About That Iraq, Afghanistan Benchmark

Given this news of US losses in two wars over a more than four year period:

U.S. Military Losses Hit 4,000 in Iraq, Afghanistan

If nothing else, I wanted to add this perspective. Unit to unit combat began in Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August of 1964. Below are US losses per year from 65 - 71. We lost four times as many soldiers in 1968 alone.

1965 - 1,863

1966 - 6,143

1967 - 11,153

1968 - 16,592

1969 - 11,616

1970 - 6,081

1971 - 2,357

Comments

[Phoenix]

I turned the book in today so don't have the names of the islands, but in one single, short engagement in the Pacific, 9,735 Marines were killed. Total for the Pacific theater was around 65,000.

[Rachel]

That article has convinced this liberal that the media does wants IRAQIS - not us - to lose the war. Bloomberg had to come up with the 4000 dead by adding the total deaths of Iraq and Afghanistan when they were more than happy to just separate the KIAs between the two engagements. God bless our troops. They do not need to be used as fodder for politcal points or slow news days.

[Chris J. Breisch]

A picture paints a thousand words right?

http://geekswithblogs.net/cbreisch/archive/2007/05/15/An-Inconvenient-Truth.aspx

You can find the original at appealforcourage.org

[IslamoLlama]

Clearly, Dan and company are disappointed in the lack of dead marines. And that's understandable, because I'm sure they're all just inches away from enlisting and serving their country to combat the terrorist menace.

Clearly 3800 is not the magic number for the Republican Party. We need more war dead before we can call this a failed mission. Of course, we've already spent $440 billion, which is $100 billion more than we spent on Vietnam. But I guess when you're pissing away the military and ham-handing national security, money is no object.

Let's also keep in mind that after 58,000 dead and $300+ billion spent, Nixon still lost Vietnam. So before you start ho-humming about how America hasn't bleed enough to make Bush feel like a big man, remember that dumping more blood and treasure into the desert doesn't guarantee us a victory, it just sets up a bigger defeat.

[Squid]

Chickenhawk argument? Check.

Complaint about money spent on the "wrong" gov't program? Check.

Shifting Johnson's responsibility to Nixon? Check.

You're good, Llama. Damn good.

[Phoenix]

Llama,

Did you do some drugs this morning? Like acid? Either that or you are brain damaged.

[rwilymz]

"Let's also keep in mind that after 58,000 dead and $300+ billion spent, Nixon still lost Vietnam."

How did Nixon lose it?

I don't think you can find enough military engagements to count on more than one hand that the US "lost".

If you're going purely by body count, the greater KIAs were during Johnson. And isn't body count the superficial means of tallying a "failed policy"?

How are 1970 dollars doing in comparison with 2005 dollars? Is there still a 1:1 comparison, there?

"...dumping more blood and treasure into the desert doesn't guarantee us a victory, it just sets up a bigger defeat"

Izzat bigger defeat a guaranteed defeat?

...so how was Vietnam lost, then, if we won 98% of the battles?

And how does that translate to today?

Why don't you try to add 2 and 2 and get a positive integer.

[willis]

So how is the cost of the war in Iraq tallied? Are these the purely incremental costs that are incurred only because of the war or do they include the costs that would be incurred anyway, but happen to be spent in Iraq rather than someplace else. For example, the salary of a career soldier will be paid just the same, in Iraq or elsewhere.

[Tennwriter]

We WON the Vietnam War. Then the politicians, primarily Democrat, handed it away.

If you have an allied force ready to take on the enemy, but it needs supplies and you give them two clips of ammo and a hand grenade, and send them out to take on a fully stocked enemy....well you get the evac of Seoul.

We're winning in Iraq, and the Iraqi Army is getting better, getting to the point where they can stand on their own, but if we pull out before they are ready then our blood, our efforts, and the money is wasted, indeed worse than wasted.

[IslamoLlama]

Claiming we won the Vietnam War after getting routed out of the country? Check.

