I voted for Carter not knowing the statistics. It’s just logical that a Peacenick Leader would cause more casualties because of lack of support for the Military. Clinton was second; no surprise.
And the overwhelming reasons for those high death rates were accidents and illness, neither of which reflect on decisions or policies made by the presiding President.
The total number of deaths has trended downward virtually linearly since 1980, as training and standards improved. That is, until precisely 2001, when total deaths began to increase. Only in two years within that 25-year period has the mortality rate (per 100,000) ever surpassed single-digits: 2003 and 2004. 2004 was also the first time that mortality due to hostile action (43.1 per 100,000) was higher than mortality due to accident (33.0 per 100,000).
The chart doesn’t include any information prior to 1980, Kate. Does anyone know the numbers for Carter’s years?
What is shown is that:
– Reagan (8 years) – 17,201 deaths (or average of 2150 per year)
– Bush Sr (4 years) – 6,223 deaths (or average of 1555.75 per year)
– Clinton (8 years) – 7,500 deaths (or average of 937.5 per year)
– Bush Jr (3 years to ’04) – 5,187 deaths (or average of 1729 per year)
In all but Bush Sr/Jr.’s years, the hostile action deaths were almost invariably below 1%.
Say what you will about the numbers, but it’s clear that the people taking the poll don’t have a clue.
Ted
I disagree A. Accident rates particularly reflect policy.
The first thing Regan did with the military was improve training and equipment which obviously reduced accident mortality quite efficiently.
Bill Clinton was all about spending the “peace dividend” elsewhere, and surprise, the accident mortality rate climbed.
I could go on about morale and illness, but I trust the point has been made.
It is clear from the figures that the US hasn’t been in a war since the 1980s. “Flags of our Fathers” did a good job of showing the mortality rates which do obtain in real combat.
US losses at Iwo Jima were about 6000 killed, died of wounds, and missing, and 19,000 wounded; mostly in about a week. THAT is war; not 900 casualties per year, which is what might be expected from advanced training or a kind of nasty garrison duty.
I don’t think it’s a valid correlation. It obviously is trying to set up a correlation that is also a causation (this president caused deaths), but reducing reality to ONE cause, and that cause a president, is totally invalid.
After all, what is being ignored is historical context; namely, the cold war era during Carter and Reagan’s era, followed by the rise of Islamic fascism and the resulting Gulf War during Bush Sr., the 9/11 attacks during George Bush’s tenure and Afghanistan/Iraq.
It doesn’t make sense to ignore genuine causality.
I thought that Bill Cinton would be the best choice. He left office with the country’s image internationally in tatters. America on the world stage was perceived by the pariahs as weak, utterly corrupt, and indecisive, all major contributing factors to 9-11.
More fun with numbers:
Average mortality rate from all causes during Reagan’s 8 years: 0.014%
Average mortality rate from all causes during Bush Sr.’s 4 years: 0.017%
Average mortality rate from all causes during Clinton’s 8 years: 0.006%
Average mortality rate from all causes during Bush Jr.’s 3 years: 0.027%
So, all in all, very small in all cases, including Junior’s. (And those numbers, which I calculated using Excel, take into account the declining total number of soldiers in the US military.)
But also showing the opposite of what Phantom claims it shows. Which does not necessarily lead to conclude that Clinton’s military was safer, but it certainly shows that you can’t conclude as Phantom does that Reagan was safer. (BTW, Phantom, it wasn’t just Clinton who reduced expenditures on the military. Guys like Cheney were advocating it as well.)
Ted
I disagree A. Accident rates particularly reflect policy.
A fair point. I starting thinking of that over lunch. Is there such a thing as poster’s remorse?
Also, clearly any death is tragic, but from a public perception standpoint, I’d argue that a training accident death during peace time doesn’t carry nearly as much “moral weight” as a combat death. The former has vague (and perhaps false) connotations of resource mismanagement, human error, equipment malfunction, etc.; the latter is inescapably linked to the President “sending our boys (and girls) into harm’s way.”
“A” and “Ted” – What exactly was the purpose of posting those “rebuttals”?
What are you attempting to say? That you read and understood both the information contained in the linked post and the table provided? “The gist is that soldiers are more likely to die from accidents than hostile action (combat and terrorist actions combined). The death count from accidents has been lower than the death count from hostile action. The fall in accidental deaths is greater than the increase in deaths by hostile actin”.
Surely no one needed you to rewrite that for
their benefit.
And 1980 was the last year of the Carter administration. He served from 1977 to 1981.
Kate:
Wasn’t trying to be contrarian at all. Not rebutting or proposing anything. (Except perhaps that those submitting to the poll are obviously wrong.)
