clerics preaching Jihad against the infidel sell. The consequences these stories have on the moral of a nation doesn't sell. The implications these stories have on perceptions of progress don't sell. What these stories do to the overall effort of rebuilding a nation we spent the blood of our own on don't sell.
And of course, if it doesn't sell, the media doesn't care about it.
Let's do a little fact checking on our own, shall we? The media love to intone the statistics of dead soldiers in the occupation of Iraq, ticking off the numbers with deep sincerity every single chance they get. But listen carefully. For the longest time the statistic was combat and accidents. In other words, to the press corps a kid getting killed by an Iraqi with an RPG is comparable to a different kid getting killed by a crate of tank treads falling on him. This is a distinction important enough it deserves repeating: to the press, accident and combat fatalities are the same thing.
What we're not getting, unsurprisingly, is any sort of perspective about these numbers. The Army is a dangerous place in the best of times. Working with stuff designed to blow up on purpose usually is. To demonstrate this, let's take a look at just how dangerous it is to work in the army on, as they say, "any given Sunday" by checking out the fatality rate for the past nine years (source):
| Army Military Fatalities | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY1993 | FY1994 | FY1995 | FY1996 | FY1997 | FY1998 | FY1999 | FY2000 | FY2001 | FY2002 | 237 | 233 | 209 | 194 | 150 | 168 | 186 | 161 | 168 | 202 |
Please note that, like the media, I'm lumping all army fatalities in here. So let's compare it with the last "real" war the media seems to take seriously, Vietnam (source):
| 1961-1965 | 1966 | 1967 | 1968 | 1969 | 1970 | 1971 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,864 | 6,053 | 11,058 | 16,511 | 11,527 | 6,065 | 2,348 |
Again, lumping both combat and "non-combat" casualties.
For comparison, the total number of fatalities for the army in FY 02-03, including combat and accidents, stands at approximately 344. That's 151 fatalities during the war (source), and 193 accidental deaths since October of 2002 (source).
So, what does it all mean? Well, depends on how you look at it. If we look only at accidents, the current fatality rate is high, but not extraordinarily so. If we look only at combat fatalities, the current rate is almost unbelievably low, especially when compared to the last occupation-style operation in which a comparable number of troops were involved.
Most importantly it means the press is focusing on the wrong thing. The media has an incredibly important role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. Vietnam turned into a debacle in no small part because nobody was watching the people in charge to make sure they were doing a good job. We need the press to keep us informed, to act as a watchdog against bureaucratic excess and failure when it happens, and act as a promoter of ideas that work and people who come up with them if they remain in obscurity. They are simply not doing this.
Each fatality is a terrible tragedy, yes, but we're in the process of rebuilding an entire nation. Where are the stories about fixing infrastructure? Where are the stories about attempts at government? Where are the stories about reconstructing the economy? While careerist pop-star wannabes are out chasing ambulances we're stuck here with no idea what's really going on.
It's not at all uncommon for our media to self-indulgently focus on the dramatic death of a single person in order to further a career. The orgy is distasteful, but in the context of, say, a natural disaster or a lurid murder the results are basically harmless.
The rules are different now. The fate of someone else's country is at stake. Like it or not, the media sets the tone for our national debates. By focusing on demoralizing tales of death and failure on the scale of a single soldier, they are actively undermining political support for a national cause which we have already paid for in blood.
It's not just the prestige of a politician, the success of a party, or the re-election of a president that's on the line here. The ultimate fate of more than 22 million people and countless future generations is now our responsibility. Of course, this is simply too big for most of our press corps to get their head around, so let's ratchet the focus down a bit. If we suffer a failure of nerve over a perceived lack of success, if we cut and run because of a seemingly endless stream of bad news, if our representatives squander their opportunities and destroy our chances with programs that just don't work, then our media will have ensured only one thing.
They will have ensured the sacrifices of all the Americans they take such ill-disguised glee in reporting, every single one of them, will have been a complete and utter waste. And if we all don't wise up to them, it might actually happen.
I usually agree with Scott but not this time.
This administration launched us into a war that didn’t need to be fought. Is the world a safer place without Saddam in charge of Iraq?? Yes. Are the Iraqi people better off now than they were before?? In the long run YES. The problem lies in why we went into Iraq; all of the legitimate reason’s for the US to go to war unilaterally and depose another government are, to date, non existent.
The only reason for the US to launch a war of aggression against another country unilaterally without world support is IMHO if that country is a clear and present danger to our security. Was that the case with Iraq?? The administrations stated reason’s for going into Iraq were Saddam having access to and producing WMD and that he was going to/had the ability to use these weapons against the US. To date no evidence that this was true has been found. (Not that they weren’t there. But did they constitute a Clear and Present danger to the US?? NOPE.)
The other main reason was that Al Qaeda was allied to Saddam’s regime (This was thrown in kind of late in the day after the UN weapons inspectors couldn’t seem to find WMD’s even with the help of the US Intel Community) Was this true?? NOPE. It is becoming increasingly clear, in retrospect, that Iraq did not pose anything resembling the imminent threat to the United States that President Bush repeatedly alleged that it did prior to the US invasion.
Now the President is saying that “The regime of Saddam Hussein was a grave and growing threat," and that "Given Saddam's history of violence and aggression, it would have been reckless to place our trust in his sanity or his restraint." And that the world is a safer place without Saddam in charge or Iraq (I don’t dispute this at all. But this is not a good reason to launch a war of aggression against another country. I can think of quite a few countries leaders that this would apply to.)
