The Bush Legacy in Iraq
I’ve updated my Iraq-Vietnam comparison graphs with the number of US dead for October. The number was down from the previous month, with 65 US fatalities. Expect that number to rise again in November, once the post-election re-invasion of Falluja begins. Overall, the pattern seems pretty consistent: US soldiers keep dying. Gosh; who would have expected it?
Again, I’m getting these figures from the advanced search tool at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund site, and from Lunaville’s page on Iraq coalition casualties. The figures are for the number of US dead per month, without regard to whether the deaths were combat-related.
The first graph shows the first 20 months of each war. (Click on any image for a larger version.)
Next, the same chart, with the Vietnam numbers extended out to cover the first four years of the war:
Finally, the chart that gives the US death toll for the entire Vietnam war:
Disclaimer: I’m aware that we have more troops in-theater in Iraq than we had during the corresponding parts of the Vietnam War graph. Vietnam didn’t get numbers of US troops comparable to the number currently in Iraq until shortly after Johnson won the 1964 election, some three-and-a-half years after the starting point of the Vietnam graphs above.
These graphs are not intended to show the relative lethality of the two conflicts on a per-soldier basis. I was just curious how the “death profile” of the two wars compared, and these graphs let me see that. You are free to draw your own conclusions.
You can view more discussion of these charts on the following pages, if you’re interested. The graphs are all the same; I just update them in place when the new numbers become available.
- US deaths in Vietnam and Iraq by month
- Iraq war deaths
- November: The cruelest month
- 41 US Iraq war dead in December
- Post-Saddam death toll up slightly
- February death toll down for us, up for them
- Thirteen months in
- Record US deaths in April
- US War Dead in Iraq for May
- US Iraq Deaths Down in June
- US Soldiers Continue to Die in Iraq
- Eighteen Months In
- Another Month’s Progress
November 1st, 2004 at 12:10 pm
I really want to see some numbers for innocent civilians killed from the start of the war. Compared to innocent civilians killed from internal hostile situations over the last 3 to 5 years. I realized there would be quite abit of a margin of error on these stats, but could at least give some perspective of comparisons to a hostile Iraq under US vs hostile Iraq under Saddam.
November 2nd, 2004 at 1:20 pm
Which gives me an opportunity to pass on a joke I heard:
What’s the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
George Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.
November 3rd, 2004 at 4:48 pm
That’s a misleading comparison because we’ve already done the vast bulk of the fighting in Iraq.
November 3rd, 2004 at 5:03 pm
What evidence do you have for that assertion? Looking at it myself, I don’t see any reason to think that the current death toll won’t continue unabated essentially forever. Unless we put more troops on the ground (in which case it will go up), or pull troops out (in which case it will go down). In that sense, it’s exactly like Vietnam, where the tactics we used to fight a popular insurgency made that insurgency stronger over time, rather than weakening it.
We’re doing the same thing in Iraq.
November 28th, 2004 at 2:32 pm
AMERICANS, WAKE UP TO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN IRAQ WITH PORTER
GOSS THE NEW CIA DIRECTOR.
AMERICANS MUST REALIZE WHAT NOW WHAT WILL BE HAPPENING IN IRAQ NOW THE NEW CIA DIRECTOR PORTER GOSS HAS TAKEN OVER. PORTER GOSS WAS ATTATCHED TO MAC V STUDIES AND OPERATIONS GROUP IN VIET NAM. HE TRAINED THIS GROUP TO TORTURE AND CONDUCT THE BLACK BAG OPERATIONS.
THESE OPERATIONS CONSITED OF SYSTEMATICALLY GOING INTO VILLAGES AND
TORTURING AND MURDERING THE RESIDENTS AND HIS TRAINED STAR RATED COVERT FORCES CARRIED OUT THE PHOENIX ASSAULT ON THE VILLAGES WHICH WERE TOTAL ANNIAHLATION OF THE VILLAGES. GEORGE BUSH APPOINTED PORTER FOR THIS REASON. HE IS NOW TRAINING 3 CIA COVERT OPERATION GROUPS TO GO INTO IRAQ, SAUDI ARABIA, AND IRAN, IN IRAQ THEY WILL SOON BE DEPLOYED TO EXTERMINATE (AREAS OF RESISTANCE) WHCH WILL INCLUDE ALL INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN THE AREA. IN SAUDI ARABIA THEY WILL BE DEPLOYED TO DISRUPT THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT, YOU WILL SEE GROWING UNREST AND SUPPOSIDLEY TERROSIT ACTIVITY ON THE RISE. BUT THE COVERT OPERATION THERE WILL BE CAUSING THE DISRUPTION SO BUSH CAN (HELP THE SAUDIS) COMBAT THIS SITUATION. IN IRAN THE OPERATION WILL BE DEPLOYED TO CAUSE DISRUPTION AND CHAOS WITHIN THEIR GOVERNMENT AND THEY WILL BULD A FALSE TROJAN HORSE OF NUCUELAR CAPABILITY SUPPOSEDLYCOMING FROM IRANIAN MILITANTS. THIS WILL PROVIDE BASIS FOR THE US TO INVADE IRAN.
AMERICANS WITH SONS AND DAUGHTERS IN IRAQ NOW MUST BRACE FOR WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR THEM AND WHAT THEY WILL BE USED FOR.
Steven Brandt
Clermont, Florida
January 9th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
Jan 7,2005…
Referring to the campaign to stabilize Iraq, Mr. Bush said: “I know it’s hard, but it’s hard for a reason. And the reason it’s hard is because there are a handful of folks who fear freedom.”
What an ass we have for president. He alone should be able to clear Iraq of a handful of folks.
January 15th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Babylon, a city renowned for its beauty and its splendour 1,000 years before Europe built anything comparable, was chosen as the site for a US military base in April 2003, just after the invasion of Iraq.
Military commanders set up their camp in the heart of one of the world’s most important archaeological sites and surrounded the enclosed part of the ancient city. At least 2,000 troops were installed, daily passing iconic relics like the enormous basalt Lion of Babylon sculpture.
In September 2003 the base was passed to a Polish-led force, which held it until today’s formal handover of the site to the Iraqi culture ministry.
In his report, Mr Curtis accepted that initially the US military presence helped protect the site from looters. But he described as “regrettable” the decision to set up a base in such an important spot.
He found that large areas of the site had been covered in gravel brought in from outside, compacted and sometimes chemically treated to provide helipads, car parks and accommodation and storage areas. “The status of future information about these areas will therefore be seriously compromised,” he said.
Archaeologists were horrified by the confirmation of reports which have been filtering out of Iraq for months.
“Outrage is hardly the word, this is just dreadful,” said Lord Redesdale, an archaeologist and head of the all-party parliamentary archaeological group. “These are world sites. Not only is what the American forces are doing damaging the archaeology of Iraq, it’s actually damaging the cultural heritage of the whole world.”
Tim Schadla Hall, reader in public archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, said: “In this case we see an international conflict in which the US has failed to take into account the requirements of the Hague convention … to protect major archaeological sites – just another convention it seems happy to ignore.”
Lieutenant Colonel Steven Boylan, a US military spokes man in Baghdad, said engineering works at the camp were discussed with the head of the Babylon museum. “An archaeologist examined every construction initiative for its impact on historical ruins.”
He said plans were being considered to move some of the units in order “to better preserve the Babylon ruins.”
“The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition,” he added. “The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon, but there are very few visible original remains to the untrained eye.”