Comments on: Iraq Death Toll

By: 1MaNLan

1MaNLan — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Ahhh.....but the day is still young. At least in former wars, there was a definite structure to be fought. The enemy was a concrete entity existing within physical boundaries. This is a "war on terror", or, at least its being marketed that way. Iraq is merely the "central front". Of course, terror, like torture, has always existed and always will. There will be no end to it, particularly if the already murky parameters of the war continue to shift towards "civilizational boundaries" (East versus West, Christian versus Moslem, light skinned versus dark skinned, etc). Give it another decade or two, particularly as the self fulfilling prophecy of WMD use begins to be used by both sides against the other. That is the slippery slope that we have got to (who would have imagined that elements in America governement and media, like Inhofe, Lott and Limbaugh, would ever stand up to defend the istitutional use of torture even 2 years ago?). In the present accounting, we are "only" (tell that to the families of the dead) 800 bodies down, a certain number maimed, 268 billion in the hole....but the day is young.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

(who would have imagined that elements in America governement and media, like Inhofe, Lott and Limbaugh, would ever stand up to defend the istitutional use of torture even 2 years ago?)

Or elements of left-wing legal academia, like Alan Dershowitz?

Oh wait -- that was more than two years ago. Never mind.

By: Len tavernetti

Len tavernetti — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

What is more significant than the raw number is the population of the U.S. during each of these conflicts and the realization that prior to the 20th century each loss meant somone wasn't coming home to run the farm and there was no social program to help the widows and orphans left behind.

By: Barry Ritholtz

Barry Ritholtz — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Your "perspective" is simplistic. How can you compare the war in Iraq with WWs I or II, the Revolutionary war, or the Civil war?

Those were not exactly wars of choice -- which I now believe this war was.

Additionally, you are now and rationalizing. None of those wars distracted us from the real war -- catching the bastards who were behind 9/11. Moving men and material
away from Afghanistan has turned out to be a colossal strategic blunder.

Then add to the mix that the war was executed poorly by rank amateur civilians, micromanaging and overruling the pros in the Pentagon.

Just poor poor planning and execution . . .

-A dissapointed Hawk.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Unfortunately for your view, Barry, the U.S. military was originally designed to be managed by "amateur civilians." It would be naÃ¯ve to think that the military is anything but a political tool, to be wielded by politicians.

On the other hand, how well those civilians have used the military is a valid point for debate. But in my mind, not the fact that the U.S. has always had civilian control of the military. That's the way the Constitution was written.

By: Christopher Cross

Christopher Cross — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Oh but quite the argument can be made that the Civil War WAS a war of choice. And what a bloody choice it was.

Though I question HNN's totals for the Civil War. Everything I've read has the total deaths around 620,000.

Perhaps HNN is claiming 863,153 casualties? But that number seems fairly low.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Hmm. Given the medical technology of the time, and the high death rate among the injured while under doctors' care, the idea that only about 240,000 or so survived war wounds doesn't strike me as all that far-fetched. Of course, I suppose I could Google® the actual official casualty figures (if there are any) but where's the fun in that?

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I would note that the figures for VietNam and Korea (both arguably "wars of choice") are both well beyond 800, as well, Barry.

Given that we've been there over a year now, 800 seems to be very low.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Indeed, I'd argue that almost all of the encounters on the list were wars of choice. Aside from WWII, where we were directly attacked by the enemy, they were pretty much all avoidable. Certainly, our Mexican and Cuban adventures were far more optional than taking out Saddam. One could argue that the post regime change nation building exercise was optional, since it was, but the numbers are still small by any historical measure. And, of course, all the soldiers are volunteers now.

By: dw

dw — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Two things: 1. As was mentioned before, battlefield medicine was abysmal during the Civil War. The technological advancements in killing devices far outstripped advancements in combat-related medical care for quite a long while, at least until penicillin and improvements in wound care. Something like 50% of Civil War deaths were due to the poor state of medicine. 2. Most other wars have seen high rates of casualties because everyone lines up and shoots each other. At the end of the war, they all shake hands and start rebuilding. Here, the war really didn't start until we'd invaded and reached the "end of combat operations." Leaving the media aside for the moment, I think that's why you're seeing such a distaste in the US public for this war -- it's supposed to be over, and people are supposed to die accidently, not from IEDs and ambushes. If we were losing 2-3 a day in battle, it would be tolerable. But we're losing 2-3 a day when we're not even supposed to be fighting these people. 800 looks like 8000 under these terms. Mind you, I supported finishing the job of Gulf War I, but this has been a piss-poor joke of a management job. To paraphrase Wag The Dog, some people up there think this isn't a war, it's a pagent. Someone sold the Iraqis on the idea that the US would come in and give them gold-plated toilets and a Veg-o-matic in every home. Their overblown expectations have been the death of us -- literally.

By: Christopher Cross

Christopher Cross — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I'm not disputing the quality of CW medicine...when doctors would clean a blade on their already blood-stained apron--it's no wonder they were considered butchers...but the 620K CW deaths takes into account poor battlefield medicine--so we're still left with where the 860K figure came from...

It's a minor point, to be sure...but I'm being Washingtonniene about it.

By: .com

.com — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Shelby Foote put the CW figures at:
623,026 dead
471,427 wounded

By: John Cross

John Cross — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Hey there!

I write for drumwaster.com, and penned the linked column a few weeks ago. It's another way of looking at the casualty figures:

http://www.drumwaster.com/archives/000983.html

By: TA

TA — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Here is a more current death fidure that I think puts things in even more perspective
NHTSA estimate for overall highway deaths in 2003
43,220.

By: Peter Kurth

Peter Kurth — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

What a wonderful commentary on each of those "personal tragedies" and their "mourners" -- that the death toll in a useless, senseless, criminal war isn't nearly as high as it's been in (a handful of) "just" ones and (a truckful of) pointless ones. I assume that when the death toll in Iraq reaches the number of dead in World War II, "a little perspective" will have been achieved and we safely call it off. Yes? pk