I’m a numbers nut and like to crunch stats and did a summary for ease of reference of your readers. That’s all.
And thanks for the reminder of Carter’s years in office. I was just asking if anyone had his full numbers. Why so snarky?
Ted
Here’s a chalenge to any leftist trolls in this thread (A, that means you). Go to the previous thread about David Suzuki’s outright, bald-faced lies and please entertain us with your convoluted and twisted explanations of why it isn’t a lie.
“I’d argue that a training accident death during peace time doesn’t carry nearly as much “moral weight” as a combat death.”
And I’d argue the opposite. Soldiers are trained for combat. Contrary to all the politically correct attempts to transform our modern militaries into hug-the-enemy aid delivery units, the soldier who dies in active combat is doing the job he was trained for.
If he’s killed outside the realm of combat, as a direct or indirect result of underfunding or other political negligence (such as signing his services over to a corrupt UN peacekeeping force) – that’s when “moral weight” for that death is properly attributed to the political administrations responsible.
The “moral weight” for the combat deaths experienced post 9/11 lays squarely on the Clinton administration, despite the 9/11 and post events not having taken place during his administration. It’s reassuring to see that a lot of people understand that as evidenced in the manner in which they voted.
The arguments about accidental deaths is not in context in this poll (and just plain ridiculous).
Interestingly enough, the suicide rate under Clinton was 11.6, while under Bush it’s only been 9.4. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence….but it’s a somewhat amusing statistic nonetheless.
All I take away from these stats is that lefties are way out in left field when they say that Bush is the cause of too many “needless” deaths of soldiers.
I would assume that, of course, no soldier wants to die…but, if they had a choice, it would be in combat.
Numbers themselves don’t make much of an impression other than, from a soldier’s point of view, I would imagine that the deaths under Carter and Clinton would have seemed a whole lot more “needless.”
sarge here . it pains sarge to point out that after vietnam and the all volunteer military recruiters was taking about anyone who was still breathing drugs and alcohol on duty was common and lots of folks died from accidents if one was to give reagan that smiling doddering good natured murderer of nuns and peaseants one prop as the kids say, it was drug testing i nthe military plus a recession making the US military a employement option for a higher quality recruit dont argue with sarge on this sarge was there
It’s ludicrous. “Killed” is a small part of casualties. The poll and the article don’t deal with the very large number of seriously wounded, many of whom have lost a limb, and psychiatric casualties.
I support the war on terror. I don’t, however, agree with playing with numbers to pretend the war in Iraq does not exist, and that soldiers haven’t been affected by it.
Tragically, I see sarge lost his punctuation in the war.
Sarge is a bit addlepated.
Not sure why he put in that solitary comma – that threw me for a loop!
geez…u guys throw around those numbers as if you are counting widgets, or whatever
as a former soldier who has lost friends in peace(training) and war, it really does not make a difference….the fact is the soldier is dead
the 20 odd bodies I loaded into bodybags during an excercise with the Brits are just as legitimate as the ones my brother’s load in Afghani
new subject
sarge here again. sarges friends and family in service mostly blame rumsfield for all them unnessary deaths. lil commander bunny pants is not responsible fer much more than looking stupid on TV. in anycase anyone who thinks its more dangerous to be in service during clinton or carters years compared to now is stupid sarge wonders why “canadas bestest blog” would waste space on such comentary two ex presidents with total combat deaths less than 50 combined sarge wonders why injuries and illness aint included-20k injured in iraq bad enough to be no longer combat able and with 300,000+ of them who was deployed in gulf war one on medical disability by the end of the 1990s ect ect.
sarge wonders aloud kate who pays yer bandwidth?
Sarge is a fictional character, nothing more.
Mark – it didn’t presume to state anything but what it does. On the other hand, you don’t have those stats for peacetime, either, so while the question is valid, it’s not safe to make broad assumptions. (Note the previously mentioned suicide rate under Clinton)
Sarge – I have a good friend who served in Vietnam, and just before he retired last year, as a contracter in Kuwait and Iraq.
His bottom line observation on the difference between the two conflicts?
“The guys I met in Iraq wanted to be there.”
Now, I’ll take his on the ground observations of a man whose seen both with his own eyes over a military career that wasn’t substance enhanced, over the anonymous, petty sideswipes you’ve become famous for here.
BTW – as a Vietnam war vet, he loaths John Kerry in a way most Democrats still cannot begin to comprehend.
There’s another troll I’ve seen who always writes in the Charlie Farqueson-style.
I don’t remember it being funny when Don Harron did that schtick but this guy, like Sarge, obviously gets his jollies.
