Thursday, March 23, 2006
Thoughts on Military Casualty Statistics
In a post on 'War and Peace', Instapundit has stimulated a very interesting discussion about miltary casualty statistics. you can follow the thread of comments there and another at the RedState blog ,which started it all thusly :
"While every lost serviceman and servicewoman is certainly tragic and should be mourned, the actual statistics tell quite a different tale from the MSM and Democratic doom-and-gloom outlook. Comparing the numbers of lost US military personnel to past years, and past presidential terms, may even be a shock to supporters of the war.
Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)
Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). ....
In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones). The reason is that there are usually a fair number that die every year in training accidents, as well as a small number of illness and suicide. 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 simply outright lies and distortion."
The comments discuss problems with the above comparisons. Some note that the size of the force was much larger in the earlier periods, so the rates per 100,000 are much higher for GWB's period; others note that rates go up as the combat/traing tempo increases or as a smaller force does more; and others cite the improvements in medical care that save many lives among the wounded.
It's easy to do analytic manipulations of these numbers, but that should not detract from a few simple points : first is that lost lives are tragic and the sacrifice is real whether in training or combat; second is that improvements in medical techniques and equipment, as well as training and tactics do save lives; third, the losses are low compared to previous wars and especially so in view of how much is being accomplished; fourth, the media reporting does distort the picture grossly by emphasizing and focusing on a body count with little or no attention to the real achievements in the field.
"While every lost serviceman and servicewoman is certainly tragic and should be mourned, the actual statistics tell quite a different tale from the MSM and Democratic doom-and-gloom outlook. Comparing the numbers of lost US military personnel to past years, and past presidential terms, may even be a shock to supporters of the war.
Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)
Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). ....
In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones). The reason is that there are usually a fair number that die every year in training accidents, as well as a small number of illness and suicide. 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 simply outright lies and distortion."
The comments discuss problems with the above comparisons. Some note that the size of the force was much larger in the earlier periods, so the rates per 100,000 are much higher for GWB's period; others note that rates go up as the combat/traing tempo increases or as a smaller force does more; and others cite the improvements in medical care that save many lives among the wounded.
It's easy to do analytic manipulations of these numbers, but that should not detract from a few simple points : first is that lost lives are tragic and the sacrifice is real whether in training or combat; second is that improvements in medical techniques and equipment, as well as training and tactics do save lives; third, the losses are low compared to previous wars and especially so in view of how much is being accomplished; fourth, the media reporting does distort the picture grossly by emphasizing and focusing on a body count with little or no attention to the real achievements in the field.
