Iraq War Dead for October 2005
Here are the updated graphs of US war deaths in Iraq for October. Deaths rose sharply, presumably as a result of increased fighting centered on the constitutional referendum and insurgent strongholds in western Iraq. There were a total of 96 US fatalities in October. 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 32 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.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
What these graphs do represent is, one. simple. fact.
Bush lied and many, many have died. Not just American soldiers, countless innocent Iraqis have died as well who only want to live in peace, and where living in peace before this war of choice.
Now we find out that the US military used WMD in the battle for Fullujah last spring. Literally burning the skin off of innocent Iraqi children.
So we went to liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator and WMD. They now have an imperiel dictator that brought in and used WMD on them.
What a fucking joke. (not a very funny one)
November 10th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
You might want to read the latest updates on this White Phosphorous issue. It’s not WMD. Not even illegal in its use under international restrictions. Didn’t burn the skin off of children’s bodies. Check out some of the more reasoned websites for a less misleading and more insightful discussion of exactly what this was about.
November 10th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
One example
November 11th, 2005 at 7:13 am
Uh no, sorry. I prefer the facts.
The FACTS on White Phosphorous:
-Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
-Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
-Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
-Protocol III not signed by US
So I guess you can say because the US didn’t sign the treaty it isn’t WMD, in US military terms. But it sure is a hell of a lot more of a WMD Iraq had. Disgusting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4417024.stm
November 11th, 2005 at 7:40 am
The BBC certainly seems more credible to me than “Pajama Jihad.”
I guess whether or not they are technically WMD is a matter of opinion. I for one would be pretty pissed if chemical weapons were used on my children. We should all be equally outraged and ashamed if they were used on Iraqi children.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Uh, well then, I guess you prefer your “facts” over truth .
And even the BBC has backed off of the “chemical weapon” accusations of earlier.
Just because you’re against the war and the deaths that have resulted, doesn’t mean you should turn off your internal BS meter for any story that has an anti-war content. Otherwise, you’re just as much of a propoganda kool-aide drinker as any right-wingers who wholeheartedly accepted the story of those vets who hammered Kerry during the election.
November 14th, 2005 at 11:26 am
Yes, let’s please start thinking for ourselves. Craig, you’re a smart guy for pointing out that the left is just as bad as the right in this regard.
Folks, screw the left and right — let’s pick our own sides based on the merit of the arguments themselves, not based on whether or not they support our previous arguments.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Sorry again, but those are the facts on White Phosphorous. Prove me wrong. Try researching the the chemical… wiwkipedia?
Okay, so they may not be classified as WMD, but it is a chemical weapon that burns the skin off of people. If you honestly believe that no one was hit and maimed by these bombs in Falluja, then I have a bridge I want to sell you in Baghdad.
And my internal BS meter is working fine, which is why I am calling you out on this. You’re saying the affects of White Phosphorous I listed above are not “facts”.
I strongly disagree.
November 15th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
It’s an incendiary weapon and NOT considered as chemical. Please try to understand that fact. It’s a very well accepted distinction in the international military world. Even the BBC revised its stories to reflect that. Yes, the material itself can burn through clothes and skin. I don’t recall ever saying that it didn’t. It’s not nice, but neither is being blown to bits by a morter round! War isn’t a game of laser tag.
Who ever said no one was affected by the use of those weapons? Not I.
If you’ll remember, the civilians in that town were given a number of days to evacuate before the assault began, leaving just insurgents and a small number of stubborn/fool-hardy (or forcibly held?) civilians behind. Thus satisfying any international requirement to avoid firing WP weaponary purposely on civilians.
More information is available on the classification of the WP and that greatly disputed Italian documentary.
You can believe as you wish. But don’t confuse your view of “facts” as the truth.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Treehugger, after reading all of the data, I think that in this case, your outrage is misplaced. It appears that you’re digging for ways to damn the US, and have no problem with misrepresenting the data to prove your point. Yes, we’re dicks…but let’s be damned for what we really are. WP is not a WMD, and it is not banned by any treaties. I did do a wiki search on WP, as you suggested. Check it out.
What’s funny is that the reports about the effects of WP are conflicting, and you appear to have adopted the reports which best support your position, disregarding any other facts. I suppose that gives you something in common with the Bush administration.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Treehugger — how are you classifying chemical weapons here, with a military definition, or whatever is convenient?
