Limbaugh touted NY Sun columnist's misleading statistics on Iraq war deaths
In a February 20 column in The New York Sun headlined "Heroes and Cowards," Alicia Colon wrote that every American military death in Iraq -- she put the death toll at 3,133 -- "is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites," while those numbers are "never compared [to] the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996." Adding those four numbers up, Colon concluded: "That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?" Rush Limbaugh repeated Colon's claims on the February 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show. But in making her comparison, Colon ignored the deaths of American military personnel in situations other than hostile action (accident, illness, etc.) during the Bush years, even though non-hostile deaths accounted for nearly all the deaths she noted during the Clinton years.
In fact, military deaths have increased year-over-year since Bush first took office in 2001 -- both in raw terms and as a percentage of the total number serving -- and have increased dramatically since the beginning of the Iraq war.
As indicated by the table below, which was reconstructed from figures provided by the Department of Defense, the rate of U.S. military personnel lost per 100,000 serving rose significantly under Bush, from a low point of 50.0 in 2000, Clinton's last full year in office, to 110.2 during 2004. Additionally, the total number of deaths under Bush is not, as Colon's misleading comparison suggested, 3,133 versus 4,417 under Clinton's first term. The number 3,133 represents only deaths in Iraq since the start of the war and does not reflect total military fatalities. In fact, according to the Department of Defense, total military deaths during Bush's first term totaled 5,187, compared with 4,302 under Clinton's first term. The Iraq war began in March 2003.
Colon's numbers, calculated by the Washington Headquarters Services Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, are slightly but consistently higher than those used here, which were calculated by Defense Manpower Data Center's Statistical Information Analysis Division. The numbers provided by Colon are in a document (PDF) available at the Department of Defense military casualty information website. However, this document provides figures only through 1999. Other documents, available at the same DoD website, offer statistics through 2004, allowing a comparison with part of the Bush presidency. Those more comprehensive numbers were used for this table. The PDF reflecting deaths per 100,000 service members is here. Another providing the raw numbers is here.
|
Year |
Total serving |
Total deaths |
Total deaths/ 100K serving* |
Hostile deaths/ 100K serving |
|
1993 |
1,849,537 |
1,213 |
65.6 |
n/a |
|
1994 |
1,746,482 |
1,075 |
61.6 |
n/a |
|
1995 |
1,661,928 |
1,040 |
62.5 |
n/a |
|
1996 |
1,613,675 |
974 |
60.4 |
0.1 |
|
1997 |
1,578,382 |
817 |
51.8 |
n/a |
|
1998 |
1,538,570 |
827 |
53.8 |
n/a |
|
1999 |
1,525,942 |
796 |
52.2 |
n/a |
|
2000 |
1,530,430 |
758 |
50.0 |
n/a |
|
2001 |
1,552,096 |
891 |
57.4 |
0.2 |
|
2002 |
1,627,142 |
999 |
61.4 |
1.1 |
|
2003 |
1,732,632 |
1,410 |
81.4 |
19.9 |
|
2004 |
1,711,916 |
1,887 |
110.2 |
43.1 |
Non-hostile deaths can include those caused by accident, illness, homicide, suicide, terrorist attack, or other undetermined causes.
On the February 21 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh repeated Colon's claims, though incorrectly using the term "casualties" -- which, by military definition, covers all who are dead, wounded, or otherwise lost to the organization -- to refer only to the number killed: "The point here is -- is that we're fighting the Iraq war with lower casualties than casualties expected from training accidents during peacetime."
The Sun column was noted by Salon's War Room weblog as well as blogger Andrew Sullivan.
* The number of deaths/100,000 serving was calculated by multiplying the number of total casualties by 100,000 and dividing that figure by the total number serving in that year according to Defense Manpower Data Center numbers. Results were rounded to the closest one-tenth.
From the February 20 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: There's an interesting story today -- or column -- well, it's a story. It's in The New York Sun. It's by Alicia Colon, and it's entitled "Heroes and Cowards," but here's the interesting paragraph.
"The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration."
Would you like to hear the totals? In 1993 there were 1,245 military deaths. In 1994, 1,109 military deaths. In 1995, 1,055 military deaths. 1996, 1,008.