Forgetting that Nixon presided over Vietnam for his entire turn in office despite being elected - twice - on the promise to win Peace with Honor? Check.
(It was Ford who finally got us out, for those of you playing the home game)

I like to think you can blame LBJ and Nixon about evenly for the clusterfuck that was Vietnam. LBJ for getting us in, and Nixon leaving us there. But, ultimately, it was Nixon who decided to double down and stick around at the poker table of war. And it was Nixon who, after two terms in office, failed to do more than spread the conflict to neighboring countries.

How do you explain why we could win 98% of the battles while still losing the war? It's simple Pyrric Victory math. If you win 98% of the wars, but still control less than 40% of the country after twenty years, you have lost. If, after decades of "victories", American helicopters are still getting shot down on a weekly basis, you didn't really win.

Although, you caught me. Inflation adjusted, Vietnam was $549 billion over twenty years. However, the $440 billion we spent in Iraq plus the $200 billion we've sunk into Afghanistan over the last 6 years, we come out well ahead.

We've been "winning" in Iraq every year since we arrived. We "won" when we beat Saddam. Then we "won" when we crushed the first insurgency. Then we "won" when we killed Zarkawi. Then we "won" when we recaptured Anbar Province. Then we "won" when we re-stormed Bagdad. If we keep "winning" like this, we're going to "win" ourselves out of a branch of the Armed forces.

[Phoenix]

Llama - fine. What should we do and still maintain our security? Do tell.

On another note, check this brilliance out: http://www.dailyredundancy.com/archives/1024.html

(Put your hand under your chin so your jaw doesn't fall off.)

[Thomas]

"If we keep "winning" like this, we're going to "win" ourselves out of a branch of the Armed forces."

With 3,500 dead in four years, in twelve years we may even lose the equivalent of a single division. Compare that to the experience in Europe in 1944-1945, where more than a few divisions turned completely over multiple times, sustaining (and replacing) casualties of 250% or higher. Granted, the stakes may not be as high in this war as in the Good War -- but the point is that Iraq doesn't inflict anywhere near the level of damage it would take to "'win' ourselves out of a branch of the Armed Forces."

I'm going to be cold and heartless for a moment: On a strictly material basis, assuming that we didn't care about the human tragedy of casualties and didn't have to worry about home-front public sentiment, the war of attrition in Iraq could be continued indefinitely. The Army isn't going to be routed out of the country, or deprived of its ability to resist. It's been able to make good its losses in men and materiel. The monetary cost of the war is still well within the country's ability to finance.

Harry Reid says the war is lost. That means someone has won. Who is that? Who can claim to have the ability to impose its will in Iraq without effective resistance? At worst, the war is a stalemate. Objectively speaking, the only way our side is going to lose is if we abandon the effort as not worth the cost, even if it is bearable.

[B]

Every few months or so, some blogger, somewhere, draws this parallel between the number of dead in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts and WWII or Vietnam. Without exception, the point is always the same: "With the comparatively low number of dead in our newest wars, what can the MSM and the anti-war left possibly have to bitch about?"

Well, these comparisons are now and will continue to be crap.

In WWII, we fought the standing national armies, navies and air forces of two super powers in two global theaters, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 million Americans involved at the War's height — approximately 10 times the number we've got in Iraq and Afghanistan (and we'd won by this time). In Vietnam, we fought the proxies of the People's Republic and the USSR, an army of North Vietnam, force of about 1.5 million strong along with a VC guerilla force of about 600,000, give or take.

And you're surprised the numbers are proportionally larger than, with forces of appx. 150,000, fighting an insurgency estimated at 40,000-60,000 strong, using mostly small arms and homemade AW — and backed by Iran at most?

How could anyone possibly compare the raw weekly/annual/total numbers of dead in these three conflicts with any statistical honesty, and the impact those numbers are supposed to have on the American public, and still look them in the eye?

I'm not certain when the low numbers of dead in a conflict started proving it's "rightness" in any event, but if the numbers of dead in Iraq are being used to prove such, they are being used in an artificial, disingenuous way, at least here.

You want to compare Iraq to a past war? Try Afghanistan ... when the Soviets were there. Relatively low numbers of deaths ... and every single one a waste.

[Ignant_dude]

B, I'll give you roughly equivalent deaths in the Soviet Army, 14,453 over ten years, though they had 470,000 sick and wounded over that timeframe as well, which is more than half the number of Soviet troops that ever went there. Still a good counter statistic. But let me offer the difference in strategies and results.

