Monday, March 24, 2008

First Five Years

A testimony to the amazing job our American heroes are doing in Iraq...and a little perspective to boot:

The US military lost more soldiers in the first 5 years of the Clinton Presidency than the US military lost in the first 5 years in Iraq.

Gateway Pundit

HT Kevin Ecker

7 comments:

Smithers said...

OK, so are you going to add all the soldiers that died due to accident, homicide, illness, self inflicted wounds and "undetermined" to the numbers killed in the Iraq War, compare those to the Clinton numbers and repost the graph?

Or should I do it?

Half the story is still only half the story.

Bike Bubba said...

I'd be interested to see your numbers, Smithers. Reality is that I remember routine articles in the papers about helicopter and other accidents killing soldiers during the Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton administration--and a further reality is that training to do dangerous things like combat is in itself dangerous.

I don't know that you'd find that much of an "excess" mortality rate, to be honest. I'd expect you'd see somewhere around 500 traffic deaths each year, the # of suicides is about 100 or so each year, and maybe 100 each year from illness. Deployment actually tends to reduce these, and also to be counted as "Iraq deaths."

So you're talking more or less 6000 for Bush vs. 5000 for Clinton, despite fighting two wars or police actions, whatever you want to call them.

Minnesota Central said...

Did you download the report and view the data ?

The leading cause of death during the Clinton years was :
1. Accidents;
2. Self-inflicted;
3. Illness;
4. Homicide etc.

Review Table Five and you will see that ONE person was killed in action and 75 died as a result of terrorist activities.

Since Accidents are the leading cause of death during the Clinton years, it should be noted that the Clinton years are lower than the GHW Bush years (almost cut in half) and also less than GW Bush years. The only area that GWB has over Clinton is in the number of suicides.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

redBeard said...

This post of inaccurate comparative statistics is just one of the many ways groups who are for some cause attempt to confuse the populace, deflect the real information of the cause, and then wrap the argument in patriotism ("...amazing job our American heroes are doing in Iraq") in an attempt to squelch public discourse.

1) No one as far as I can remember has denigrated the effort our military is doing in any conflict so this tact just bristles with ignominy.

2) Why are we fighting in Iraq? Saddam Hussein had a program of WMD and was initiating a nuclear weapons program. Oh, wait, those were false claims.

3) King George and he merry band of imperialists linked Hussein's gov't with Al Qaeda. (Dubya actually sent an executive order to Congress with this claim in 2004 but I can't find the exec. order just now...). But that's NOT TRUE either. Hmmm.

4) The cost of the war is now approaching $12 BILLION a month. Think that doesn't affect our economy?!?

5) King George completely bungled the war effort. There're too many details to list for this argument.

Smithers said...

I'd be interested to see your numbers, Smithers.

Right here dude.

Bike Bubba said...

Smithers, I looked at the same report, and quite frankly, you're having a little bit of trouble with your math. I count 8800 deaths to 2006 in that report, not 11,000. You only get to your numbers by assuming that hostile action deaths will continue at more or less the same rate.

Plus, I would also have to point out that the Bush death rate includes National Guard members pulled into active service, so you've got a little bit of scaling to do that way, too--there are more soldiers today than in 1995.

No doubt that war is hell. However, if we're achieving something worthwhile, like a Middle Eastern republic that doesn't harbor Abu Nidal and pay palestinian suicide bomber life insurance, it's a remarkably low cost.

Smithers said...

Smithers, I looked at the same report, and quite frankly, you're having a little bit of trouble with your math. I count 8800 deaths to 2006 in that report, not 11,000. You only get to your numbers by assuming that hostile action deaths will continue at more or less the same rate.

Right. Quick question: Did you bother to actually read the post?

The numbers above were taken from the same Congressional Research Service report quoted by Gateway Pundit. The only exception was for the years 2007 and 2008 since they were not included on the report. I included the Iraq War US military fatalities from the Iraq and Afghanistan Casualty Counts and then made an estimate for non-Iraq War deaths for 2007 based upon the average non-combat deaths for the 6 years of the Bush administration included in the CRS report.