"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Devastating Military Death Figures and the Media

I've been had. You've been had. We've all been had.

I'm about to share some numbers that will make you wonder why the MSM has been playing up military casualties in Iraq. These are official figures:

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

Thanks to Redstate for pointing this out.

Given the extent of our involvement in two nations where we instituted regime change, it looks like W's team hasn't bungled things as badly as is widely believed.

13 comments:

Tlaloc said...

Your point being?

Clinton's casualties mainly came from Yugoslavia which was another stupid bit of American interventionism without a world mandate.

Bush Sr.'s casualties were from Gulf War 1. That was also an ill thought out misadventure on our part.

I'm trying to remember what Reagan's were from. Sure wasn't grenada. Panama?

So if you want to suggest that in the last thirty years we've had one miserable excuse for a president after another, then feel free. Absolutely true. That does not somehoe exonerate the latest loser in the oval office.

Tlaloc said...

besides which if you read the thread youll find this post:

"I was going to use your figures on a very liberal site when it occurred to me to run them against a smaller population; US troop strength in Iraq. If we assume 150,000 troops, and that the 4-year Bush II average rate (77.61 per 100,000) applies, then each year there should have been about 116 deaths there, for a total of 348. In three years, though, there were actually 2310; "1,808 were killed in combat, and 502 died from accidents, illnesses or other causes" -- http://tinyurl.com/pkxpu .
If that average force strength is close, the death rate in Iraq has been about 513 per 100,000. I was a soldier for 21 years and had my war, and I'm neither surprised nor shocked. "We are the currency you spend," as the verse says. Stuff happens."

by ka5s

513/100,000 vs.

"Clinton . . . . 62.53
Bush I . . . . . 71.31
Reagan . . . . 101.57"

Tom Van Dyke said...

I'm afraid we'll never see the reality-based community get real. Not only are US troop deaths not significantly higher during "Bush's war," the civilian Iraqi deaths are lower than the "peaceful" sanctions' carnage or the days of Saddam's mass graves.

According to John Merline at TCS, mining deaths are down under Bush too, contrary to popular blather:

"Mining fatalities have dropped every year President Bush has been in the White House, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Since 2001, mining deaths averaged 63 a year, which is 30% lower than during the Clinton administration. The fatality rate has dropped as well -- it was 31% lower in 2004 than it was in the last year of the Clinton administration. "

BDS not only disrupts any possibility of putting things into any perspective, it also adversely affects people's abilities at math.

tbmbuzz said...

These are TOTAL casualty figures, not combat or terrorist attack figures. Most military casualties are accidents, as the Redstate chart illustrates vividly. According to the chart, these are the combat/terrorist casualty numbers:

Reagan - 351 (263 from the Beirut barracks attack)

Bush Sr - 172

Clinton - 76

Bush (thru 2004) - 1157


The point here shouldn't be politics. Rather, he point really should be how skillful the U.S. military is at avoiding casualties, INCLUDING the current efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq, when taken in the context of the history of war, American and world both.

tbmbuzz said...

Clinton's casualties mainly came from Yugoslavia which was another stupid bit of American interventionism without a world mandate.

The concept of a "world mandate" is absolute nonsense.

If there was a mistake re Yugoslavia, it was not intervening soon enough and forcing the Euroweenies to solve this problem in their own backyard. The mistake goes all the way back to Bush Sr's inexplicable resistance to the freedom movements not only in Yugoslavia but also in the Soviet sphere.

Hunter Baker said...

For the uninitiated, Tom Van Dyke's "BDS" stands for "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

Tlaloc said...

"I'm afraid we'll never see the reality-based community get real. Not only are US troop deaths not significantly higher during "Bush's war,""

Considering that I had already demonstrated how your contentionhere is false and TBMbuzz then did the same are you going to stick with it or admit the facts?



"According to John Merline at TCS, mining deaths are down under Bush too, contrary to popular blather:"

Somewhat irrelevent. What is relevent is that the sago mining company has a far above average accident rate. That is precisely the kind of thing that a functioning MSHA would deal with. But since Bush gutted it and staffed it with industry insiders the MSHA has no intention of doing its job.

You can read about it here.

Yes overall mining has gotten safer year by year and that's good. But egregious offenders have been allowed to slide by the government. And people have died because of it.

Tlaloc said...

"The concept of a "world mandate" is absolute nonsense."

Well then I guess it's a bad thing we signed the treaty and made the UN law binding on us, huh?

tbmbuzz said...

Well then I guess it's a bad thing we signed the treaty and made the UN law binding on us, huh?

What treaty? Are you talking about the formation of the UN? No treaty, no "international law" (whatever that is) supersedes the U.S. Constitution.

But treaties aside, seriously, the concept of a world mandate is simply not realistic, as in every case (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine, whatever), it comes down to one part of "the world" against another part. Heck, I bet "the world" wouldn't even be able to agree on how to deal with an impending cometary impact!

James Elliott said...

"What treaty? Are you talking about the formation of the UN? No treaty, no "international law" (whatever that is) supersedes the U.S. Constitution."

It doesn't supersede the Constitution, but treaties are, under it, binding law. The formation of international organizations - WTO, UN, NATO, are treaties, and therefore binding law with the full weight of anything drafted and passed by Congress once ratified.

tbmbuzz said...

Thanks for the clarification, James. I'm still wondering, however, what Tlaloc means by "UN law".

connie deady said...

I can't believe anyone would still try to defend the fiasco in Iraq.

Tlaloc said...

"Thanks for the clarification, James. I'm still wondering, however, what Tlaloc means by "UN law"."

I'm not sure what the confusion is. We signed on to the UN. We ratified it. That makes it the law of the land. In so much as the UN has authority to rule on an issue our country is then obligated to obey.

We don't because the rule of law has never been particularly precious to us really.