US Iraq War Deaths for September, 2005
Late again; sorry. Here are the updated graphs of US war deaths in Iraq for September. Deaths were down, with a total of 49 US fatalities. 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 31 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.
October 15th, 2005 at 6:57 am
I do not like to see these two wars compared, but if they have to be I would like to see a graph that does address the “Lethality of the two conflicts on a per soldier basis.” I would also like to, for once, TO see some media coverage that is not done for the “shock value” or full of “hype” to lift the ratings. There needs to be news people that are actually looking for the facts and reporting them. There are two largely devided sides and I feel like the media works very hard to keep them devided and even to devide them further. Some people are working hard to remove God from out lives and with God any morals that are left in this country. United we stand, devided we fall. There is nothing worse than an uneducated or misguaded opinion except fot the people with the power to spread the lies that form these opinions in the first place. It is not the news persons job to give the public opions, it is their job to report the facts. clearly and honestly, all of them, good bad or indifferent and then let the public form an opinion based on that. I don’t even feel like I have the right to debate this war because I feel like I am too far from any sort of truth about what is going on, what has gone on and what it is really all about.
October 15th, 2005 at 7:22 am
I’d like to see such a graph, too. So far I’ve never been able to find a good source of detailed information on troop levels for each conflict, but the less-detailed information I have found leads me to believe that the two conflicts are pretty similar in terms of the death rate per deployed soldier.
Besides the number of troops on the ground, the biggest factor seems to be the intensity of fighting going on at any given time, which obviously isn’t surprising.
The two wars are certainly very different in many respects, and in that sense, trying to stack one graph on top of the other is going to be problematic from a logical standpoint. For what it’s worth, I’ll repeat my earlier explanations of what I was really trying to see with these: As a political issue, for presidents faced with trying to build and maintain support for a war fought for murky reasons in a distant country against a shadowy enemy, what effect have US casualties had? What has been the duration of each conflict, and the number of deaths at each stage? How do the two wars compare in terms of the public’s willingness to put up with a certain number of deaths at any given time and with the cumulative total of deaths over the entire war?
Those are the sorts of questions I was interested in when I created these graphs, and in terms of helping to answer those questions, I think the graphs are helpful. Beyond that, I’m not claiming anything about them.
If you, or anyone else, creates a graph that more-directly compares the death rate per number of soldiers deployed in the conflict at any given time, I’d be very interested in seeing it, and would be happy to link to it. If you can locate the data that would allow such a graph to be created, I’d be willing to consider creating a graph from it and posting it here.
October 15th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
For a more honest and accurate comparison, you might try including all statistics from the beginning of our fight against Saddam. The Vietnam graph includes a lull in which there were no fatalities, and begins before troops were deployed by President Johnson….and the Iraq War has already lasted longer than Vietnam, with both wars including a period of time with no fatalities. Either compare the actual combat time of the two wars, or the total duration, but be consistent.
To do so, of course, would acknowledge that today’s war is simply a continuation, necessary because Saddam failed to honor the conditions of the cease-fire. As far as Saddam was concerned, based on his continued attacks in the no-fly zone, the war was continuous since 1991. The revival of actual combat was part of the necessary reaction to the events of 9/11, after which we responded with a declaration of war on terrorism. Saddam was a terrorist, and I’m happy that he no longer finances or hosts terrorists. We are still fighting terrorists in Iraq, and I think that is appropriate.
Oops, forgot again – we found no WMD. My bad.
October 15th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
Ya, they were also not any terrorists there before you invaded, or WMD’s.
And you are so brainwashed that you still link Saddam and 9/11 together. No wonder no one takes your posts seriously. Wow.
October 16th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
I did not even infer that Saddam was linked to the events of 9/11. No wonder you don’t understand the posts – you read into them what you want to read. You need to stop mind-reading, as it leads to false conclusions. I have never even suspected that anyone besides Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network were behind the specific events of that particular day.
We did not declare war only on OBL and his terrorist network, we declared a global war on terror – and anyone who finances or hosts terrorists. Saddam was certainly guilty of harboring and financing terrorist activities – he was a terrorist. I don’t care if we went there on a pretense of looking for Cracker Jacks, he had to be removed.