Our new strategy is direct interaction with Iraqi people, securing them personally and letting them see who secures them. This is why they're ratting out AQI hideouts, the locations of IED's and boobytraps, allowing us to dismantle the "death-trapped" Baqubah, 130 rigged explosives with one lost soldier. (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/second-chances.htm) The result is that Iraqi's see one entity that beheads them for smoking or serves their baked son to them versus an entity who dies protecting them then rushes food, electricity, and water in. We build schools, too, believe it or not.

Meanwhile, the Soviets carpet bombed cities, were arguably responsible for 47 chemical attacks and sowed the entire country with anti-personnel mines throughout the country. When I fly over Afghanistan, I can only imagine how awesome a ski resort would be there, but you'd have a hard job convincing people you'd cleaned all the mines off the slopes. The result of the Soviet way of fighting insurgents, go figure, is a country that hates them. Again, comparatively, our forces fly, and sometimes die on, rescue missions to save afghani citizens who step on soviet era mines. People who carpet bomb me and drop mines, people who risk their lives to save me from those mines.... hmmm, tough choice.

The point of comparing casualty statistics is not justification for the war, lefties have proven incapable of hearing that. It's simply one part of an argument that lefties are in the "decayed and degraded state that thinks nothing is worth war" - John Stuart Mills. If you think that american casualties are proof we're losing then explain how the insurgents are winning. AQI has lost two of their pro-claimed caliphate capitals and two of their #1 leaders.
Ooohh, wait a second, I get it, by that definition of winning, that's why lefties want to impeach Bush and Cheney, because then we just have to execute them, cede DC to the AQ, maybe Philly as well, and then we can declare victory. Crafty.

[B]

I-Dude ... my posit is that the number of deaths proves NOTHING, PERIOD about progress or lack thereof in this war ... so I wish people would quit using the numbers as some sort of new and relavent perspective. They ain't either one.

Anyone can justify this war --as you are doing right now--per it's goals, i.e. it's a worthy fight. Sorry, I'm not buying what you're peddling here.

If I were an ethicist, I would be of the telelogical strain, in that the rightness of an act depends solely on the consequences it is likely to produce ... NOT the goodness of the act itself. So while toppling Saddam was an undeniable good, the consequences have been horrific and undeniably worse than if we had never invaded. Quid pro quo.

[Ignant_dude]

I know I waste my breath, but I guess I'll bust out the rest of Mills quote.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person for which there is nothing he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety is a miserable creature and has no chance to be free unless he is made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
I ended my last saying that the statistics are a counter argument to "it's just not worth it" meant to extract an answer to "well, what is?" These statistics are meant to counter people of a different mind than you who believe that american casualties disprove any justification. I'm with you that the number of casualties is meaningless.

Let's suppose that a dictator who gasses his own people is better than the democracy Iraq has now- though personally, a govt that intentionally kills it's own people vs. a govt that can't stop suicide bombers from trying to gain the attention of US media, hmmm... Even if you believe they were better off under Saddam, it doesn't matter anymore.

Then we have to go with the consequences of our actions from here on out, that's all we can affect any more. We stay until Iraq can protect itself. If we can achieve that (and I realize I may have completely lost you on that if), but IF we can, would those consequences be better than those of an immediate withdrawal? I already know you disagree, B, and that's you're right, but I think an ethicist would prefer a stable country.

There is a major threat to our national security involved in Iraq. An entirely different one than when we went in (that one we already dealt with), but it's there nonetheless. The "goodness of the act" is how we're winning, Iraqi's reject death for liberty, people who die for them versus people who die to kill them. It's happening, open your eyes. Look at the "Awakenings" and growth of the ISF because of the support of the sheiks. This is grassroots stuff that might not have worked if Iraqi's hadn't seen what rule by AQI look like. We have to make sure this continues. It doesn't matter to me if you agree with the premise or the reality. If you don't, it's fine my be if you stand back and let the better men exert.

[B]

Dude, you've already painted me -- and no few others I'm sure -- with the brush of believing NO war can be justified because THIS one, after four years, has never justified itself. Let me correct you on that.

