Raving Conservative


Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Iraq Casualty Count and the Anti-War Libs

With 2000 US soldiers now dead and 15,220 wounded the anti-war libs have been stepping up their empty rhetoric comparing Iraq to Vietnam. They are ranting on about “too much blood” and demanding our immediate withdrawal, and therefore our immediate defeat, in the Middle East. These people seriously don’t know their history, so it’s time form me to inform the world and put some perspective on this thing.

The following is a listing of US Casualties in every war in US history:

The Revolutionary War, 1775-1783: 217,000 servicemen. 4,435 killed, 6,188 wounded. That’s 2% killed, 3% wounded. 554 dead in an average year and 774 wounded per year.

The War of 1812, 1812-1815: 286,730 servicemen. 2,260 killed, 4,505 wounded. That’s 0.8% killed and 1.6% wounded. 753 dead per year and 1,502 wounded per year.

The Mexican War, 1846-1848: 78,718 servicemen. 13,283 killed, 4,152 wounded. That’s 17% killed and 5% wounded. 6,642 dead per year and 2,076 wounded per year.

The Civil War, 1861-1865: 3,263,363 servicemen (Union and Confederate). 498,332 killed, 281,881 Union wounded, unknown Confederate wounded. That’s 15% killed and at least 9% wounded. 124,583 dead per year and at least 70,470 wounded per year.

The Spanish American War, 1898-1902: 306,760 servicemen. 2,446 killed, 1,662 wounded. That’s 0.8% killed and 0.6% wounded. 612 killed per year and 416 wounded per year.

World War One, 1917-1918: 4,734,991 servicemen. 106,516 killed, 204,002 wounded. That’s 2% killed and 4% wounded. 53,258 killed per year and 102,001 wounded per year.

World War Two, 1942-1945: 16,112,566 servicemen and women. 404,399 killed, 671,846 wounded. That’s 2.5% killed and 4% wounded. 134,800 killed per year and 223,949 wounded per year.

The Korean War, 1950-1953: 5,720,000servicemembers. 36,568 killed and 103,284 wounded. That’s 0.6% killed and 1.8% wounded. 12,189 killed per year and 34,428 wounded per year.

Vietnam, 1964-1975: 8,744,000 servicemembers. 90,199 total killed, 58,119 in theater and 153,303 wounded. That’s 1% or 0.7% killed and 1.8% wounded. 8,200 or 5,284 killed per year and 13,937 wounded per year.

The Gulf War, 1990-1991 (3 days of ground combat): 2,225,000 servicemembers. 1,994 total killed, 429 killed in theater and 467 wounded. That’s 0.008% or 0.002% killed and 0.002% wounded. 997 or 215 killed per year and 234 wounded per year, or all in 3 days of ground combat.

Iraq, March 2003-Current (October 2005): 1,218,302 servicemembers. 2000 total killed and rising. 15,220 total wounded and rising. That’s 0.016% killed and 1.3% wounded. 727 killed per year and 5,535 wounded per year.

Now I’m no expert on statistics, but the percentages of wounded and dead in the Iraq war are pretty low compared to most of our wars. The number dead per year haven’t been this low since 1812 when the military was ¼ as big and the national population was over 250,000,000 people smaller (Gulf War excluded). The number wounded per year hasn’t been this low since the Spanish American War. All the stats are far below what happened in Vietnam.

Iraq is no Vietnam. Our casualties are lower by number and by percentage. Iraq is still whole, and the people are all beginning to participate in the new democracy. There is no internal split of ideology keeping the fighting going; it is only the hatred some few Iraqis and a good dose of foreign fighters have for America that keeps the violence going. We have this war thoroughly won. At this time we are more of a police force in Iraq than an Army. Fighting against guerillas and terrorists who, given the chance will split and conquer the nation. We are not giving them that chance. Victory is ours.


  • As usual, you are exactly correct. Thanks for the stats.

    In April, l969, during the spring offensive, we lost in one month 1,000 KIA.

    God bless America.

    Proud father of an American Soldier

    By Blogger meesterjoneser, at 7:21 AM  

  • daniel, this is exactly what i was thinking yesterday! everybody's screaming about '2,000', but they're not looking at the big picture...how many lives were SAVED by our military going there??

    By Blogger Libby, at 7:59 AM  

  • I don't think the comparisons to Vietnam have any relevancy where casualty counts are concerned for several reasons.
    First, the Viet Cong had several large state sponsors supplying them with modern weaponry. The Viet Cong numbered in the millions, as opposed to a relatively small insurgency in Iraq.
    Also, medical technology has made huge leaps since the Vietnam war. It's a credit to our medical technology that many more of our troops have survived what would have been fatally wounded in wars past.