According to the 9/11 Commission, a number of known terrorist leaders were operating freely in Baghdad, using that city as the home base of their activities. “There were not any terrorists there before you invaded.” Wow. Would you like a list of the names, as acknowledged by that commission’s report? I believe that Saddam’s removal was an integral and necessary part of the GWOT in the Middle East.
No WMD’s before we invaded? I defer to the judgement of President Clinton, who vowed that he had them right up to the day Baghdad fell. Which of us is brain-washed?
October 16th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
You said in the post above that the “revival of combat was a necessary response to 9/11”. You tie the two together just like your jack-ass president. And so if Bill Clinton said it, it must be true? I was talking about the actual weapons inspectors, you know the ones that were actually there and said there weren’t any WMD’s. But whatever, it doesn’t matter anymore. America is f*cked.
I have decided that I can longer voice my opinions here as I may be discouraging others from participating on the site. It’s just as well because I don’t believe I can handle dealing with any more crap coming from your country.
As someone who doesn’t even live in America, I shouldn’t even care what your counrty does or about your government. Five years ago I didn’t. Hell, five years ago I never heard the term anti-americansim before in my counrty. Then your actions starting making the world unstable, even more dangerous than it was before, mostly due to America’s knee-jerk reaction to the terrible events of 9/11. And still everyday America creates more terrorists and your president proudly declares “we are winning the war on terror”, and at least half your country believes it.
Your country is the biggest polluter of the environment in the world, yet won’t take steps to cut the pollution because “it would harm America’s economy”. You have two percent of the world’s population, yet you consume 25% of the world’s oil and refuse to implement measures to reduce your country’s energy demand. See this matters to me because half the smog in my province comes from your country. Add to that the lies, deciet, scandals and just plain screw-ups, it makes ones head spin.
I don’t know who I despise more; your president and his reckless administration, or the idiots that beleive his bullshit.
I wish all the good hearted Americans out there that can see the destructive path your counrty is on good luck and keep on fighting the good fight. America was once an admired and respected country in this world, it could be once more. Just try not to elect a gang of thugs and murderers next time, please.
Well so long, it’s been fun. No hard feelings anyone.
May God help you all. (if you believe in one).
Rise Against
Toronto, Canada
October 17th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Rise
Please don’t give up on the majority of Americans. The vast center of our increasingly divided country is growing increasingly disgusted with these creeps. I am not even sure shrub’s fear mongering WON the last election… please google Feenygate and Clinton Curtis. These guys actively want to rig the electronic voting machines (cough Diebold cough) because supressing votes isn’t enough anymore.
No one on the left of these neo-nazis is saying Saddam was a bunny rabbit and all sugar and candy and gum drops. Clinton tried to get him (if he had toppled Saddam, you right whingers would be getting your red white and blue panties in a bunch about Gore’s plan to return to the moon and send explorers to Mars [seems there is indeed some water ice at the poles]). But most folks who weren’t blinded by the bullshit of the run up to this war know quite well that there were many many voices raised to try and stop this illegal immoral and counterproductive war. And yes Virginia there were no WMDs. No state run terrorist groups (sure there were some individuals who hid in Iraq or maybe were even tolerated as a sort of twisted show of defiance to the West – point taken teachervet) – look at the State Depts web site for a post-9/11 rundown of where al-Queda was active. Iraq was not on this list. It sure as hell is now. Good job boys! (teachervet, thats sarcasm and humor, not hate)
As to fighting terrorism, we should start a little closer to home. Perhaps you are not aware (or choose to activelly deny reality – a favorite right wing idiocy) that terrorism is a technique, not a nation state or group. The state of India was brought about thru both peaceful and violent (terrorist) means. The foundation of the modern state of Israel was accomplished partially thru the use of terrorism. Some might argue that the hyper violent Israeli right wing engages in terrorism against the Palestinians. Which brings me to a question I have: why DO we (the US) support Isael so blindly? Seems to me when you ask the Muslim world what is wrong with the world right now they are pissed off about the Palestinians. From moderate to radical every single Muslim (other than oil rich toadies who hold hands with bandar bush) wants some sort of justice. Some want Israel annihilated (not going to happen), while the vast bulk of the Muslim world wants a two state peaceful solution. They don’t hate our freedoms (OK, maybe the radical idiots way over on the extremes do, but they want all the other apostate Muslims dead as well as us barbarians), they hate our policies.