"That is 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?"
Now you might wonder, well, she doesn't cite the source of these figures. But we found them. There's a Department of Defense PDF file on death rates that you can download. I went to download it. I got it and then subsequent attempts after that, the site was either down or it was -- it was locked and loaded. The point here is, of course, these 4,417 deaths between 1993 and 1996 - those are deaths in peacetime. Those are, for the most part, accidental deaths.
More deaths -- and you've heard people say this. I just wanted to get this out there, and on the record. More deaths in four years of the Clinton administration due to military accidents than deaths in Iraq. And if you look at this PDF, you will find that in 1980, which was the last year of the Carter administration, there were more -- I mean, far more military deaths in 1980 than in any year of the Bush administration. The death rate was also higher, and you know, there was -- that's because of differences in the care given to training and standards and so forth.
The point here is -- is that we're fighting the Iraq war with lower casualties than casualties expected from training accidents during peacetime. And I mention this just to show you how out-of-proportion and agenda-oriented the death count in Iraq is. Now, we've mentioned this before as a matter of theory and prophecy. But here it is -- here it is documented. It's -- and these numbers are available to anybody. Any journalist could go to the Department of Defense site, and take a look, and find these numbers. There's no interest on the part of any journalist to do so. Because it would confound the agenda and the purpose of tallying up these deaths. Because these 3,133 deaths form the basis, do they not, of -- "We've got to get out of there! Why, this is out of control! Why, 3,133 battlefield -- whoa! This is horrible! We -- we support the troops! We've got to get them out of harm's way in a pointless, unjust war!" Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. When, in fact, this was is rather successful in terms of the number of deaths versus -- especially when you compare it to the number of troops who have been deployed.
For a guy who never served... got deferred for his cystic anus... he talks awfully tough.
I'd like to see the total deaths, injuries, and mental and physical anguish patients are directly attributed to each president. Then we can get a clear picture of how mentally unstable Bush is, and how much of a liar Limbaugh is.
I'm a little confused over how Bush's numbers can be so low when you consider Iraq + accidents etc., but I'm willing to bet that accidental deaths are somehow not counted in the table for BushCo. New Match, kinda like the way unemployment is being changed (if you have not found a job after x months, you are no longer counted.)
Limbaugh's being accurate here: "More deaths in four years of the Clinton administration due to military accidents than deaths in Iraq."
He's not saying more total deaths under Clinton than Bush.
I had no idea training deaths were so high. Now I'll know not to join the military even under a competent administration.
Unfortunately, the facts of the war being unjust, unnecessary, built on lies, and a total failure have nothing to do with the death count. "Some liberals" (there, now I don't have to back myself up) tout the death total disproportionately to what is really important.
This is just another story like the one they trotted out before where they were talking so high and mighty about how the murder rate in "insert any US city name here" was higher than the death rates in Iraq.
Give me a break. So during peacetime, more or less, during the Clinton years, Limbaugh is making a leading assertion here that there were more deaths during Clinton than Bush. Period. What a load of crap! He's saying that going to fight in Iraq, getting shot at everyday, you're LESS LIKELY to get killed than in peacetime training? What the hell kind of crack is this guy smoking these days anyway? Hey Rush, if it's so safe over there, why don't you take a trip over there, stroll outside of the Green Zone alone, and see how long you last you bloated SOB.
Yeah, I don't like Rush much.
Limbaugh constructs one sentence of truth amidst a mountain of lies. Not nuances, but outright lies. What needs to be compared is apples to apples, and oranges to oranges. What Limbaugh has done is lead the viewer (and most likely even the small percentage of intelligent viewers) into believing the following:
Liar, liar, medicine cabinet on fire.
It's PigBoy's favorite technique...lie without technically lying. You know that his intent is to mislead here. He's playing on his Troglodyte Sychophant audience's belief that Clinton "destroyed the military" during his term...and voila! Here's more proof! Clinton was getting people killed all over the world at an even greater pace than the Iraq war. And he wasn't even fighting a War on Turr! Holy Crap! Of course, the whole premise is bogus, as is most of Rush's bullsh*t. He may be technically "accurate" but he's still lying.