If WP is a chemical weapon, aren’t bullets too — since they use gunpowder (which is incendary), which can cause burns to flesh if fired at close range? What about tear gas? Hell, we use that on our own people. Aren’t we accusing Saddam Hussein of doing the same thing? Does that mean that we’re no better than him?
November 16th, 2005 at 10:38 am
Nope, wrong again. I stated that it is a chemical weapon, my bad… I guess.
It is a weapon that uses chemicals. You’re beating around the term but ignorong the facts about the substance. Whatever the US military likes to call this weapon, the FACT is that White Phosphorous is a CHEMICAL and the FACTS around that chemical are clearly documented.
I am not basing any of my research on that Italian documentary. You seem to be trying to use that as evidence against what this chemical does to humans. Try to stay focused please.
White Phosphorous is a chemical.
White Phosphorous burns the skin off of humans.
If you can’t see the plain irony of the US going after Saddman because he allegedly possesd dangerous weapons – only to find nil – and the US actually using a chemical in a weapon in Iraq, you may be a lost cause in this debate.
Notice how I said using a chemical in a weapon , and not chemical weapon. If that makes you and Dubya sleep better at night, more power to you.
And maybe if the US actually told the residents of Falluja that they were going to be dropping bombs loaded with a CHEMCIAL, they might have actually left. But from what I recall, they were told to simply stay indoors and cooperate, not to evacuate the city.
Using your logic, the people that had no means and simply didn’t want to leave New Orleans deserved to die as well. You must be one of those compassionate conservatives.
It’s all just another very sad part of this foolish war of choice.
November 16th, 2005 at 11:11 am
This is for you, Craig. The difinition of WP from Encylopedia.com:
“White phosphorus is a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus which has found extensive military application as a smoke-screening agent and secondarily as an incendiary weapon. It is commonly referred to in military jargon as “WP” or “white phos”. The Vietnam War era slang “Willie Pete” is still occasionally heard.”
See, just because a chemical is delivered via incendiary weapon doesn’t mean it is not a chemical that can cause serious effects on humans. Phosphorus is a chemical element. Why you can’t grasp that I do not understand.
Maybe that right-wing spin BS works with other people, but not this guy, sorry.
November 16th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Oh, come on Treehugger. Right wing spin? Please — you’re spinning this yourself…pot calling the kettle black. Speaking of spin, your comments remind me of how the Bush administration switched gears so often about their rationale for invading Iraq. We did it for the WMD, then freedom. Similarly, you said that the USA used WMD, then you corrected yourself to call it a chemical weapon, then you changed your tune again to classify it as a chemical in a weapon. The last definition pretty much includes all projectile weapons in our aresonal.
You still failed to answer my question about whether or not conventional weapons (bullets) employ chemicals in weapons, since they contain a chemical (powder). What about high explosive rounds? They contain a chemical, and those are incendiary too.
Finally, and back to your spin…the ‘Literally burning the skin off of innocent Iraqi children’ — this is not an impartial statement, it’s your spin on the issue. Do liberals not realize that they tend to be the same as conservatives in this light, just with different goals? If the ends justify the means for both extremes (as well as terrorists), can any of these groups take a higher moral ground? Seriously, Treehugger, your ‘facts’ are as accurate as TeacherVet’s. If you two had similar politics, you’d be best of buddies — same tactics, similar bullshit.
November 16th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Sorry Ethan. You are flat out wrong. If you are unable to research facts on the CHEMICAL WP, then I’m sorry about that. But that FACTS on the CHEMICAL WP, are, guess what, FACTS, not spin.
Try doing a little research before jumping in the debate.
All I did was xchange the term to try to keep Craig focused on the issue. Looks like I have to do it to keep you focused as well.
Read very slowly people….
WP IS A CHEMICAL THAT BURNS THE SKIN. NO MATTER HOW IT IS DELIVERED, WP IS A CHEMICAL THAT BURNS THE SKIN AND WAS DEPLOYED BY THE US MILITARY IN IRAQ.
Got it?
Ethan you jump in debates trying to come off like you’re a middle-of-the-road, common sense guy. But what you are really doing is showing that you have no conviction. It’s like you’re afraid to take a stand and stick with it.
Like seriously? You want an answer to your dumb question? Well hear it is.
Bullets use chemicals, of course. Do bullets burn the skin off of people? No.