So why don’t we pitch that laughable roadmap and tell the Isaeli’s no more trade, no more military backing, meet my friend the UN Sanction (no euro trade either) and tell them to get the fark out of the West Bank (fine, keep some of the bits you have settled, but most of it goes back…)
We should also clamp down on the Arab countries (ooops they have the oil, crap, wish we had a decent energy policy other than making the oil companies obscenely rich) to make the Paestinians stop the god damn violence!
Anyone ever hear of Martin Luther King? Ghandi? Jesus Christ? Certainly the right wing looks especially hypocritical to me with their double dog christy posturings and obscene actual behavior. I know only a few Republicans in California. They all rant about how much they would love to kill every “Sand Nigger” (apologies, their words), every “maggot muslim” (again their words – exact words in fact). I got news for you: trying to kill em all is just going to unite a billion+ people against us. Plus the rest of the sane world might also turn against us. The enemy is hatred, not the Demo(n)crats. The enemy is extremism (muslim as well as christian or jew). The enemy is war, are you brave enough to wage peace?
Yeah, we did a good job and righteous one on Afghanistan, just wish we would have stayed on target (Osama bin Forgotten… anyone remember him? no? anyone? )
In summary, America was an ideal… freedom, liberty, justice for all. I am sorry to have to point this out to the red staters, but that means everyone. Wrap your hatred and racism and greed (among the other faults) in the flag all you want, but the real America remains in the hearts of anyone who will resist the regime of W(ar monger). What would Jesus do? He sure as hell wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq. Suck on that.
October 17th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Rise Against, I don’t want you to take your cookies and go home, I simply want an honest debate. You are very articulate and knowledgeable, and usually able to state your position without childish insults.
However, you could only make your point by using a complete misquote, taken totally out of context. Using the same technique, enkidu’s last paragraph in the above post states, “America was hatred and racism and greed. Jesus suck on that.” They’re all his words, but somehow one might suspect manipulation. Sorry if I added to your frustration and anger.
enkidu, I’ll employ a favorite technique used most of the time by responders, picking out a single statement from a lengthy post, and opting to ignore the valid points that were intertwined/overshadowed with/by the customary insulting rhetoric.
Does anyone remember Osama bin Forgotten? Yes, that’s why we still have 20,000 troops in the Afghan region whose primary mission is bringing one man to justice. How many do we need?
Has anyone actually forgotten him? Yes, but apparently only the folks who scream “unfair” every time the administration mentions his name, or 9/11, or terrorism in general.
October 17th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
bah – you can’t even quote a centrist without mangling it
I most certainly did NOT say “Jesus suck on that”
you sir are a moron
the ‘culture of hate’ is centered on the republicans
if you had bothered to read the previous sentence “Yeah, we did a good job and righteous one on Afghanistan, just wish we would have stayed on target” perhaps you would realize that most Americans were for squashing the loathsome Taliban (tho they were in Texas meeting w gwb compats about energy deals once upon a time – extra credit for ironic shadings) and we probably would have a dead OBL if we had kept those 150,000 troops out of Iraq. Tis a fine mess you’ve gotten us in Ollie…
so TV, go get your gun and hop a plane to Iraq or China and go wild, bring justice and freedom to those peeps ASAP! nation build! liberate! go go go!
*crickets*
yeah
October 17th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
enkidu, you need to read my second and third paragraphs again. As I explained, my “quote” was merely an example of false and misleading quoting. This moron stated that “one might suspect manipulation” of your statement by misquoting, which I admitted doing to illustrate the point. “Jesus suck on that” are all your words, manipulated only as an example of false quotations.
This moron, also, did not fail to read your entire post. Read my third paragraph again, and you’ll discover my purpose in ignoring some of your valid points – again, an illustration….of your latest response. If I am wong to be supportive, hopeful and optimistic, I plead guilty.