"Any journalist could go to the Department of Defense site, and take a look, and find these numbers" and yet he did'nt. Thus proving once again, niether he nor anyone on his staff are close to being journalists.
Accuracy of statistics aside, there should be justifiable jubilance over these numbers. WOW! 3,133 deaths! That's GREAT!!!!
I wonder...if given the opportunity to give up a single life, his own life, to save a couple thousand and make Bush and his war look even better by comparison, would he?
"WOW! 3,133 deaths! That's GREAT!!!!"
Not to mention the tens of thousands wounded, maimed, and psychologically scared coming back home and being treated in rat infested hospitals.
Fantastic!
"psychologically scarred"
It's sick and it's low and it's insulting for these slimeballs to "spin" the casualty figures of our Sons and Daughters and Brothers and Sisters in Iraq...
...and carefully dance around the word HOSTILITIES.
It's sick that these slimeballs avoid the single concept that makes the invasion and occupation of Iraq so overwhelmingly unpopular with the American People... the concept of HOSTILITIES.
As in the lies the Bush administration told the American People and their Congress about Iraq, so as to make Iraq out as an imminent HOSTILE threat to U.S. National Security....
And the number of deaths so far, both U.S. and Iraqi, due to the HOSTILITIES the Bush administration has caused by way of their lies.
These are not even simply deaths we're talking about here, they are deaths due to HOSTILITIES.
All of what results from these HOSTILITIES is malicious and intentional and driven by greed (for the hundreds of billions of dollars drawn from the U.S. Treasury in the name of these HOSTILITIES)...
And worked by lies...
The Bush administration's greed and lies make the deaths of our Sons and Daughters and Brothers and Sisters more than simply deaths...
...more than simply deaths due to HOSTILITIES...
It makes them murders.
And it makes those who act as defenders of the Bush administration's lies and greed, it makes them defenders of murder.
Defenders of murder who carefully dance around the word HOSTILITIES, in their defense of those who lie and murder for the greed of hundreds of billions of dollars.
I've heard Limbaugh on this same topic lately and basically what he's arguing is that the number of American casualties in Iraq isn't so bad... it's a tolerable level. I wonder how the families of servicemen who've lost loved ones feel about how their loved ones' deaths are coldly reduced to being within an acceptable statistical model.
Reminds me in a way of the famous McDonald's hot coffee case. The old woman who sued sustained (as I recall) serious third degree burns to her vagina and had really suffered terribly. The jury awarded her a large sum that was later reduced on appeal. But what you may not have read about the case is this... there had been about 80 or 100 other instances in which McDonald's customers had been similarly burned by the way too hot coffee McDonald's served. During closing arguments, McDonald's lawyer told the jury that considering that "only" 80 or 100 other people had been similarly burned, which was actually a very, very small percentage of the numbers of cups of coffee McDonald's served each day, that the plaintiff's incident was "STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT". That insensitive statement p8ssed off the jury so bad that they popped McDonald's with the huge verdict. (Again, though... the award was greatly reduced on appeal.) But the moral of the story, that perhaps would be beyond Limbaugh's comprehension is never reduce another person's suffering to a statistical level. It sounds kinda cold to do that...
What really floors me is that PigBoy actually has a pretty strong following among the military...and he constantly belittles their casualty rate with nonsense like this.
I just don't get it. How do they not see him for the lying slimebucket that he is?
Rush Limbaugh: high priest of the far-right, Mars-worshipping death cult.
Just a slight correction Rusty.
Usually it's referred to as M&M Mars. Since we're talking about Rush, I'm assuming you meant he worships the candy bars not the god of war.
At least from the pictures of him, he looks like one of their biggest customers.
Rush worships the unHoly Trinity of M&M/Mars, Purdue Pharma, and Pfizer.
I was going to say that he worshiped his own reflection most of all, but I've heard that he doesn't cast one.
No, you're thinking of Robert Novak.
Billy Kristol too.
How about Richard Perle?
I guess it is really true: Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot.
The fact that someone would check these numbers just didn't occur to him or his doltish listeners.
He wasn't relying on nobody checking his numbers. He just knows that his "doltish" listeners will never check them, nor will they hear from anyone else who does. And even if they happen to find out that something he said isn't true, it won't matter to them, as long as he keeps attacking "liberals" (on what they perceive is their behalf).