While I've been certain from the start this particular war was wrong for the reasons I've already stated (and what incidentally Bush Sr., Skowcroft and others of the "realist" bent from Gulf War I understood), I'm not averse to all war. Though never desirable, there are times when it is absolutely unavoidable. That said, I do not characterize this war as unavoidable, though it is most certainly undesirable.

Here's a historical parallel, on a much smaller scale ... In 1961, anti-communist hawks in the US military--lead by Joint Chiefs head Curtis LeMay--pushed President Kennedy toward an invasion of Cuba. The reasons presented were that Castro posed an undeniable threat to the US by his mere existence. He was allied with the Soviets and his island would present a perfect base for their future aggression. Kennedy wanted to hold off because he legitimately feared war with Russia, but he was convinced by the arguments of the military that the populace would support the invasion wholeheartedly; several Cuban exiles had assured the brass of this fact.

As we know, the Bay of Pigs failed miserably. And John Kennedy, according to Ted Sorenson, said, in effect, "That is the last time I listen to those bastards," speaking of the military. Kennedy knew he had been steered into the hardliner's agenda and vowed it would not happen again. After that, reason and diplomacy ruled the day, ultimately proving its desirability through the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis ... a far cry from sending bombers to Moscow, Kursk and other strategic targets as the military proposed in 1962.

Contrast this to the current President — manipulated into war by the hardliners at the outset and willing to let that model continue. "The military trumps the politicians in Iraq" the man says. Uh, respectfully, not in a Jeffersonian democracy and not in this country, Mr. Bush. Rule by law, not military fiat.

Of course there are times when war is called for; never in our lifetimes, but those times have indeed existed. One must be able to tell the difference.

[bloodrage bob]

vietnam was the perfect illustration of our dilemma currently being seen in iraq. legend has it, back in the mid-60's, a US army type was (somehow) peacably conversing with a senior NVA/VC guy. one of them famous vu's, or tran's, or nguyen's. somebody like that.

anyway. he supposedly said something to the effect of "we will kill one of yours for every 10 of ours you kill. yet in the end, it will be you who tire of it."

he was right. and the assholes of the world took note: the way to beat america was the "cloud of mosquitos swarm the mighty lion" strategy. it's what'll take us out of iraq, in the end.

there's a theory that that's exactly what the japs were trying to do in the end stages of ww2. fight like hell over every inch of ground, commit atrocities upon the US servicemen captured, make sure the US media gets lots of (enemy) propaganda to report. it didn't work for japan: we found a way to *make them knock that shit off*. a horrible way: a way that involved the killing of many MANY civilian noncombatants. where the living envy the dead. but - as opposed to everything tried in vietnam or iraq - it worked. worked real quick, in fact. with *no loss of american life*. (*yes yes, i'm aware of the US pow's [alleged to have been] killed at hiroshima.)

but we no longer have the will to excercise the (evidently, the only way that works) solution to our problem.

and so, we'll lose. i'd love to be shown where i'm wrong here, but i don't think it can be done.

[rwilymz]

"How do you explain why we could win 98% of the battles while still losing the war? It's simple Pyrric Victory math."

You need to better understand what a pyrrhic victory is.

We lost the war for no reason[s] contained within a thousand miles of Vietnam.

"If you win 98% of the wars, but still control less than 40% of the country after twenty years, you have lost"

We weren't trying to control the country; we were trying to create a nation called South Vietnam.

"If we keep "winning" like this, we're going to "win" ourselves out of a branch of the Armed forces."

And at this rate, and barring retirement and enlistments, it'll take upwards of a millenium.

Face it: Vietnam was lost due entirely to loss of political will. People got tired of the country fighting wars... bottom line.

While that can be understood from a psychological perspective very easily, to turn around and use the political loss as a toehold for backfilling a military defeat is raging dishonesty and advertises a gross lack of comprehension of military doctrine. You, frankly, should stay as far away from topics military if this is the best you can muster.

And then, what we see here, is the equivocative sophistry of neophytes declaring superficial parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, citing the dishonest conclusions of military defeat in the latter, and asserting similar military defeat in Iraq.

