Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Back in the Game......Check Out These #'s

Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit has this piece today:

WAR AND PEACE: Some interesting numbers:

While every lost serviceman and servicewoman is certainly tragic and should be mourned, the actual statistics tell quite a different tale from the MSM and Democratic doom-and-gloom outlook. Comparing the numbers of lost US military personnel to past years, and past presidential terms, may even be a shock to supporters of the war.
Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

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

Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)

In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones). The reason is that there are usually a fair number that die every year in training accidents, as well as a small number of illness and suicide. Yet the MSM would make you think that US soldiers are dying at a high number in these zones, and at a significantly higher number than in past years or under past presidents. This is all simply outright lies and distortion.

You'd think this would get more attention.

UPDATE: John Kluge emails:

The guy at red state gets it about half right on military deaths. He is absolutely right that soldiers die in accidents and of natural causes when they are in garrison. What he doesn’t take into account is that the military was much larger under Carter, Reagan and Bush I than it has been under Clinton or Bush II. Clinton and Bush II are really the only two comparable numbers. Looking at those numbers, it appears that the Iraq, Afghanistan wars have resulted in an increase of 885 dead over what could have been expected through normal garrison operations in Bush II’s first term. That is not too bad when you consider that Bush has liberated two countries and fought a prolonged insurgency in both and that America lost over 1,000 dead in taking Vichy French North Africa in 1942 (that was before we even so much as fired a shot at the Germans).

Good point.

4 Comments:

At 1:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So...big fucking deal! You people throw those numbers around like paper towels in a restroom. THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS! EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM! THEY DIED A HORRIBLE DEATH! THEY ARE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN!

You people will stop at nothing to try to justify Bush's rationale for having a war in Iraq. You think this son-of-a-bitch walks on water! First, he says they had weapons of mass destruction, then he says the world must be made safer from Saddam, then he says that Iraq is THE place to fight the war on terror. Yeah, I'm a liberal...I guess that makes me part of the minority (the 67% that is NOT supportive of Bush!).
---Shark

 
At 2:37 PM, Blogger Joe Gringo said...

Wow, just got bit by a shark.....but it didn't hurt. :-)

Not only did Bush say Saddam had WMD's so did every one of your liberal leaders, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and 1 or 2 other moonbats.

Iraq is being liberated, the war on terror is worldwide.

That 67% is from a poll that that asks a favorable opinion of Bush, not if you support him or not.

Read this http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4384_0_2_0_C/

and here http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html

Thank you for your post.

 
At 9:23 PM, Anonymous Cate said...

Mr. Shark,

So many Americans are concerned with the welfare of our troops today. Where were they ten years ago when benefits were decresed and pay raises were virtually non-existent? Where were they when our servicemembers were sent to fight a non-existent Kosovar genocide? How about a compromise: Everybody quit acting like you give a darn and anonymously poll the people in the all-volunteer military. Let them decide if it's a war worth fighting. After all, it's easy to be opinionated when you're observing the war on CNN. Let the people who do the work decide.

Just one Army wife's opinion.

 
At 9:24 PM, Anonymous Cate said...

Wow - I really should've spell checked. Sorry.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home