Rush knows that he lives in an insulated world - just him and his listeners. Reality is like clay, to be molded into the shape they prefer.
"The fact that someone would check these numbers just didn't occur to him or his doltish listeners."
I don't think he or his listeners care. He has put the numbers out there. His audience of lemmings have the info they want to hear. They will continue to listen and spread the gospel according to Lush, and he can write off any criticism as partisan wailings of the 'drive by media'. Opinion trumps facts in their world.
The Gulf War and the Clinton Numbers
How many of these deaths, especially in the early years, are attributable to military personnel getting sick and dying from exposure to DU in the 1991 Gulf War? So-called "Gulf War Syndrome" may have been discredited, but the affects of exposure to atomized DU particles have not.
Limbaugh: "And if you look at this PDF, you will find that in 1980, which was the last year of the Carter administration, there were more -- I mean, far more military deaths in 1980 than in any year of the Bush administration."
Oh this is clever. Actually, if you look at the numbers, the U.S. president in power during the year with the greatest number of active duty military deaths since 1980 is Reagan in 1983. This is unsurprising, given that the total number serving as active duty military were so high during the Reagan administration.
The fascinating thing to me about these statistics is how they illustrate that the Bush administration has undertaken an unprecedented and unlimited kind of war: they, curiously, record no military deaths from terrorist attacks since 2002, since terrorist attacks are no longer be differentiated from deaths by any other hostile opponent. This represents the realization of terrorism's highest aspirations: to be given the same status as a state military force.
Well, really, what's so hostile about a terrorist attack? I mean, they blow up people in only the most benevolent way...
Um.... maybe I didn't make my point clearly? Sorry -- my sarcasm detector needs new batteries today, so I'm not sure if you're just making a joke or disagreeing with the substance of my comments.
I just found it fascinating that after declaring war on terror, suddenly the military deaths from terrorist attacks are statistically documented as zero.
What I was trying to point out was that there was once a reason to distinguish between military deaths by terrorist attacks and military deaths by attacks from military forces of other states. In the case of wars between states, there was always a conceivable endpoint: there was a political body that could surrender, be conquered, or sign a treaty. The logic of terrorism is that there can never by a treaty, since there is no one with politically legitimacy who could sign that treaty. The moment a state formally declares war on terrorists, terrorists must be granted political legitimacy; otherwise, the war is endless, since terrorists qua terrorists are bound by no political agreement, and there is no terrorist (qua terrorist) who can legitimately end a war.
Excellent analysis, Vy. Your posts are always substantial and worth the effort to read.
Right back atcha, Rusty.
Your last point is an interesting one.
Even if a state does grant legitimacy to terrorists, how does that state legitimately end the war? If there is no one particular leader who surrenders or is defeated, then even granting that legtimacy does not end the war against the terrorists.
It is folly to think that there can be a cessation of hostilities while the terrorists are being supplied and manned by forces outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is amazing to me why the anti-war crowd thinks the war will be over if we cut and run. It looks painfully obvious that the Iraqis will suffer much more as higher levels of chaos ensues after we withdraw.
We are in a war, no doubt about it. It was not the same war we started, (that being the overthrow of Saddam and the Baathists) but it is, in my opinion, one we must stay in till the Iraqis can defend themselves. How long will that be? I don't know. However we won't be ending the war if we leave prematurely, Leaving now, as the Democrats in Congress want to do will only allow the defeat of the democratically elected Iraqi government, reduce our influence for further democritization in the region, embolden our enemies, and allow the mad ayatollahs from Iran to further their misguided jihad against the West and embolden them to develop nuclear weapons to use against the West and Israel.
It is my opinion that we must stay and continue fighting these murderous terrorists who follow no rules. It is a battle of civilization against barbarism. Yes, it is tough. And yes there are deaths, but the level of American deaths, (not to make light of any of them,) is much, much less than any of the major wars we've faced. if our country doesn't stand up to these fascists and murderers, who will?
Reasonably well-written post, but all of it sheer speculation mixed with Republican buzzwords ("cut and run"). As such, no better or worse than anyone else's speculation.
I'll admit it is my speculation. What is yours?
