Um, no, you said that total death rates are down, and that nobody cried for the guys during the Carter administration, and never mentioned that the total included active duty personnel that died of illness. Therefore, my analogy of the heart attack victim is apt.
In 2006 there were 753 hostile deaths and 465 accidental. Accidental deaths no longer the #1 cause.
When I say military death rates are at historic lows when compared with peace time, that is a fact. WHICH IS WRONG, they are up 0.8% in the last 25 years, just because you keep saying it does not make it true. Or are you saying that total death rate is down compared to some other long ago time in history, if so which one? Comparing Iraq to the civil war is also a bit stupid, if you are looking at American deaths. (1) war methods and times have changed, it is no longer line up in a field and fire cannons at each other. (2) If you want to compare the two, at a minimum, Iraqi deaths need to be included.
I agree that the press is a piece of crap. No argument there. But when people used flawed arguments to push a point, it winds up compromising a point that has merit, and unfortunately, all other points made by that person/party/cause.
What part of that is not 100% good news? It is organized Sunnis that are destroying AQ for us in Iraq, with our help. Excuse me, but wasn’t that precisely the plan?
Wonderful! We’ve managed to turn the people who we wanted out of power because of the WMD they never had against the people that weren’t even there when we invaded! Or something like that.
You have me on the language. If you take military fatalities from only 1980 compared to the present, though the total number is now lower, the larger military at the time made the death rate slightly lower then compared to today.
I will go out on a limb and wager that will not be true for the current year.
Congratulations on deflecting me from my historical point which is that, as usual, America is doing great and will continue to do greater and greater for the indefinite future. In that context, the current whining and gnashing of teeth and trying to be the first to run up the white flag would mystify my grandfather’s generation. Were he alive today he would wonder: You are complaining why exactly?
My main complaint is completely off topic. First the context, in my state, VT, a conservative republican is probably the equivalent of a liberal democrat in other places. When we, republicans, try to bolster an argument with data that is misleading, it makes us look bad. We should not try to justify the casualties by saying “well, in the past people died too”. The justification should be, “without this action, more lives would have been lost.” If we have bad, or misleading, data for this argument, it compromises our other positions.
I’m not completely on board with this whole effort (war), but it makes sense that the surge is working, (if we had 2M soldiers over there it would work even better). The ultimate question is, once the parents go to bed, what do the children do. And that is a question that cannot be answered now, although everybody hopes, (right-left and middle), that there will be political reconciliation…
Incidentally, I found some information on the data, but it didn’t really lead too far. DD1300 is the casualty reporting form and DD2346 is the reporting form, and DD1300.18 is the instruction, but nowhere does it actually define “accidental”.
You crack me up Art. 2007 was the deadliest year on record for US troops in Iraq. We have now shipped home 4000 dead Americans in body bags from that shithole and accomplished absolutely nothing other than give Al Qaeda a huge recruiting and training ground and a opportunity to shoot at us, and enrich a bunch of greedy and crooked private war profiteers.
One paltry week sees no US fatalities and you want us all to declare the Iraq War a success?
Low American casualty rates is a wonderful development, but what are the civilian death rates looking like? Infant mortality? Is the rebuilding effort still at complete standstill? Is infrastructure replacement still such a low priority (or still so dangerous…) that the large capital, public health, and agricultural infrastructure is not merely still far below pre-war levels, but actually in danger of flatlining?
We’re in it for the long haul. 1st, you have to secure the country and provide some breathing room for US forces (looks to be just about done, but MUST be maintained or it all falls apart). Once we have some breathing room, the Iraqi forces can be trained and (eventually) take over security, as well as the populace being secure. Once this happens, infrastructure can be rebuilt. Its a long-term project, and must be seen through or it was all for nothing.
Without getting into ANOTHER debate about how and why we’re in Iraq, we now have the opportunity to raise the standard of living for so many. We must finish the job. Part of being in our country’s military is being willing to fight (and die) for the ideals it represents, and to bring the freedoms we enjoy to others who do not have them.
I’ve noticed that you’re pretty cavalier about those having to fight the war. Oh welll, it’s not like they’re draftees or something, right?
On the contrary, Art has nothing but the highest respect for our military men and women (as long as they are straight, of course). That’s why he wants them to stay in Iraq and finish the job and get the victory. “Support the Troops” and all.
Thanks, Matt, that post helps a lot. First your operative metric was the three month trend of civilian, non security force Iraqis. When that metric turned south for you, but up for me, your operative metric was the quarterly US fatalities compared to the previous years’ quarterly fatalities. That metric obviously doesn’t work for you now since we have just finished the lowest fatality quarter yet.
Fortunately you have now let me know that the newly operative metric is the previous calendar year US fatalities. It will take a bit longer for that metric to go south on you since I now will have to wait an entire year to call BS on your spin instead of just a couple months. That was smart. Still, you are in an Ehrlich kind of situation since you will still be around in a year and look foolish like he did with his mass starvation prediction. You really need to take a hint from the global warming crowd and make predictions that can only be disproven long after you are dead and forgotten.
This all could have been avoided if only you had given me the web site with the currently operative spin on Iraq casualties when I had asked so that I could stay up to date and stay right thinking. I guess that is secret though.
Art you can keep looking at Iraq through your blinkers and you can keep on seeing what you want to see and quoting snapshot statistics to argue points that you want to make, but the fact remains that the premise for this war was flawed we should not be there and no matter what we do while we are there and what state we leave the country in when we leave we will still be in negative territory. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be dead many thousands of Americans will be dead, Iraq’s infrastructure will be in ruins, it will be rife with sectarian violence and will not have a democratic or free government and the world will be a lot less safe. Don’t get me started on the hundreds of billions of dollars pissed away that could have done so much good here at home.
In my own opinion there is absolutely nothing that can ever be won in Iraq that is worth 4000 and counting American lives and half a trillion and counting US dollars.
But go ahead, declare your victory or your yet to be determined mission accomplished, or whatever it is you armchair general chickenhawks like to do. Just remember when you are jumping up and down shouting “WE WON WE WON WE WON” like a petulant child, the rest of us will be asking what exactly did we win if anything and at what cost?
in a war that has never been coherently justified, i think one fatality a year would be too many. that’s the problem that i, and some people who i know, have with the situation in iraq. the reasons cited for going to war (imposing democracy, finding WMD, ‘smoking out’ al qaeda) have come to nothing, and many implicit reasons (securing oil interests, profiteering for private energy and defense companies with close ties to the white house) are totally abhorrent.
for the purposes of this argument, i’m not even necessarily anti-war. i realize that some wars have to be fought, and when that happens, lives are lost in gruesome ways. this is brutal, and ugly, and sad, but true. and any person who has put themselves or been put on the line in such a situation can put their feet on my dinner table any time. nobody has ever convinced me, though, that this war had to be fought, and by all appearances the people who are benefiting most aren’t the iraqi people, or even the american people, but a handful of corporate interests. you know how much you’re paying blackwater to be over there?
-mike
p.s - i’m not even an american citizen, so you can flip the switch on this one if you like.