Try out blogLinx. It’s a better alternative to blogrolling that actually works, that does away with pinging and all that. It updates in the background and is self-explanatory. And what’s better – you can even import your links from blogrolling!
MHB here.
MHB wonders why sarge allus refers to hissel’ in the third person, ‘n why, fercryinoutloud, he tends ta come acrost lahk some dopey hayseed in them postings o’ his.
An’ why he sez “fer” so dang much. S. Weasel at February 21, 2007 1:40 PM ROFL !!
You beat me to to punch. Problems with punctuation are no laughing matter, however. A friend of mine had to have his semi-colon removed, and now he punctuates into a rubber bag… 😀
mhb23re
[at gmail d0t calm]
Where do you neo-cons get this stuff? Is there a UFI generator in the boiler rooom of an official building that feeds it to you?
One aspect of these stats that is ignored is the idea of whether the deaths resulted in something being accomplished!
I tend to think that those conflicts that resulted in military deaths had / have a purpose. And when you come down to it that is the ONLY reason a soldier should be at risk.
I don’t think that Carter or Clinton oversaw anything purposeful !
But that’s a whole other debate.
Lies, damned lies and statistics, folks.
I question the relevance to, well, anything.
Sarge: compare the size of Kuwait, liberated from cowardly Saddam troops, with the size of Iraq and fanatic insurgency coming from Iran, Syria and SA. Tell me then about not seeing forest behind the trees.
Kate: And I’d argue the opposite…
Perhaps that’s how such deaths should be judged (though I’m not sure I agree). But I was arguing from the perspective of the general public, and how they actually judge accidental deaths versus combat deaths. In the public’s mind, rightly or wrongly, the President is morally responsible to a far greater degree for the death of a soldier shot and killed on foreign soil than the death of a soldier whose aging vehicle accidentally rolls over on a US military base.
Which was the point of my earlier posts — that asking “Under which US President (1980 – 2004) was a US soldier most likely to die while on active duty?” misses the point that the (greater number of) non-combat-related deaths that occur during peacetime doesn’t — and will never — resonate with the general public nearly as much as the (fewer) combat deaths that occur during times of war.
“…non-combat-related deaths that occur during peacetime doesn’t — and will never — resonate with the general public nearly as much as the (fewer) combat deaths that occur during times of war.”
There are reasons for this. A leftist leaning media being the main force behind a concerted effort to undermine national defense, but also the inculcation of pro-communist ideas through the public education system.
Funny how an admission of guilt flows so effortlessly from the mouth of an avowed communist boot-lick.
I don’t see what the point of this poll is. I’m guessing most people voting may have a right leaning edge and wouldn’t like clinton or carter no matter what. Hell, their gas could smell like flowers and their touch turns all to gold and they’d still hating. This has as much relevance as a poll like this on some pinko’s blog (I’m guessing the exact opposite results, right?)
Not really trying to troll, just saying..
(PS, I do dig reading this blog, even if I’m a pinko, leftard, moonbat, satan loving bastard. Take care)
I see a lot of idiots making the “20,000 with missing limbs” claim, which is a total fabrication, so here’s some numbers to correct that mistake:
Since the start of the war, 23,530 soldiers have been wounded as of the latest available figures. Out of those soldiers, 13,081 have been returned to duty in less than 72 hours. That means that more than 50% of all wounded have sustained injuries so minor that the only treatment required has been a bandaid and some time to rest and recuperate.
Of the remaining 10,449 soldiers, only 7,005 have required air-transport. That means that of all wounded soldiers about 30% have been wounded seriously enough to require treatment in Germany or the US.
To put that in perspective, in the same period of time 18,704 soldiers had to be transported out of Iraq due to disease. In other words, almost 3 times as many soldiers had serious medical conditions due to disease as due to enemy action.
Also, in the same period of time, 6,385 soldiers required air-transport for injuries sustained as a consequence of accidents. That’s right: the number of soldiers seriously wounded due to enemy action is almost the same as the number seriously injured through accidents.
All of these statistics should highlight one fact: the number of US casualties in Iraq due to enemy action has been insignificant. And before one of the vets jumps on me, let me point out that I am an infantryman with the Canadian forces. While I abhor losing any of my brothers either to accident or in battle, I understand (as do we all, I think) that the job we signed on to do is inherently dangerous. I am frankly shocked that the casualty figures are so low, and am amazed that people still manage to complain about it.
Mortality statistics are always more fun if you arent one of them.
Interesting. A near linear decrease in the death rate, dropping from 11 per 10k in 1980, to 5/10k in 2000. Followed by a fast jump over the next 4 years up to 11 per 10k. US military deaths in Iraq appear to have stabilized at just under 850 per year, so 11 per 10k seems to be where things are currently sitting.
For comparison, the 1995 US death rate for the 25 to 34 age group was 13 per 10k.
“sarges friends and family in service mostly blame rumsfield for all them unnessary deaths”
fictional character or not, sarge is right about this; it was part of the sales pitch, in the forefront of rummy rumsfeld’s mind and approach: a small force bristling with ordnance to get in and get the job done and get out. save time and money and all that.
look whut dun happ’n eh?
It would be simple to reduce the death rate to 0 (Zero) simply retire the entire armed forces.
Then when terrorists kill people they would be civilians. Thus the Lefties would be happy.
look whut dun happ’n eh?
Yes, the annihilation of the entire Iraqi armed forces in three weeks, with almost no casualties.
I’m guessing neither Rumsfeld nor anyone else in power (Bush or predecessors) foresaw endless garrison duty against a relatively mild but neverending insurgency.
randall g: I’m guessing neither Rumsfeld nor anyone else in power (Bush or predecessors) foresaw endless garrison duty against a relatively mild but neverending insurgency.
You’d guess wrong. E.g., google “insurgency universally unexpected” (without the quotation marks) for a Media Matters article. Also google “Prewar intelligence predicted Iraqi insurgency” for a USAToday article.
A relatively mild insurgency is anything but when it’s also neverending.
“The guys I met in Iraq wanted to be there.”
How many did he meet?
”All of these statistics should highlight one fact: the number of US casualties in Iraq due to enemy action has been insignificant”Alex, by the same yardstick, the numbers of victims on 9/11 are insignificant.
My point was endless insurgency. My cat predicted there would be some insurgency. Neither the US nor any other western army can win against an Islamic insurgency though. Previous insurgencies in history were defeated, but to defeat this one would take an amount of brutality that the west does not have the stomach for, given that the media puts every drop of blood into our living rooms in real time, and the enemy knows this and can use this to defeat us regardless of their losses. This is a new state of affairs.
Let me point out that the ‘Sarge’ that has posted above is not me. He sounds like an american. I am a consistent reader, but rarely post, perhaps less than a half dozen times in the past year, most recently at http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005573.html#comments , 16 Feb, 11:16 PM. I still wear the CF CADPAT uniform.
“Alex, by the same yardstick, the numbers of victims on 9/11 are insignificant.”
Negative. 3,000 Civilians dying in one attack is not exactly status-quo, whereas 3,000 soldiers dying in one day of war-fighting is, historically speaking, quite low. 3,000 dying over the course of FOUR YEARS is not much worse than the mortality rate during peacetime! There’s a HUGE difference in the numbers you’re comparing, you’re just unable to maintain any sort of rational perspective.
Randal G., the insurgency is hardly endless. It has been a very short time since the fall of the Baathist regime. Compare and contrast to US experience in Germany and Japan after WWII for troop fatalities, and dwell upon the fact that the USA still has troops in both those countries. Or look at the French in Indochina, the Brits in Egypt, the OPP in Caledonia…
In addition, of late we have much evidence that the Iraq unpleasantness is less an insurgency than an undeclared war with Iran and Syria. If Bush goes in and takes out the mullahs Iraq will probably clean right up the same week.
“Compare and contrast to US experience in Germany and Japan after WWII for troop fatalities”
sarge here. wtf you talking’ about boy? you saying the japanese and/ or germans killed 3k american boys and girls after ve/vj day? that them germans and japanese was downing aircraft and killing other germans and japanese by the tens of thousands? well, are ya boy?
there aint no comparison, my little poop for brains
don’t tell sarge about no fictitous german cult of dead enders werewolf brigades. big difference between a few malcontents stringing wire across the roadway and iraqi folks putting 155 howitzer shells under the roadway on a daily basis. big difference between 100 dead civilians and 4 or 5 americans a week and one dead american apointed mayor kilt in occupied germany before them germans even surrendered at rheim
ROFL sarge !!
Love the diction.
Anyway, you hilight an interesting point. The reason there was no post-war German or Japanese insurgency is because their militaries and nations were both totally smashed at the end of WW II. They literally couldn’t go on.
Unfortunately for the US & its Coalition, things really went too swimmingly in 2003. They took out Saddam’s army in only 3 weeks… and this left too many of the head honchos and fighters alive & able to create further violence, as we’ve since seen.
Perhaps if the West wasn’t so squeamish about the idea of actually defeating its enemy so it couldn’t continue to fight, we’d see different results in Iraq. Simply put, a prolonged war that killed more Baathists in 2003 would leave fewer of them alive to kill innocents today.
mhb23re
[at gmail d0t calm]
I voted for Carter not knowing the statistics. It’s just logical that a Peacenick Leader would cause more casualties because of lack of support for the Military. Clinton was second; no surprise.
And the overwhelming reasons for those high death rates were accidents and illness, neither of which reflect on decisions or policies made by the presiding President.
The total number of deaths has trended downward virtually linearly since 1980, as training and standards improved. That is, until precisely 2001, when total deaths began to increase. Only in two years within that 25-year period has the mortality rate (per 100,000) ever surpassed single-digits: 2003 and 2004. 2004 was also the first time that mortality due to hostile action (43.1 per 100,000) was higher than mortality due to accident (33.0 per 100,000).
The chart doesn’t include any information prior to 1980, Kate. Does anyone know the numbers for Carter’s years?
What is shown is that:
– Reagan (8 years) – 17,201 deaths (or average of 2150 per year)
– Bush Sr (4 years) – 6,223 deaths (or average of 1555.75 per year)
– Clinton (8 years) – 7,500 deaths (or average of 937.5 per year)
– Bush Jr (3 years to ’04) – 5,187 deaths (or average of 1729 per year)
In all but Bush Sr/Jr.’s years, the hostile action deaths were almost invariably below 1%.
Say what you will about the numbers, but it’s clear that the people taking the poll don’t have a clue.
Ted
I disagree A. Accident rates particularly reflect policy.
The first thing Regan did with the military was improve training and equipment which obviously reduced accident mortality quite efficiently.
Bill Clinton was all about spending the “peace dividend” elsewhere, and surprise, the accident mortality rate climbed.
I could go on about morale and illness, but I trust the point has been made.
It is clear from the figures that the US hasn’t been in a war since the 1980s. “Flags of our Fathers” did a good job of showing the mortality rates which do obtain in real combat.
US losses at Iwo Jima were about 6000 killed, died of wounds, and missing, and 19,000 wounded; mostly in about a week. THAT is war; not 900 casualties per year, which is what might be expected from advanced training or a kind of nasty garrison duty.
I don’t think it’s a valid correlation. It obviously is trying to set up a correlation that is also a causation (this president caused deaths), but reducing reality to ONE cause, and that cause a president, is totally invalid.
After all, what is being ignored is historical context; namely, the cold war era during Carter and Reagan’s era, followed by the rise of Islamic fascism and the resulting Gulf War during Bush Sr., the 9/11 attacks during George Bush’s tenure and Afghanistan/Iraq.
It doesn’t make sense to ignore genuine causality.
I thought that Bill Cinton would be the best choice. He left office with the country’s image internationally in tatters. America on the world stage was perceived by the pariahs as weak, utterly corrupt, and indecisive, all major contributing factors to 9-11.
More fun with numbers:
Average mortality rate from all causes during Reagan’s 8 years: 0.014%
Average mortality rate from all causes during Bush Sr.’s 4 years: 0.017%
Average mortality rate from all causes during Clinton’s 8 years: 0.006%
Average mortality rate from all causes during Bush Jr.’s 3 years: 0.027%
So, all in all, very small in all cases, including Junior’s. (And those numbers, which I calculated using Excel, take into account the declining total number of soldiers in the US military.)
But also showing the opposite of what Phantom claims it shows. Which does not necessarily lead to conclude that Clinton’s military was safer, but it certainly shows that you can’t conclude as Phantom does that Reagan was safer. (BTW, Phantom, it wasn’t just Clinton who reduced expenditures on the military. Guys like Cheney were advocating it as well.)
Ted
I disagree A. Accident rates particularly reflect policy.
A fair point. I starting thinking of that over lunch. Is there such a thing as poster’s remorse?
Also, clearly any death is tragic, but from a public perception standpoint, I’d argue that a training accident death during peace time doesn’t carry nearly as much “moral weight” as a combat death. The former has vague (and perhaps false) connotations of resource mismanagement, human error, equipment malfunction, etc.; the latter is inescapably linked to the President “sending our boys (and girls) into harm’s way.”
“A” and “Ted” – What exactly was the purpose of posting those “rebuttals”?
What are you attempting to say? That you read and understood both the information contained in the linked post and the table provided?
“The gist is that soldiers are more likely to die from accidents than hostile action (combat and terrorist actions combined). The death count from accidents has been lower than the death count from hostile action. The fall in accidental deaths is greater than the increase in deaths by hostile actin”.
Surely no one needed you to rewrite that for
their benefit.
And 1980 was the last year of the Carter administration. He served from 1977 to 1981.
Kate:
Wasn’t trying to be contrarian at all. Not rebutting or proposing anything. (Except perhaps that those submitting to the poll are obviously wrong.)
I’m a numbers nut and like to crunch stats and did a summary for ease of reference of your readers. That’s all.
And thanks for the reminder of Carter’s years in office. I was just asking if anyone had his full numbers. Why so snarky?
Ted
Here’s a chalenge to any leftist trolls in this thread (A, that means you). Go to the previous thread about David Suzuki’s outright, bald-faced lies and please entertain us with your convoluted and twisted explanations of why it isn’t a lie.
“I’d argue that a training accident death during peace time doesn’t carry nearly as much “moral weight” as a combat death.”
And I’d argue the opposite. Soldiers are trained for combat. Contrary to all the politically correct attempts to transform our modern militaries into hug-the-enemy aid delivery units, the soldier who dies in active combat is doing the job he was trained for.
If he’s killed outside the realm of combat, as a direct or indirect result of underfunding or other political negligence (such as signing his services over to a corrupt UN peacekeeping force) – that’s when “moral weight” for that death is properly attributed to the political administrations responsible.
The “moral weight” for the combat deaths experienced post 9/11 lays squarely on the Clinton administration, despite the 9/11 and post events not having taken place during his administration. It’s reassuring to see that a lot of people understand that as evidenced in the manner in which they voted.
The arguments about accidental deaths is not in context in this poll (and just plain ridiculous).
Interestingly enough, the suicide rate under Clinton was 11.6, while under Bush it’s only been 9.4. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence….but it’s a somewhat amusing statistic nonetheless.
All I take away from these stats is that lefties are way out in left field when they say that Bush is the cause of too many “needless” deaths of soldiers.
I would assume that, of course, no soldier wants to die…but, if they had a choice, it would be in combat.
Numbers themselves don’t make much of an impression other than, from a soldier’s point of view, I would imagine that the deaths under Carter and Clinton would have seemed a whole lot more “needless.”
sarge here . it pains sarge to point out that after vietnam and the all volunteer military recruiters was taking about anyone who was still breathing drugs and alcohol on duty was common and lots of folks died from accidents if one was to give reagan that smiling doddering good natured murderer of nuns and peaseants one prop as the kids say, it was drug testing i nthe military plus a recession making the US military a employement option for a higher quality recruit dont argue with sarge on this sarge was there
It’s ludicrous. “Killed” is a small part of casualties. The poll and the article don’t deal with the very large number of seriously wounded, many of whom have lost a limb, and psychiatric casualties.
I support the war on terror. I don’t, however, agree with playing with numbers to pretend the war in Iraq does not exist, and that soldiers haven’t been affected by it.
Tragically, I see sarge lost his punctuation in the war.
Sarge is a bit addlepated.
Not sure why he put in that solitary comma – that threw me for a loop!
geez…u guys throw around those numbers as if you are counting widgets, or whatever
as a former soldier who has lost friends in peace(training) and war, it really does not make a difference….the fact is the soldier is dead
the 20 odd bodies I loaded into bodybags during an excercise with the Brits are just as legitimate as the ones my brother’s load in Afghani
new subject
sarge here again. sarges friends and family in service mostly blame rumsfield for all them unnessary deaths. lil commander bunny pants is not responsible fer much more than looking stupid on TV. in anycase anyone who thinks its more dangerous to be in service during clinton or carters years compared to now is stupid sarge wonders why “canadas bestest blog” would waste space on such comentary two ex presidents with total combat deaths less than 50 combined sarge wonders why injuries and illness aint included-20k injured in iraq bad enough to be no longer combat able and with 300,000+ of them who was deployed in gulf war one on medical disability by the end of the 1990s ect ect.
sarge wonders aloud kate who pays yer bandwidth?
Sarge is a fictional character, nothing more.
Mark – it didn’t presume to state anything but what it does. On the other hand, you don’t have those stats for peacetime, either, so while the question is valid, it’s not safe to make broad assumptions. (Note the previously mentioned suicide rate under Clinton)
Sarge – I have a good friend who served in Vietnam, and just before he retired last year, as a contracter in Kuwait and Iraq.
His bottom line observation on the difference between the two conflicts?
“The guys I met in Iraq wanted to be there.”
Now, I’ll take his on the ground observations of a man whose seen both with his own eyes over a military career that wasn’t substance enhanced, over the anonymous, petty sideswipes you’ve become famous for here.
BTW – as a Vietnam war vet, he loaths John Kerry in a way most Democrats still cannot begin to comprehend.
There’s another troll I’ve seen who always writes in the Charlie Farqueson-style.
I don’t remember it being funny when Don Harron did that schtick but this guy, like Sarge, obviously gets his jollies.