The syllogism works thus: "We took more casualties in Vietnam than the voters wanted to take; voters decided that constituted 'military defeat'; ergo, we lost Vietnam militarily. We are taking casualties in Iraq; we are taking more casualties than the voters want to take; ergo, we are losing in Iraq."

Congratulations. You've just graduated from Boob School and been hired as receptionist on the Island of Knaves.

[rwilymz]

"As we know, the Bay of Pigs failed miserably."

Right. Because the US failed to follow the plan. We dropped the advance units and said: "SEE ya!"

"After that, reason and diplomacy ruled the day"

Is this the same "reason and diplomacy" we see going on today? where the US and Cuba don't talk to each other? where, if we have anything to do with Cuba it is through the intermediary of Canuckia? Where everyone in the world can buy cubanos, including Americans on a Caribbean cruise? but if they bring those cubanos back into US territorial waters they will be confiscated and you can possibly be arrested? where Castro continually accuses the US of "economic imperialism" for refusing to trade with him?

Is that what's ruling? Because I'd hate to confuse reason and diplomacy with petulant pouting.

"Of course there are times when war is called for; never in our lifetimes, but those times have indeed existed. One must be able to tell the difference."

I hope you had the same kind of self-righteous snit fit over Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Gulf I, several incarnations of Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, half a hundred variations of cease fire enforcement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope you aren't keeping your sanctimony reserved for Gulf II, because that would make you very very hypocritical.

This is not a game of Risk, here, where each colored army is equal in status and prestige to each other; these are foreign policies of the United States, the pre-eminent world power, against whom every antagonistic nation eyes warily but doesn't attack for fear of losing, but against whom every two-bit jackal with a chip on his shoulder will nip and bite and hamstring every chance he gets because, frankly, jackals have nothing to lose.

What you are suggesting here is that the US is beholden to not acknowledge the swarms of jackals at its heels, the clouds of mosquitos in its face, as inconsequential. Becuase our immediate survival is not at stake from a petty tyrant flouting cease fires which are detaining a double-digit share of our military forces, we must remain inert.

You are rationalizing the same political laziness that has killed off a large share of the prior pre-eminent powers the world has seen.

[B]

rwilymz--I shouldn't even be responding to a guy who, despite the fact Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City, is somehow able to talk himself into believing the US did not fail in its mission in Vietnam, but anyways ...

Because the US failed to follow the plan -- What do you mean by that? Waht do you mean by "see ya?" Read up on the Bay of Pigs, beyond your general knowledge of the event, then come back and we'll talk.

You see, the plan was flawed in its very concept. Amongst other things, all the promises made by the military of a domestic insurrection to support the half-planned invasion did not materialize. Sound familiar? Which is why Kennedy vowed to never let the hawks in the military cloud his judgement again ... something today's slow-witted President could learn from his own dealings with the current crop of hardliners, but of course never will.

Is this the same "reason and diplomacy" we see going on today? Did you grow up in a nuclear wasteland? No? Then safe to say the rule of diplomacy was the wise choice because I doubt you have any understanding of how real the dueling super power threat was in the early 60s ... and it went well beyond flying airplanes into buildings.

I HOPE we see some kind of diplomacy, any reaasonable kind, take shape in the near future. You're obviously under 35 because you have seem to have little grasp of history pre-1997.

"these are foreign policies of the United States, the pre-eminent world power, against whom every antagonistic nation eyes warily but doesn't attack for fear of losing, but against whom every two-bit jackal with a chip on his shoulder will nip and bite and hamstring every chance he gets because, frankly, jackals have nothing to lose."

They know something interesting -- that losing wars had less to do with military might than it has to do with national ideals. No one can take us on militarily, no one. And like Rome, that fact will matter less and less in the future. For those like yourself, who believe in little other than big sticks, you would do well to learn a bit more about the value of speaking softly.

[Sweetie]

When comparing casualty rates the important factor is the impact on the homeland. So it's not 4,000 vs 68,000 but 4,000 out of a population of 3,000,000 and 68,000 out of a population of roughly 2,000,000. In the 60s even small towns had 'hometown' casualties.