Now we get to the meat of Scott’s article, He states “If we look only at accidents, the current fatality rate is high, but not extraordinarily so. If we look only at combat fatalities, the current rate is almost unbelievably low, especially when compared to the last occupation-style operation in which a comparable number of troops were involved” This indeed very true (Though IMHO credit for this should be given to how well the US Military was able to do their job IN SPITE of the administration. I hope that we never go to war having to depend on the other guy being dumb/incompetent instead of knowing that whatever he may do we will just blow his #@@ away.) But these troops aren’t dying defending their country from aggression. It’s true that only 151 Troops have been killed SO FAR in Iraq but that’s 151 people who would still be alive if we weren’t over there.
Scott states that the Press aren’t doing their job, that they are focusing on the wrong thing. He makes the statement that “Vietnam turned into a debacle in no small part because nobody was watching the people in charge to make sure they were doing a good job.” Yet isn't that what they are doing now?? What do you think would have happened if, in 1964-65, the Press had focused “on demoralizing tales of death and failure on the scale of a single soldier”
The casualty figures for Vietnam from 1 Jan 1965 to 1 July 1965 were 143 KIA, From 1 July until 1 Nov 186 KIA. If the press had concentrated on this and the “bureaucratic excess and failure” of the Johnson Administration (Like they are starting to do with the Bush Administration) would we still have been in Vietnam into the 70s?? Remember too that “The fate of someone else’s nation” was also at stake in Vietnam. The Press did indeed concentrate on all of the good things we were doing in South Vietnam back then (We were building roads, villages, hospitals etc etc) and didn't report on the failures of the administration. What would have been the result if the Press treated Johnson’s war in 1965 like the are beginning to treat Bush’s in 2003?? You tell me, were they doing their jobs better in 1965 or 2003??
I have noticed a disturbing trend (Not just from Scott but from other conservatives on the various boards that I frequent) to lay the blame for what’s going on onto somebody else’s shoulders. (Guess they are following W's Lead) That the Bush Administration can do no wrong. “It’s the Liberal Press’s fault, It’s just the Democrats doing election type politics” etc. etc." Heck the Democrats did the same thing with Clinton and the so called “Vast right wing conspiracy” the big difference here is this. Nobody died because Clinton got a blow job in the White House. Nobody had to tell a husband/wife/father/mother/sister/brother/son or daughter that their loved one isn’t coming home because Clinton got his rocks off. There is a huge difference there folks. Please try to see it.
Posted by: Jeff on July 18, 2003 08:02 PMLets Pull out the troops & Nuke Em All.
Its all to familiar of a scenario, how can the leaders in command be so foolish to allow this, Or does history have to repeat itself.
Im being to easy, There just idiots. our troops have no place there getting picked off daily, Just Nuke those Mad Men of the sand, Make the middle east quiet & peaceful ! True Peace in the middle east !
to jeff.
the war didn't need to be fought? saddam was a madman obsessed with weapons. you don't think he would eventually (if he hadn't already) develop nuclear (pronounced nu-cu-lur) weapons and hand them off to a terrorist group? of course he would! he hates us. and i doubt the iraqis would agree that the war didn't need to be fought. many foreign countries see americans as being conceited. well, you seem to be upholding that image. only if our own safety is concerned, we should get involved?
by without world support, i assume you mean without the support of france and germany. we had many countries stand with us, in case you forgot. and how exactly are we to find WMD, when we're busy trying to make a new gov't, protect the people from saddam's buddies, protect the troops from saddam's buddies, and try not to kill any civilians in the process?
you say that saddam becoming a growing threat isn't a reason to attack him? so when should we attack him, after another 9/11? after an event WORSE than 9/11? think of him as a spitting cobra. do you wait for him to strike, to blind you so that you can't defend yourself?
Posted by: Samkit on July 18, 2003 10:52 PMSamkit,
Should we attack North Korea?? How about Syria, Iran, or Libya heck Saudi Arabia has closer ties to Al Qaeda than did Saddam lets attack them. When does it stop?? What exactly should we use as a litmus test for launching wars of conquest and aggression against other countries??
Where is your evidence that Saddam posed an IMMEDIATE threat to the US?? (More so than any other country that hates us) Was he a danger?? Yes. Was he more dangerous than half of the other tin pot dictators that hate the US?? I would say NO simply because of the intense world scrutiny he was under.
When I say without world support I mean without a UN Mandate. Not just France and Germany but Russia, the majority of NATO, the other countries in the Middle East etc. Where was the coalition support in Money and Blood that Daddy Bush used to get Saddam out of Kuwait?? Where is the support now?? Where is the so called Coalition of the willing?? Why is it only US and UK troops dying over there??
Do you think the troops over in Iraq haven't been able to search for WMD's because they are too busy protecting themselves from Saddam's buddies/nation building?? Don’t you think that finding WMD’s would be given the highest priority?? Not only does the administration need to find them to take off some of the Political pressure back home. The troops need to find them in order to prevent Saddam’s buddies from deploying them and using them (If the do indeed exist)
Do I think we should only get involved if our own safety is concerned?? (So I can uphold the image of the conceited Americans??) Nope. We are involved in so many different countries in so many different ways (Like the Infantry Division that's in Korea, the funding of Nuclear weapons disposal/clean up for the Russians etc) So we are involved.
Do I think that we should launch wars of aggression and conquest only if sombody poses a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to us?? (Not just strike but actually conquer and then occupy them) YES. If you actually agree with the administrations STATED reason's for going into Iraq then, Whose next??
Posted by: Jeff on July 19, 2003 09:18 AMSo why don't all those politicians and press monkeys use all that agression and defense to AID our troops?
The title was "Casualties" and it was about the press, but it always comes back to politics somehow.
Yes, history should teach us, but some people are slow learners and don't listen not only as children but also as adults. I'm sure there is a lesson to be learned here; should we let the press dictact that lesson?