Try out blogLinx. It’s a better alternative to blogrolling that actually works, that does away with pinging and all that. It updates in the background and is self-explanatory. And what’s better – you can even import your links from blogrolling!
MHB here.
MHB wonders why sarge allus refers to hissel’ in the third person, ‘n why, fercryinoutloud, he tends ta come acrost lahk some dopey hayseed in them postings o’ his.
An’ why he sez “fer” so dang much.
S. Weasel at February 21, 2007 1:40 PM ROFL !!
You beat me to to punch. Problems with punctuation are no laughing matter, however. A friend of mine had to have his semi-colon removed, and now he punctuates into a rubber bag… 😀
mhb23re
[at gmail d0t calm]
Where do you neo-cons get this stuff? Is there a UFI generator in the boiler rooom of an official building that feeds it to you?
One aspect of these stats that is ignored is the idea of whether the deaths resulted in something being accomplished!
I tend to think that those conflicts that resulted in military deaths had / have a purpose. And when you come down to it that is the ONLY reason a soldier should be at risk.
I don’t think that Carter or Clinton oversaw anything purposeful !
But that’s a whole other debate.
Lies, damned lies and statistics, folks.
I question the relevance to, well, anything.
Sarge: compare the size of Kuwait, liberated from cowardly Saddam troops, with the size of Iraq and fanatic insurgency coming from Iran, Syria and SA. Tell me then about not seeing forest behind the trees.
Kate: And I’d argue the opposite…
Perhaps that’s how such deaths should be judged (though I’m not sure I agree). But I was arguing from the perspective of the general public, and how they actually judge accidental deaths versus combat deaths. In the public’s mind, rightly or wrongly, the President is morally responsible to a far greater degree for the death of a soldier shot and killed on foreign soil than the death of a soldier whose aging vehicle accidentally rolls over on a US military base.
Which was the point of my earlier posts — that asking “Under which US President (1980 – 2004) was a US soldier most likely to die while on active duty?” misses the point that the (greater number of) non-combat-related deaths that occur during peacetime doesn’t — and will never — resonate with the general public nearly as much as the (fewer) combat deaths that occur during times of war.
“…non-combat-related deaths that occur during peacetime doesn’t — and will never — resonate with the general public nearly as much as the (fewer) combat deaths that occur during times of war.”
There are reasons for this. A leftist leaning media being the main force behind a concerted effort to undermine national defense, but also the inculcation of pro-communist ideas through the public education system.
Funny how an admission of guilt flows so effortlessly from the mouth of an avowed communist boot-lick.
I don’t see what the point of this poll is. I’m guessing most people voting may have a right leaning edge and wouldn’t like clinton or carter no matter what. Hell, their gas could smell like flowers and their touch turns all to gold and they’d still hating. This has as much relevance as a poll like this on some pinko’s blog (I’m guessing the exact opposite results, right?)
Not really trying to troll, just saying..
(PS, I do dig reading this blog, even if I’m a pinko, leftard, moonbat, satan loving bastard. Take care)
I see a lot of idiots making the “20,000 with missing limbs” claim, which is a total fabrication, so here’s some numbers to correct that mistake:
Since the start of the war, 23,530 soldiers have been wounded as of the latest available figures. Out of those soldiers, 13,081 have been returned to duty in less than 72 hours. That means that more than 50% of all wounded have sustained injuries so minor that the only treatment required has been a bandaid and some time to rest and recuperate.
Of the remaining 10,449 soldiers, only 7,005 have required air-transport. That means that of all wounded soldiers about 30% have been wounded seriously enough to require treatment in Germany or the US.
To put that in perspective, in the same period of time 18,704 soldiers had to be transported out of Iraq due to disease. In other words, almost 3 times as many soldiers had serious medical conditions due to disease as due to enemy action.
Also, in the same period of time, 6,385 soldiers required air-transport for injuries sustained as a consequence of accidents. That’s right: the number of soldiers seriously wounded due to enemy action is almost the same as the number seriously injured through accidents.
All of these statistics should highlight one fact: the number of US casualties in Iraq due to enemy action has been insignificant. And before one of the vets jumps on me, let me point out that I am an infantryman with the Canadian forces. While I abhor losing any of my brothers either to accident or in battle, I understand (as do we all, I think) that the job we signed on to do is inherently dangerous. I am frankly shocked that the casualty figures are so low, and am amazed that people still manage to complain about it.
Mortality statistics are always more fun if you arent one of them.
Interesting. A near linear decrease in the death rate, dropping from 11 per 10k in 1980, to 5/10k in 2000. Followed by a fast jump over the next 4 years up to 11 per 10k. US military deaths in Iraq appear to have stabilized at just under 850 per year, so 11 per 10k seems to be where things are currently sitting.