If we stay, we remain stuck in an unwinnable situation that continues to drain American lives and money.
If we leave, it gets worse for a while, then stabilizes.
And, no one "thinks the war will be over if we cut and run." We all know that we have to fix iraq as best as we can since ole' george "ricky retardo" bush barged in there and broke it. We're just ready for some folks who have a better understanding of the world to handle it, and in a more intelligent way.
AA, what is amazing to me is "why" the pro-war crowd thinks that this is a war that can be won by the US military. If you're paying any attention at all, you know that it's a multi-partite civil conflict that has spun far beyond something that a "clear, hold, and build" strategy can resolve. The nominal "Iraqi government" is just one of the players in the conflict, and not even one of the more powerful players. It can't control its own military and police forces, which are significantly infiltrated - if not outright controlled - by Shia militias.
The present policy is to try and take control Baghdad and al-Anbar, and hand them over the Iraqi "government" control to stabilise. Since that basically means giving control of these areas to the Shia militias, it is hard for me to see how this is any better than just pulling out and letting the militias take control on their own.
I have seen little evidence that the US is preventing any of the sectarian Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, and plentry of evidence that our continued presence there is an exacerbating factor, not a calming one.
The toll on our soldiers is great, and growing, and we have no plan in place to deal with upwards of a million vets trying to reintegrate into our society after multiple tours in the Hellmouth. And we are spending billions upon billions of tax dollars we can't afford to further disfigure some of our best and brightest, and kill untold Iraqis as we do so.
We need to cut and run, if that's what you want to call it. Hell yeah. Yesterday. I don't give a damn if this is OT or not. We need to leave.
Valen,
I do pay attention and realize that multiple complexities of the conflict and the politics.
You may be right that at present the elected government can't control (some) of it's own military and police. However I do not see that as inveitable and never changing. If I did, I might come to the same conclusion as you.
I for one do not see that the continued military presence adds to or exacerbates the conflict. The conflict is there already. Most of the killing is against Iraqi's. That won't end if we leave. I think the military will eventually wear down the terrorists. It seems to me that every bomb works against their poplular support. Right now the Iraqi's in Baghdad are in the grips of the terrorist. Their only hope is for the U.S. to stay.
Unfortunately for us, the only way most Americans interpret the war is through the death and daily casualty count . It seems endless, but the reality is that it isn't.
The military and the Iraqi government have to root out the terrorists and disarm the militias for this to work. Allowing the Al Sater's fleeing to Iran and the defeat of the militia at Fallujah show we are winning the battles both politically and militarily . The use of bombs is a failing strategy only if we do not cave in.
Yes, the coure is rough. But we must not fail after all the effort and sacrifice we've put into this. And the only way we can fail is if we bring the soldiers home prematurely.
gotta run. I look forward to reading your thoughtful replies tomorrow.
I also dont believe we will EVER wear them down nor will the militias support dwindle as long as we are there our military presence being a continuing irritant and provocation to the Iraqi people. How long would it take YOU to get warn down if Chinese soldiers were at your 7-11 with AK 47's?
Terrorism is a political struggle and ended by political means. The French tried the military solution in Algeria and lost after a lot of needless death and misery. The British tried the political solution in Northern Ireland after the military solution proved unworkable and peace broke out. It proves that political solutions solve terrorism, not more warfare.
For the US to solve this present situation, we must examine the root causes, which are our slavish alliance with Israel and supporting it with free guns and money to be racist jerks; and the fact the US has been packing half it's military into the Persian Gulf since the 1980s. The Fifth Fleet has been headquartered in Bahrain for almost three decades now and we have bases in every state on the Arabian Peninsula.
So these are the causes, US imperialism and a massive millitary presence in the region, and support of Israeli war crimes against moslems. The solution? Simple. Take all our forces from the region and start telling Israel where to get off. There would no longer be terrorism against the US, they would feel no NEED to attack us. We use a political solution and the problem is solved.
But we're trying to use the Israeli approach to terrorism....to terrorize any potential terrorist into committing terrorism so we can justify terrorizing the next potential terrorist into submission...eventually. The military solution that doesn't work, that has never worked, that never will work. This is why Israel has terrorism. They don't want a political solution. They just want to terrorize the terrorists, a never ending cycle of violence, with both sides committing acts of terror.