October 17th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Rise didn’t string together every nasty idiotic word in your post to make some asinine point. And you haven’t done anything other than twist the truth to suit your need. But that seems to be the specialty of you Bush Believers. You haven’t bother to rebutt any of the points. Just keep pointing that finger at everyone else. The mote in your eye could build a house, brother.
I wonder if you can blame the NEXT disaster on Clinton? (I hear he has H5N1 and spreads it by… well anyway… and his flatulence CAUSED Katrina delays!)
Back to your cave troll, unless you care to actually discuss things like an adult human being. It is not childish to point out moronic behavior in a debate opponent. Bullshit is bullshit.
My most sincere apolgies sir if I have violated your most delicate sensibilities! As a hot house flower of the right wing establishment I know how sensitive and polite true Patriots™©® can be in these trying times what with all those guttersnipe liberals and demon-crats trying to destroy the sainted U-nited States of Amerika (Gawd Bless Her Shores, cuz we shorezshit need it!)
end sarcasm
October 18th, 2005 at 1:38 am
enkidu, are you sober? Easy now – down, boy. Can you say, “rambling”?
No, Rise Against didn’t “string together every nasty idiotic word in my post,” he did exactly as I did with yours – faulty, dishonest, selective editing….but I did it only to illustrate the point, and I acknowledged it. The post in question was a rebuttal of his points – have someone read it for you.
Did I blame Clinton for any disasters, or is this another attempt at mind-reading? This will be difficult for you to grasp, but I don’t find it necessary to “blame” someone else. That’s a juvenile approach to problem-solving.
I’ll go back to my cave troll if I can figure out where to find my “cave troll.”
October 18th, 2005 at 10:11 am
Laughable really.
You are ignoring the real facts and disparaging my post for the lack of a comma. hey look, I didn’t capitalize this sentence! you win!
back to your cave, troll
October 18th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
And…what was the “real fact” in your post, the one I ignored? I caught the childish insults, but I see no other “facts.”
Check the mote in your own eye, brother. Your frustration is evident, understandably. Your knowledge and intelligence is often evident in your posts, but your maturity is questionable.
You remind me of young juveniles arguing. The one who can only resort to yelling and name-calling is almost always wrong…and always unable to understand losing.
October 21st, 2005 at 9:53 am
This I think is a good stat that I came accross today. In comparing how many people were killed in Iraq over the last three years and how many US citizens were murdered in the last two. Today Iraq’s total reached a whopping 1,962 for three years of bloody war. I don’t understand how the media can continue to say that this is a lost cause when we have such a higher percentage of death in the US just from violent crime. Any thoughts?
Year Number of offenses Rate per 100,000 inhabitants
2003 16,528 5.7
2004 16,137 5.5
October 21st, 2005 at 10:27 am
I think your description slightly confuses the issue. You talk about having “a higher percentage of death in the US just from violent crime,” but (obviouisly) we have a much larger number of people in the US than we do serving in the military in Iraq. If we figure we’re averaging about 160,000 troops in Iraq lately, and about 700 deaths per year, that would mean soldiers there are facing a much higher risk of death on a percentage basis.
If soldiers in Iraq were dying at the same rate, per 100,000 soldiers, as the US population is dying from murder (5.7 per 100,000 per year), we’d only be seeing about 9.1 US soldiers dying per year in Iraq. Their actual death rate over there is more like 437 deaths per 100,000 soldiers per year. If the US population was being murdered at that rate, we’d be seeing about 1.3 million murders per year.
If you want to compare raw numbers, a good way to make a shocking comparison is to use traffic fatalities: currently we have something like 40,000 of those per year in the US. That works out to about 110 people dying from auto accidents every day. Or, to put it another way, we have as many people dying in auto accidents each month, on average, as died in the 9/11 attacks.
Maybe we should declare war on internal combustion.
October 21st, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Perhaps we should also make a raw numbers comparison with the abortion rate in the U.S. – the staggering figure of almost 30,000 per week….for 32 years; and those aren’t accidents. What constitutes a holocaust? Would Barbara Sanger be proud, or what?
Of course, those aren’t deaths of human beings. My twin nieces were born one week short of the end of the second trimester, and they are two of the most beautiful two-year-old non-humans imaginable. The doctors had encouraged abortion.