For comparison, the 1995 US death rate for the 25 to 34 age group was 13 per 10k.
“sarges friends and family in service mostly blame rumsfield for all them unnessary deaths”
fictional character or not, sarge is right about this; it was part of the sales pitch, in the forefront of rummy rumsfeld’s mind and approach: a small force bristling with ordnance to get in and get the job done and get out. save time and money and all that.
look whut dun happ’n eh?
It would be simple to reduce the death rate to 0 (Zero) simply retire the entire armed forces.
Then when terrorists kill people they would be civilians. Thus the Lefties would be happy.
look whut dun happ’n eh?
Yes, the annihilation of the entire Iraqi armed forces in three weeks, with almost no casualties.
I’m guessing neither Rumsfeld nor anyone else in power (Bush or predecessors) foresaw endless garrison duty against a relatively mild but neverending insurgency.
randall g: I’m guessing neither Rumsfeld nor anyone else in power (Bush or predecessors) foresaw endless garrison duty against a relatively mild but neverending insurgency.
You’d guess wrong. E.g., google “insurgency universally unexpected” (without the quotation marks) for a Media Matters article. Also google “Prewar intelligence predicted Iraqi insurgency” for a USAToday article.
A relatively mild insurgency is anything but when it’s also neverending.
“The guys I met in Iraq wanted to be there.”
How many did he meet?
”All of these statistics should highlight one fact: the number of US casualties in Iraq due to enemy action has been insignificant”Alex, by the same yardstick, the numbers of victims on 9/11 are insignificant.
My point was endless insurgency. My cat predicted there would be some insurgency. Neither the US nor any other western army can win against an Islamic insurgency though. Previous insurgencies in history were defeated, but to defeat this one would take an amount of brutality that the west does not have the stomach for, given that the media puts every drop of blood into our living rooms in real time, and the enemy knows this and can use this to defeat us regardless of their losses. This is a new state of affairs.
Let me point out that the ‘Sarge’ that has posted above is not me. He sounds like an american. I am a consistent reader, but rarely post, perhaps less than a half dozen times in the past year, most recently at http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005573.html#comments , 16 Feb, 11:16 PM. I still wear the CF CADPAT uniform.
“Alex, by the same yardstick, the numbers of victims on 9/11 are insignificant.”
Negative. 3,000 Civilians dying in one attack is not exactly status-quo, whereas 3,000 soldiers dying in one day of war-fighting is, historically speaking, quite low. 3,000 dying over the course of FOUR YEARS is not much worse than the mortality rate during peacetime! There’s a HUGE difference in the numbers you’re comparing, you’re just unable to maintain any sort of rational perspective.
Randal G., the insurgency is hardly endless. It has been a very short time since the fall of the Baathist regime. Compare and contrast to US experience in Germany and Japan after WWII for troop fatalities, and dwell upon the fact that the USA still has troops in both those countries. Or look at the French in Indochina, the Brits in Egypt, the OPP in Caledonia…
In addition, of late we have much evidence that the Iraq unpleasantness is less an insurgency than an undeclared war with Iran and Syria. If Bush goes in and takes out the mullahs Iraq will probably clean right up the same week.
“Compare and contrast to US experience in Germany and Japan after WWII for troop fatalities”
sarge here. wtf you talking’ about boy? you saying the japanese and/ or germans killed 3k american boys and girls after ve/vj day? that them germans and japanese was downing aircraft and killing other germans and japanese by the tens of thousands? well, are ya boy?
there aint no comparison, my little poop for brains
don’t tell sarge about no fictitous german cult of dead enders werewolf brigades. big difference between a few malcontents stringing wire across the roadway and iraqi folks putting 155 howitzer shells under the roadway on a daily basis. big difference between 100 dead civilians and 4 or 5 americans a week and one dead american apointed mayor kilt in occupied germany before them germans even surrendered at rheim
ROFL sarge !!
Love the diction.
Anyway, you hilight an interesting point. The reason there was no post-war German or Japanese insurgency is because their militaries and nations were both totally smashed at the end of WW II. They literally couldn’t go on.
Unfortunately for the US & its Coalition, things really went too swimmingly in 2003. They took out Saddam’s army in only 3 weeks… and this left too many of the head honchos and fighters alive & able to create further violence, as we’ve since seen.
Perhaps if the West wasn’t so squeamish about the idea of actually defeating its enemy so it couldn’t continue to fight, we’d see different results in Iraq. Simply put, a prolonged war that killed more Baathists in 2003 would leave fewer of them alive to kill innocents today.
mhb23re
[at gmail d0t calm]