US Iraq War Deaths for August

My apologies; I neglected to update my graph of US military deaths in Iraq for the month of August (until now). Deaths were up in August, to 85. Only three previous months during the war have been higher, although five other months have come close. As always, I’m comparing the military casualties to those from the Vietnam war at a similar point in each war’s political lifetime (which many have charged is inherently misleading; see disclaimer below).

The data come 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 30 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 some three and a half years after the starting point of the Vietnam graphs above. The starting point for the Vietnam graphs is the death that was identified (years later) by Lyndon Johnson as being the first of the war.

These graphs do not address 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 how those deaths played out in terms of their political impact inside the US. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

13 Responses to “US Iraq War Deaths for August”

  1. Rise Against Says:

    I would also like to add the following, as of today, September 15, 2005:





    PS – WMD’s FOUND: 0

  2. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    What is the death total for the forces actively engaged in fighting the US Military?

  3. Rise Against Says:

    A great question…

  4. TeacherVet Says:

    Do you mean the relatively small number of Iraqis, or the non-existent “coalition” of “insurgents” from other countries? I, too, would like to know how many of those poor souls have been killed while serving their wonderful, humanitarian mission. I wonder if they have an exit strategy.

  5. Rise Against Says:

    However you wanna describe it there TeacherVet.

    Its kind of hard to believe your president and vice president when they say, “the insurgencey is in its last throes..” when they can’t even provide a complete account of resisters in the country, that were killed etc…

    Of course you just take thier word for it, because they are very honest people.

    How do you know that its a relatively small number? For a small number, they sure do well against the miltary machine that is the US. For all we know, the number grows everyday. Everytime an innocent Iraqi is killed it potentially spawns more insurgents (pissed off family members, friends).
    It’s been well over two years and people are yet to realize that.

    And I doubt they have an exit stategy, since it’s actually their country and all.

  6. TeacherVet Says:

    Oh, so the resistance is all from Iraqis. I guess we can forget cutting off the borders, eh? I was confused by the argument from Bush-haters that terrorists were flooding in from surrounding countries.

  7. Rise Against Says:

    Actually I dont think thats an argument from Bush-haters, not this one anyways. But more like an excuse by Bush and Co. to blame their failures on surrounding countries.

    Point was, how can you measure “progress” when you don’t even know your enemy, or how many there are?

  8. TeacherVet Says:

    Oh, but several of the great senators in D.C. have ranted about how the borders weren’t sealed, allowing the terrorists factions to enter from Syria and other neighboring countries. We can’t identify the genesis of all the terrorists, so we just walk away?

    Progress is measured by statistics. We killed about 1,500 in cleaning out al Fallujah, while losing 34 of our own. That ratio has been the norm throughout the conflict – but we are said to be “losing.”

    Even the Democrat leaders vow that we cannot afford to lose this war. In the late 90s, many of them were openly encouraging exactly the action we took – until Bush took the initiative. Today’s “anti-war movement” is a misnomer. It is, purely and simply, an anti-Bush movement by resentful losers.

    Democrats are in a Catch-22 on Iraq. If we are ultimately successful, that success will be attributed to Bush. If we are unsuccessful, voters will blame them for the failure. I understand the frustration.

  9. Rise Against Says:

    I don’t think anybody supported the action you’re talking about. Maybe they supported eliminating Saddamn, but I think they wanted to it the right way. Not Bush’s way.

    Oh, I guess Bush’s pathetic poll numbers over his performance are an indication that voters are blaming Dems for the fuck up that is Iraq? Nice try.

    Stop vacationing in the la-la land that Bush lives in.

  10. Rise Against Says:

    It’s really going to sting you TeacherVet when your party loses the next election to a woman, isn’t it?

  11. TeacherVet Says:

    Poll numbers, eh? Most polls are conducted to affect opinions, and those polled are subjectively chosen. Check the exit polls from the last election – oops, forgot that you probably trusted/believed those results.

    Do you assume I have a problem with women? If you’re talking about Hillary Clinton, she’s modifying her abortion stance (therefore, she must be anti-women?). Not only will I be stung, but amazed if she can win with a diminished base due to 3 decades of abortion. What will she campaign on? Abortion? Raising taxes? Government hand-outs? Anti-war?

    I would vote for Condi Rice or Starr Parker without hesitation, so what does gender, or race, for that matter, have to do with it? “How is that possible,” you might ask yourself, “since all Republicans hate blacks and women?”

    Hating abortion has no association with our support for legitimate women’s rights, and we hate government hand-outs because they are used to keep blacks on the plantation, dependent on government.

  12. Rise Against Says:

    No, I didn’t assume you have a problem with women, well, not in the way you may be thinking.

    Yes, I can see that that the roll back of “government handouts” is really helping your society become self-sustaining.

    I’m not sure who you were quoting up there either about blacks and women. Just making more stuff up?

    Want to ensure failure in the next election? Just keep unequivocally supporting Bush. He’s the Dems best weapon. I urge you to visit

    What kind of record is there for them to run on? War based lies? Record deficits? I see social security privatiation is pretty much stalled…

  13. TeacherVet Says:

    Americans will vote against the party affiliated with hatred and bitterness, and will not vote for the party that offers no solutions.

    Yes, SS privitization seems to have been stalled, typically. Blocking solutions that evolve outside the DNC has become characteristic of the Democrats in DC.

    “Lies,” in this instance, are only in the eye of the beholder. Most of us understand the definition of a “lie,” so, like most Republican voters, I tend to disregard/ignore opinions that must repeat the meaningless mantra.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.