Does WP? Yes.
Bottom Line: WP is a chemical that was delivered in conventional weapons on Iraq. I already stated the facts on the affects of WP on humans, including children. Try reading them again, more slowly. Then tell me how you think this is good policy.
November 16th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Ethan to answer your other stupid question that I didn’t notice before regarding my definition of chemical weapons:
I am not here to debate terms and treaties regarding classifying chemical weapons.
I’m here to point out that WP is a chemical element (check the periodical table folks) and was used in a war that was supposed to be about elminating dangerous weapons that cause bodily harm to people. And since neither of you can see the irony in that, I’m done.
I believe it’s people like you that got America where it is today.
November 16th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Treehugger, as much as I sympathize with your overall views about the war, I think you’re being kind of a tard here. While I personally don’t think it makes much difference to the people who were burned by it, under the fairly silly and arbitrary definition generally applied to the term WMD, white phosphorus doesn’t qualify. One could argue that it really _should_ qualify, and that the US military’s admission that they actually did use it not as an illumination or marker device, but as an actual anti-personnel weapon (see this news story, for example: US says it used white phosphorus as a weapon – which quotes a military report as saying WP was used “as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes”) makes our actions bogus.
But I don’t think you’re actually arguing that. And what you actually are arguing sounds pretty weak to me.
Another argument you might get into is whether the US actually used the stuff against civilians. The military spokesperson says they didn’t, but acknowledges using it against “insurgents” in an urban setting. And yeah, they have their official storyline about how they took steps to make the likelihood of civilian casualties less, and the original report that they’d targetted civilians in a “massive and indiscriminate” way seems pretty suspect, even given the usual caveats about military spokespeople’s willingness to lie their heads off. But again, I don’t hear you making that argument.
November 16th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Yeah, there’s some tard views on this site, that’s for sure.
November 16th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
It would be spectacular if Al-Qaeda dropped a bomb in NYC ( or wherever you all are from) loaded with WP. Then, as yours and your children’s skin are burning off, we can start this debate again.
November 16th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Welcome to the Bill O’Reilly school of rhetorical buffoonery, dude.
November 16th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
I think that any US service personnel would have to believe they had done everything they could to reduce or eliminate civilian casualties. That way they felt completely justified in using whatever the heck they wanted to “shake n bake” insurgents out of entrenched positions. They used WP as a antipersonnel area effect weapon to roust the badies out of their holes, then conventional HE and shrapnel rounds (and/or lots of bullets) to kill them. There are some rad new weapons like the MOAB, shoulder fired ‘building wrecker’ thermobaric rounds, air/fuel mixture area effect munitions. These things may be outlawed as they blur the line between ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ munitions.
As horrible as it sounds, this is collateral damage. Regretable, but it is the way of things in a war. Wish it weren’t, wish it didn’t happen, but it did. Now can we get back to honoring our troops by getting them the hell out of there?
November 16th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
I know I’m going to hate myself in the morning for wading back into this bizarre argument, but here goes:
You know treehugger, I’ll happily concede what your apparent tightly-defined debate point has become: WP is a type of chemical and/or is the result of chemistry itself. Okay, there, I said it! The problem is that ANY explosive weapon, including firing guns, involves chemicals and/or a chemical reaction! I guess we have to go back to throwing rocks at each other!
There is a BIG difference to most people (at least the rational ones) between chemical warfare and weapons that have a chemical component.
Yeah, and the material made up in this sort of weapon does burn through clothes and skin. Nasty, most definitely. And a bullet destroys vital organs. And a grenade blows off arms and legs. And a morter round scatters body parts everywhere. Are we ranking the level of effect that weapons (all related to chemicals in some way) have on human suffering or pain?
So, congrats to you in winning your argument. You da man! Whoo-Hoo!!
By the way, the civilian population was NOT told to just stay inside and pray to Allah. It is a fact that they were told well ahead of time that a huge battle for the city was about to start, and there was a mass exodus of people beforehand.
November 16th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
We’re reading the same documents here, no? I read everything you sent as well as everything that Craig posted, and we’re pulling from the same pool of facts here. I was also very clear on how your statement was spin (‘Literally burning the skin off of innocent Iraqi children’). I’m sorry that you are unable to see that what you’re resorting to is essentially a cry of “will someone PLEASE think of the CHILDERN!”. Am I the only one who sees that as alarmist spin? Anyone else care to back me up on this one?