Terrorism can only be solved politically, by addressing the root political causes of it. Throwing bombs at it only creates bombs being thrown back.
RK, I essentially agree with you. I am "allergic" to hearing that anything as complex as the Middle East nightmare we are in the middle of has a "simple solution..." however I think taking the actions you say would go a long way towards healing our relations with that part of the world.
But they won't do it. AIPAC spends far too much in bribe money to our politicians for them to ever turn on Israel and demand that they leave the occupied territories and allow peace to have a chance. That same AIPAC is paying them to put our troops in Iraq and to threaten Israel with bombs.
And when any politician stands against AIPAC, it's considered political suicide. When Cynthia McKinney spoke out against Israel, it was the Democrats themselves who tried to gerrymander her district out from under her. DC is "Israeli-occupied" territory and until we Americans rise against our so-called masters and vote for a third party who rejects Israeli domination of our middle eastern policy, this country has no future other than war, bigotry, and death. It's up to us, the voters, to take control back from Israel, from AIPAC. We cannot expect the Dems or Repubs to save us, they work for AIPAC. They work against us. We must revolt against them at the ballot box.
I'd add that AIPAC's policy is hardly pro-Israel... it's a Likudnik, rejectionist, hard-line policy that is probably as dangerous to Israeli interests as it is to US interests. It seems to be driven more by sabra macho than a rational analysis of Israel's safety.
I agree, the road to Greater Israel is destroying any claims of morality on the part of Israel and those who rule it. What we as Americans must do is remove those far-right racist reactionaries from any influence over our country by removing those who obey them, aka the Dems and Repubs.
With real liberals in office, who understand the essential immorality of supporting zionism and the Israeli government and the occupation of Palestine, AIPAC would be labeled as an agent of a foreign govt (as it should be) and be barred from giving money in political campaigns.
Red, you make very thought-provoking points.
When did Americans get sold the idea that complex problems have simple answers. If they were simple they would have been solved long ago.
Your position seems sincere to me, and I certainly don't claim a better military understanding of the situation than you have. I just try and read what is written by the people who seem to know the most and have the least vested interest in a given outcome.
The impression I am left with is that the government is not likely to try and fight the militias, because to do so would bring the government down. I see sectarian violence increasing, not decreasing, and I can't see a military solution being imposed by an outside party as having any chance of success.
For what it is worth, my own position is not a mere "cut and run," but a timely withdrawal followed by massive reparations and Herculean efforts toward regional peace negotiations - negotiations I am not at all sure will be successful.
Thank you for your willingness to engage this dialogue with such courtesy and respect. I will try to respond in kind.
No we wont be ending the war. What we CAN do is begin fighting it effectively. We can target the actual terrorists instead of fighting a profit friendly, oil induced war, that we had no justification for starting in the first place. How ridiculous is it that Iraq was NOT a terrorist threat BEFORE the invasion as testified to by the head of the CIA and NOW, when all the stated purposes for invading have been shown to be phantoms, unreal, lies and distortions actually, that NOW we are using terrorism as an EXCUSE because they followed us into Iraq?
It was ill concieved and we need to leave. We can do no good there and it is harming us in many ways including hindering our ability to REALLY fight terrorism. A fight for which we need actual international support and cooperation, one that will be much enhanced when we get the reasonable and moderate Muslims to help which will NOT happen while we continue this imperialist boondoggle in Iraq
Also when will it be over if we continue the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy YOU prefer?
Thanks for such a thoughtful response. I think we agree on much, here. The one point where I think we can have a productive disagreement may be on this question of whether or not we are indeed "in a war" -- by which I mean an armed conflict between state-authorized combatants.
Declaring war against the Iraqi state under Hussein was, to my mind, a real war, in the sense that it involved two states. Declaring war against the government of Afghanistan, too, was a conflict between states. But the Bush administration continues to argue that these two wars are, in fact, one war -- a war on terrorism. And as the statistics on military deaths indicate, there's an inherent contradiction in such a "war": if you declare war against terrorists, suddenly all previous distinctions between terrorist attacks and non-civilian attacks are erased, and the two are given equal status. We now face a war on terrorists, in which no deaths from terrorist attacks are documented.
