Iraq War Deaths for May 2005
US military deaths in Iraq continued to climb in May, reflecting a big increase in car bombings, as well as aggressive counter-insurgency operations in the western part of the country.
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 27 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.
June 1st, 2005 at 6:53 pm
Oh, and lets not forget the over 780 (known) Iraqi deaths for the month of May. But life is better for them now, right?
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:29 am
Shut Up Rise…..Fuck Wit. 780 is nothing !!! theres loads of ’em out there !!!!!
June 3rd, 2005 at 10:19 am
Knowing that you probably can’t count and actually have no idea how many people 780 is, I will simply ignore your post.
June 9th, 2005 at 7:34 am
Gee, Wizz Mate you must feel real proud of yourself hey ? knocking peoples inteligence without even knowing them.
For your Information Mr. “Stool Sample”, My Mathematic Skills are fine, and I have a Commercial Pilots licence to boot !!
You really need to think about the 780, it really isn’t much when you consider how many of the Bastards there are out there !!!
June 13th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Robert, you’re a racist fuck.
June 14th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
I have not visited here for awhile but I am not surprised that the level of the argument here has continued to deteriorate along with our fortunes in Iraq. Anyone not up to speed on the circumstances there should check out MSNBC’s latest report.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8202434/
Anyone who doubts that any parallel exits between our situations in Iraq and Viet Nam should read this:
http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH41/Friedman41.html
If one reads the entire text of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearings on Viet Nam in 1966 the obvious dilemma that our leadership faced becomes apparent. To escalate the war would force the Chinese hand and potentially draw us into a land war with them that we could not win without the use of nuclear weapons. The alternative, advocated by other respected foreign policy minds like former Ambassador George Kennan, the so called “enclave strategy” also had its pitfalls. “Like the hawk argument, the dove position contained its share of convenient omissions. Most obvious was its utter failure to account for–or indeed more than glansingly to acknowledge–Soviet and Chinese aid to Hanoi. Since they ultimately would judge Saigon’s legitimacy by its ability to resist Northern aggression while maintaining the niceties of U.S.-style democracy, doves held America’s ally to rather a high standard”.
Quite the reversal of today where hawks believe as the doves did then, that our allies, the “elected” government of Iraq can legitimize themselves only by “maintaining the niceties of U.S. style democracy” while defeating the insurgency, which they cannot do without our assistance. Today’s doves on the other hand see our current course as drawing us into an endless conflict with the backers of the insurgency i.e. terrorists and former Baathists, one that we cannot win without resorting to tactics that we find abhorrent.
The point of all of this is not to rehash the mistakes of the past or to even debate the wisdom of involving ourselves in either of these conflicts in the first place, but rather to illustrate that the level of the debate must now rise above the current level of partisanship.
All of our leaders, Democrat and Republican as well as the majority of the American people who supported this endeavor either through their advocacy or their apathy must take responsibility for their decision and began debating in earnest the future course of our policy. They are unlikely to do so as long as the American people are divided along party lines and radically divergent ideologies.
Note to “Rise Against”: Forthright racists and genocidal maniacs do not deserve the courtesy of your acknowledgement.
June 15th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Duly noted. Thanks.