But you’re using their language, and participating in a discussion using those terms. So which is it? Are you using terminology which suits you until you find out that you don’t understand it, or just spouting your bumper-sticker ideology? (“Bush lied and many, many have died.”)
In any case, how the hell is anyone supposed to know that you’re talking about WMD in some kind of metaphorical fashion. Do you expect mind-readers? I think that you’re trying to dig yourself out. You’ve consistently redefined the terms that you use in your argument to suit you, and your final bailout is that you’re not debating treaties and terminology. So what the fuck is your point? That people are suffering in warfare? Welcome to human civilization. War is horrible — I wish that I had more confidence in our leadership’s understanding of this.
Actually, I never said that I take the middle of the road. That’s your own assumption. I like to think of myself as a pragmatist with little tolerance for rhetoric. The whole point is that my convictions are my own, and I think that subscribing to a pre-defined set of convictions (liberal, convervative, democrat, republican) is retarded…bumper-sticker ideology is even more retarded. As far as making a stand and sticking to it…again, this is another way that you are very similar to president Bush. This guy is all about convictions, but without any real dialogue, reflection, or consideration. It sounds like if Bush had an agenda congruent with your beliefs, he would be your personal hero. Back to your accusation, I am willing to make a stand, but I am also willing to question my convictions and change them if I find that there is a problem with them…they can be wrong. I’m just challenging your convictions because I believe that you neither came up with them on your own nor do you understand them well enough to defend them. So far you have done nothing to disprove this.
Actually, bullets fired from a gun do burn flesh. It’s especially common with entrance wounds.
Interesting that Craig conceeded to the point that I was trying to make for you, Treehugger. They’re all chemical weapons. WP was used to flush people from trenches…similar to other chemical agents, like CF/tear gas (which we use on our own people).
Should we feel any different about this than Al-Qaeda dropping any other kind of bomb on our cities? It’s a fucking bomb. It mames and kills people. Until someone develops a Care Bear bomb that makes opponents feel so good about themselves and simply surrender, your point isn’t particularly effective.
There you go again, boiling all of the world’s issues down to just two viewpoints, it makes sense coming from an extremist that we’re either relativists or extremists. (You’re talking about relativism here, right? Otherwise, I’m not sure what you’re accusing me of.) Interestingly enough, I’ve often thought about this. With many issues, I am a relativist — I see both sides, and am unable to come to any real conclusion. Gun control is a perfect example…I’m on the fence, and because of this, I see balance as more important than taking a stand. Do I have to subscribe to a pre-defined set of convictions in order to fit into your mold for a better world, or am I allowed to think for myself?
If you are interested in my opinion, I do have one on the war and I’ve offered it more than once here. I believe that it was a bad idea, and we cannot take any moral/ethical higher ground for it. However, if we walk away now, we will have to deal with another Afghanistan-type theocracy which harbors terrorists like we did after Reagan bailed on Afghanistan. Bush made our bed, and we (Americans) have to sleep in it (see this thing through) in order to salvage what we can of the situation. I think that I understand the logic for the war, and it may work…but I feel that the ends don’t justify the means. There is is — there’s my conviction, and I came up with it on my own. Can you say the same for your position, Treehugger?
November 16th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
“The whole point is that my convictions are my own, and I think that subscribing to a pre-defined set of convictions (liberal, convervative, democrat, republican) is retarded…bumper-sticker ideology is even more retarded.”
here here – thats why I respect this web site and visit once or twice a day: jbc seems to be interested in debunking both D and R lies (actually I debase his efforts by labelling them, but I thought the whole “Broussard lied about the grandma dying” thing spoke quite eloquently to jbc’s dedication to puncturing lies of any description (even perhaps lying to himself).
I am a registered voter – for party affiliation I have been content with NA for several decades. I have always taken NA to mean “None of those Assholes”
and for the record – ethan-p, I couldn’t put a label on your party affiliation, and I still can’t. I’ll just label you American. Hope it fits. It fits me too.
And I couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph if I had written it myself.
very much my thinking on the whole f’d up subject
November 18th, 2005 at 11:35 am
Absolutely I can say the same, even more about my conviction.
Keeping with topic though, the US military used a chemical on the city of Fallujah. I’ve yet to see any coherent arguement refuting that point on this thread. So I guess that’s that. Next topic.