    The comparisons to Vietnam have more to do with the politics of the war than the violence itself. In both cases, we're fighting a guerilla war against an enemy that can hide in the population. Both wars were justified with false intelligence (Gulf of Tonkin incident vs. Bush/Powell WMD fabrications). Both were wars of choice that the United States did not need to fight, but were pushed for political reasons.

    Daniel, the things you say about the situation in Iraq are almost identical to what pro-war hawks were saying about Vietnam while it was going on. However you feel about the mission and "victory", American men and women are still dying there on a fairly regular basis. Who cares if it's less than in other wars? They're still dead and they didn't have to be.

    As the proud brother of an American Soldier, I can guarantee you that if my brother falls in Iraq, I won't give a damn that more Americans died in previous wars.

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 9:46 AM  

  • Wow, that last post was full of typos! But you get the idea.

    In April, l969, during the spring offensive, we lost in one month 1,000 KIA.

    God bless America.

    Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God. - Matthew 9:8.

    But I guess what Christ says doesn't matter, since it's not about gays or Creation, right?

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 9:52 AM  

  • Sam,
    What you said about the politics involved in Vietnam as compared to Iraq does have validity. I understand your position regarding your brother all too clearly. As a soldier in the Army myself I am fully aware that every American life lost is a trgedy, with real people suffering from the loss. However, this is a war, and like other wars we will suffer losses.

    Unlike Vietnam every person fighting this war volunteered to join the military. There are no reluctant draftees. We believe in what we are doing for America and for the Iraqi people. Also, if I recall correctly it was liberal Democrats who got us into Vietnam in the first place, not Conservative Republicans.

    As far as your Bible quote goes, I believe this war will ultimately bring much greater peace to an already violent region of the world. Any Christian will tell you that war is not only repugnant, but is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary for the protection of ourselves and others. We pray daily for an end to the violence in Iraq and the safe return of our brave soldiers. Hopefully the evil men engaging in terrorism will either leave the country or get wiped out very soon.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:17 AM  

  • Not "any Christian," brother Daniel.

    SOME Christians, maybe. Maybe a majority of church goers, but not just "any Christian."

    And Libby said:
    "how many lives were SAVED by our military going there??"

    Well, that's hard to say, isn't it? There have been between 30,000 and somewhere over 100,000 Iraqis killed since we began the war, a good majority of those "collateral" - innocent bystanders.

    And Saddam killed how many? The Guardian suggests "The killing of tens of thousands of people over the past 30 years." Another website (globalsecurity.org?) says, "Saddam’s brutal regime executed 300,000 or more people over 20 years."

    Let's assume 300,000. Will the war be a just one as long as we end up killing fewer than Saddam did? At what point will it cease to be just, according to anyone here? Or will it always be just as long as it's the US prosecuting the invasion?

    Blessed are the peacemakers, indeed.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:26 AM  

  • Daniel - excellent numbers and post. The cost of freedom is never cheap when threatened. If left unattended, it's not just the people in Iraq that would still be getting killed. If this would have been taken care of when Clinton fired a couple of cruises into Afghanistan, it probably wouldn't have went this far. The attitude, however, is that it's over there, so it doesn't affect us, which has been proven to be wrong. It's to bad some people are still in denial and refuse to crawl out of their holes. So continue to complain, and hide, while brave men and women fight, and in some cases, sacrifice their lives, to make sure you maintain that right.

    By Blogger ABFreedom, at 2:21 PM  

  • 60,000 deaths in the US every year from influenza!

    And that's for regular old fashioned flu, not the "Asian" "Hong Kong" "Swine" epidemics.

    Seems if the libs cared about humanity, they'd be out there giving flu shots. Instead they have to try and "support" the troops by sliming them.

    A pox on them all, especially the Posers who claim to do so in Christ's name (you know who they are).

    By Blogger meesterjoneser, at 2:30 PM  

  • Facsinating stats on the flu deaths there Phantom. It brings to mind that lawyers with greedy clients forced all but one American flu vaccine manufacturer to shut down, and therefore created the annual flu vaccine shortage we deal with every year. I don't remember any liberal politicians supporting the lawsuit and tort reform bills that passed congress recently in an attempt to stop problems like this one from happening in the future.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 2:43 PM  

  • dan t.
    count up how many innocent Americans were killed in the 9/11 attacks that were also 'collateral damage', too, and I believe that's the whole reason we're there...and don't say there were no terrorists or wmd there before us, cuz that is SO totally wrong!
    sorry, daniel, didn't mean to hijack your blog!
    BoUnCeS!! LibbY!

    By Blogger Libby, at 3:41 PM  

  • No need for any apologies here. I enjoy debate and encourage evryone to join in.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:52 PM  

  • Sorry, I stole your post verbatim for my blog, www.angrywhitey.com

    I'm sure you don't mind, as I linked back to you, but I thought you'd like to know regardless

    By Blogger Loud, White, & Angry, at 3:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares