Tuesday, February 20, 2007

 

Death and Politics

Jonah Goldberg, posting at The Corner (here and here), highlights the factual basis behind what a lot of military people know intuitively, and goes virtually unrecognized by the media and the public whose trust they so willfully neglect.

We lose no more soldiers in Iraq than we would lose, on average, through training accidents, other accidents, and other causes. In other words, soldiers are no less safe (or no more in danger) in Iraq than they are anywhere else.

Sound incredible? It shouldn’t.

Because our soldiers are in Iraq, they are a target for terrorist attack, just as they are virtually anywhere in the world, and have been for two to three decades. Just as are diplomats, business people, and journalists.

The original impetus for Jonah’s post is what he describes as “a powerful op-ed,” written by Alicia Colon in the NY Sun. More on that article later. Jonah updates his original post, passing on feedback from a reader, providing detail to back up the assertion that more soldiers died from 1993-1996 than have died during the equivalent period from 2003 to present.

Here’s the reader’s contribution:
You asked for more information on military deaths. Here is a table of all military deaths, broken down by cause, over the 25 year period 1980-2004. This includes all active duty and reservists.The gist is that soldiers are more likely to die from accidents than hostile action (combat and terrorist actions combined). The death count from accidents has been lower than the death count from hostile action. The fall in accidental deaths is greater than the increase in deaths by hostile action.Note that there were far more military deaths in 1980, the last year of Carter's presidency, than any year of the current administration. The death rate was, also, higher. This was because of lower standards and less care in training.The bottom line is that we're fighting this war with lower casualties than that expected from normal training accidents in a peacetime army. You should be embarassed that you didn't know this. It's a testiment to the near universal innumeracy and incompetence of the journalism profession that most journalists haven't even seriously considered looking at basic statistics and putting things in context 5 1/2 years after 9/11.

And here's a DOD pdf on death rates.
I can’t say that I’ve seen this data previously, or any such like it, but I have often remarked that I didn’t think we were losing soldiers at much more than the background rate we would, had those same soldiers been training or in a garrison environment.

Partly, this may be due to my prejudice towards always assuming the American Media will always pay attention to the wrong thing, and encourage the public to draw conclusions to those wrong things exactly 180 degrees from what should really be concluded. (Airbags and the scare involving the handfuls of deaths versus the many thousands they prevent is the usual subject for my rantings along these lines.)

But it is helpful to have data to backup what many of us know without seeing the data. We are accomplishing much at very little expense, comparatively, however much we grieve at the loss of many fine Americans who have volunteered to serve and paid the ultimate price.

Which brings me back to Alicia Colon’s fine essay in the NY Sun, Heroes and Cowards.
Here’s how she starts, which ought to shake some political timbers in Washington:
Corporal Thomas Saba was buried in the Moravian Cemetery on Staten Island last Friday. One of seven Marines killed when their helicopter was shot down in Iraq on February 7, Saba, 30, enlisted in the spring of 2002 in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. He extended his five-year tour by five months so that he could go with his squadron to Iraq.

It is absolutely amazing how America can continue to produce heroes such as Saba while electing cowardly politicians who mock their sacrifices.
Cowardly politicians. Ones on both sides of the aisle, who calculate first the political opportunity or risk to their personal ambitions, before any (if any) consideration of more moral equations.

But in the interest of factual clarity, and in rebuke of the lies Democrats and their craven Republican cohorts in Congress are spreading about Iraq, here’s some data from Colon’s essay (backed up by the data referenced by The Corner and mentioned previously):
The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?
I am outraged at the blatant lies, misrepresentations, and misreporting that leaves such perspective conspicuously absent in any major reporting about our efforts in Iraq. That all this media malfeasance is prompted by obvious intent to support narrow political agenda and objectives, is beyond outrage. It is as near to treasonous as we will likely ever see in our lifetimes. That Congressmen and women aid, abet, sponsor, and direct these fifth-column-acting-like-fourth-column elements is beyond belief, and completely indescribable.

They will have their Vietnam, Senators Kennedy and Schumer, Speaker Pelosi and her stooge Congressman Murtha, no matter what it takes in betrayal, disloyalty, breaks of faith, dishonor, discredit, or infamy. They are that remnant from the Vietnam era, selfish and self-centered while pretending a giant lie of altruism, who are trying to relive their glory days in a different, 12 September world. As Colon observes:
It is so pathetic now (while we have this valiant volunteer military) to watch these hoary relics of the 1960s trying to recapture the relevance of that period.
Pathetic, and a disgrace to those who serve with honor.

Support the troops. Let them win.

(Cross posted at MILBLOGS)

Linked by Mudville Gazette's Dawn Patrol, and Jules Crittenden also comments on the NY Sun article.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit Readers! Check out the links on the upper left hand side for some Dadmanly background. And if you don't know about MILBLOGS, check us out for lots more discussion and insightly analysis.

Labels: , ,


Comments:
We lose no more soldiers in Iraq than we would lose, on average, through training accidents, other accidents, and other causes.

This just isn't true. Over the last 25 years, the safety record of the US military in peacetime has improved dramatically, and the number of deaths from accidents and illnesses has dropped a huge amount. The Iraq War has erased that.

Here's a short demonstration of that fact:

US military fatalities, 1998-2000: 2,381.
US military fatalities, 2003-2005: 5,076.

You can find a longer one, including a detailed graph, here.
 