Same with the $s. What was the Vietnam spend as a % of the entire economy contrasted with the Iraq War is the appropriate comparison.........and even that underplays the financial considerations because rich countries have far more flexibility to spend on choices. If you spend 10% of your salary on gambling it's a different animal if you're making $30K or $300K.

[rwilymz]

"rwilymz--I shouldn't even be responding to a guy who, despite the fact Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City, is somehow able to talk himself into believing the US did not fail in its mission in Vietnam, but anyways "

Incorrect, squire; you shouldn't be responding because you're incorrect and desperately dancing to hide it.

The fact that Saigon is called Ho Chi Minh City has nothing to do with the military successes or failure, but the political failures.

Did the **US** fail in Vietnam? Indeed.

Did the US **military** fail in Vietnam? No. That was the point.

Stop equivocating.

"Because the US failed to follow the plan -- What do you mean by that?"

I mean the administration, given a plan to "liberate" Cuba, did pretty much exactly what the US did in Iraq in '92 with promises to the anti-Hussein revolutionary-wanna-bes. You know: failed to follow the plan.

"Waht do you mean by "see ya?" Read up on the Bay of Pigs"

That irony, right there.

"the plan was flawed in its very concept"

That may or may not be. But the reality is that the plan kicked off and then Kennedy halted US involvement, thus cutting off the CIA Ops who were there, and all the locals and all the ex-pats who'd gone to help. Of course it failed, because it was never given a chance.

Read up and then you might understand.

"Did you grow up in a nuclear wasteland? No?"

Brilliant!! Post hoc is better than no hoc at all, right?

You're obviously under 35 because you have seem to have little grasp of history pre-1997

I'm considerably older, and I work in defense, squire. War planning, war execution, war transportation. I do not have the luxury of idiotic partisan filters on reality because I plan to keep my job when administrations change, as indeed I have done since Carter.

I do not care if you wish to criticize the current administration over its use of foreign policy; there is much criticism that is deserved, and more that can be honsetly supported. However, only as long as that criticism is fair and not based on the conveniently selected facts of advocates. I tell people continually: you don't get points for being right; you get points for being pertinent.

You aren't pertinent, and you are desperate to create a cushy landscape where "military hardliners" are the bad guy and some idealized notion of Arthurian [read: "Democratic", apparently] party politics is the good guy. The reality is, instead, everyone's self-serving, everyone has done things that are viewed [and *will be* viewed] historically both as blunders and victories. Ever shall it be thus.

It is not a partisan issue, and the longer you play it as one the longer you are going to serve those who wish to see the nation fractured -- even as you convince youself that you are doing so only for "honest" and "pure" motives.

"losing wars had less to do with military might than it has to do with national ideals."

Hogwash. Winning and losing has bupkus to do with "ideals". It is not **entirely** dependent on military strength, no; it also has a great deal to do with a nation's willingness to use its military strength, and -- in nations/empires in decline -- to do their own defense in the first place.

"No one can take us on militarily, no one."

And yet ... they are. SOMEone is, at any rate. So who is that someone and wyizzat they're doing it, you think?

History is a lot more than names and places and dates, and filling in the blanks and correctly picking the multiple choices. It is pattern recognition, if it is to serve any purpose beyond flumoxing college freshmen and high schoolers. What is the pattern here? Hint: bupkus to do with US partisanship or "hawks" in the military doing their job.

"For those like yourself, who believe in little other than big sticks, you would do well to learn a bit more about the value of speaking softly."

Right. You know me so-o-o-o-o-o-o well.

I will agree with one of your presumptive assertions: the military is the quintessential example of an institution operating on the premise of "If the only tool you have is a hammer..." But since the job of the military is to be the national hammer for those times that we actually encounter nails, that's pretty much their job. Y'know?

But then, squire, you seem to be the equal and opposite hammer yourself, overly willing to see every vaguely contemporary use of the US military as "hawks" and "hardliners" espousing wars which "in our lifetimes" were not necessary... I don't know whether being the anti-hammer is your job, or whether you do it just for fun, but you're busy being that which you criticize.

I'd strongly suggest to you that you learn to differentiate between speaking softly and trotting around the world in a lavendar jumpsuit issuing group hugs.