I don't recall the exact numbers, but I believe one of the reasons that the absolute number of military deaths was higher in the early Clinton years is that overall size of the military was significantly larger then. So those numbers are not directly comparable.

You would be right to say that our losses in Iraq are low compared to other wars we have fought, and that some of those soldier would have died anyway without hostile action. But stretching it claim the number of fatalities to be a wash undermines that argument, IMHO.
 
I'll look later, but it seems to me that 2005-1998 is a bit less than 25 years. I agree that the atat, 'on average' will depend on the period selected, but to claim that the stat is untrue and then attempt to prove it by using a much shorter period is specious, if not puerile.
 
Very insightful blog. It is refreshing to hear first-hand opinions from the military rather than the endless defeatism that is offered up in the mainstream media and by the, as you so accurately call them, cowardly politicians. I hope the current trend towards betrayal of the military, America and the people of Iraq/Afghanistan, does not continue. I blogged something similar at the address below that you might find interesting. God Bless.
http://libertas01.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/non-binding-resolution-treason-in-a-time-of-war/
 
The second thing worth knowing is that deaths of US military personnel dropped steadily over the course of the Clinton administration

That wouldn't have anything to do with troop levels being cut roughly in half during that period would it? Of course not...

The first sign of bad/bogus statistics is comparison of absolute numbers rather than rates.
 
Please don't give war opponents a "gotcha" moment by overstating your case. It is true that deaths in this war are low by comparison to any other major war, and low even compared to what was expected in late 2002 (e.g., the conventional estimate of 2,000-3,000 US dead just in taking Baghdad) when Congress was approving the war. (Making Congress' recent about-face more than curious.)

But the number of accidental fatalities in Iraq would probably not be higher if the soldiers were in the US (indeed, it would probably be a bit lower). Even subtracting out deaths by accident, you have the remaining majority of deaths by combat, which would not be occurring if we were not at war.*

So while it is true that US military deaths were higher, say, 25 years ago, that is because operations are generally safer and the military is smaller now. On a net basis, of course the Iraq war has cost US lives, about 2,500 of them.

*As of 02/20/07, 2556 US have been killed by combat actions, 594 dead in accidents and other causes. http://www.icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx
 
I ran across the previous numbers in my review of The Military, The Elites and You and also did the cross comparison across the demographics of 1980-2002. The demographics use deaths per 100,000 per year broken out by type and category. During peacetime, including where President Clinton sent the military to nearly every 'peacekeeping' operation he could think of and the budget was being cut, so that there was an actual, material decline in readiness across the board, the armed forces have a lower death per 100,000 than the general population. Young, healthy and well trained are the driving factors, of course. From 1980-2000 there is a decline, per 100k, of death rates from 110 to about 50, with a minor uptick during the Persian Gulf War. The general cause of death, varying year by year from 1/2 to 2/3 of all armed forces fatalities are due to accidents. There is an 18% due to illnesses. At 2004, given the stats presented and renormalizing to get all deaths due to combat out of all total fatalities I came up with 15% due to combat and 85% due to accidents, illnesses, homicides, suicides and the like. Out of that 85% taking 1/2 to 2/3 for accidents gets you 42.5% to 56.7% as a basis for comparison.

Also in that view I found a wonderful WaPo analysis in 1999 that looked at what the various Elites expected the Public could bear as deaths attributable to military operations and one cited was 'Preventing Iraqi WMD'. The Military Elites (retired armed forces folks gone into punditry) had thought about 6,000 or so dead on average to do this. The Civilian Elite (the talking heads punditry) put it at about 19,000 dead. Asking the general public gets you just a hair under 30,000 dead. Mind you that is 'acceptable deaths' and it was *only* to remove WMD capability from Iraq. Earlier in Bosnia the public was polled on how many dead they thought had already happened in 'peacekeeping' there: the average was 125. The ACTUAL number was ZERO. It seems that the US Public expects deaths to happen due to combat when troops are put in such situations.

If people are so worried about deaths of US Citizens, then perhaps it is time we all live in caves, in deserts and as far away from other people as possible. But then I am also the person who sees 'The Big One' in California as only the Fifth worst thing that can happen to North America in the death and destruction realm. And global warming folks can go take a hike on the human caused side of things and rework their timeframe, because it is woefully inadequate.

If you want to save lots of lives in America, get 10% of the population to properly wash their hands, clean cuts and scrapes and not die of septicemia. That will save more annually than we have lost in 9/11 and all of the combat since *combined* per year. But doing as mommy told you to do just isn't glamorous, fun, exciting, and something to get on a soapbox about. Still if you do that, the life you save will be your own.
 
Dadmanly: Nice post. I've been watching this for quite some time, and though I hate playing games with casualty numbers, the fact is that most folks are just ignorant of what those numbers are or how they compare to any other numbers.

The total military death RATE 2001-2004 is 36% higher than it was 1993-2000. That might seem like a lot to some folks, but the fact that we're at war might have something to do with it.

The total death rate increase under Bush means that, statistically, 2154 more troops have died than would have died had the rate from the Clinton years gone unchanged. That's a lot of troops.

Except that, when you consider over 3500 have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, it means that the increase is LESS than the combat zone totals account for. If critics want to argue what these numbers mean, that fact needs to be accounted for.

For more details see my site.
 
I echo the cautions of some others not to overstate the case. It is a good point (statistically many who are killed in combat would have died anyway in garrison), but simplifying it ("it's a wash") or comparing raw numbers only weakens the validity and makes it more open to criticism by detractors.
 
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 02/22/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]