You suggest that the "anti-war crowd" have no plan for victory. But as you and I seem to agree, the Bush administration's declaration of war against a nebulous, non-politically-sovereign enemy guaranteed that there would be no victory. How could there be? There is, as we agree, no legitimate representative of that enemy who could ever concede defeat, by definition. You identify the problem yourself: in Iraq, we went to war against a state, and now find ourselves fighting a non-state. This will continue to happen as long as we continue to pursue a "War on Terror." How could it not? If our next enemy turns out to be Iran or Syria or North Korea, we should expect the exact same thing to happen: we will attack states in the name of attacking terrorists, and end up destroying the distinction between both.
I'm not suggesting that the solution is to "cut and run" by any means. I'm actually of the opinion that we need to take full responsibility for the situation in Iraq. But the first step is to stop accusing each other of "wanting defeat" or not having a plan for "victory". I would beg to differ with you when you say that we are in a war in Iraq right now: we are in an armed conflict with a stateless enemy. And that's no less serious, but it requires totally different tactics. This isn't about victory or defeat, because this isn't a war in any kind of traditional sense.
We can talk about how best to deal with this situation if you want, but it seems to me that the most important thing to do is to recognize that America, in undertaking a War on Terror, made the mistake of treating terrorists as if they were state armies. Until we distinguish the two, we're setting ourselves up for the same mistakes again and again.
How long?
Are the Israelis and Palestinians still fighting?
That's how long we will be there (until the end of time)
I don't want to lose another American life for a mistake. You can argue all day long about how we are there so let's just stay and fight it out but the way I see it we should have never been there in the first place!
We could not broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine and one would have to have a really really small brain to believe that we could remove Saddam, create a democratic government and leave in under 20 years. Now my math says that 20 years at a minimum 50 deaths a month equals 12,000.
Do you think we would be in this war if the true facts had been presented?
WOULD THAT BE ENOUGH?
Sorry to be ambiguous about that. I was making a joke about the mere usage of the term "hostile". To discriminate between a murder and a military death by usage of the terms "hostile" and "murder" is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that a murderer doesn't harbor some hostilities toward his victim. So the use of what I consider to be an inappropriate term signals to me that the subject hasn't really been given sufficient thought.
That's in regard to those who defined the categories, not to you. Your position regarding the legitimizing of terrorists groups in relation to political bodies was well stated, and I have no disagreement with it.
No offense taken -- and thanks for clarifying the joke. No, I very much agree with you. "Hostility" clearly isn't a very good category for discerning between deaths by terrorist attacks, enemy soldiers, and homicides, as is implied by these statistics.
Just like "friendly fire", Neon.
I'm amazed as well at Rush's fans iin the military.He, along with much of the righty media, get away with defending Bush by smirking at the "insignificant" death toll of the WOT as compared to real wars.
Leaving now, as the Democrats in Congress want to do will only allow the defeat of the democratically elected Iraqi government, reduce our influence for further democritization in the region, embolden our enemies,<snip>
So, after almost 4 years that's where we stand? We withdraw and all hell breaks loose. Pathetic.
I haven't heard many Demos in Congress advocating a complete withdrawal.
I'm for withdrawing from Baghdad to protect borders, pipelines and utilize spec op folks to deal with actual terrorist cells within Iraq (Repubs can't seem to distinguish - or choose not to - betwix insurgents/militias vs. terrorists). The real battle has always been, and will continue to be, in Aftghanistan.
<snip> and allow the mad ayatollahs from Iran to further their misguided jihad against the West and embolden them to develop nuclear weapons to use against the West and Israel.
Huh? What do you think they have been doing at full speed since Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech?
When are people who don't understand the most basic principles of statistics going to stop using statistics to make their argument?
When there are enough people who do understand the most basic principles of statistics to call them on it.
The mean amount of troops was $1.7M in the armed services thru 1993 and 1996 with 4K deaths. The war in Iraq has had a average troop strength of 130K(in country) with 3 thousand deaths(not including wounded). So 13 times the amount of troops with roughly the same amount of deaths. This is what you call fuzzy math.
Rush constantly tries to compare deaths one on one without regarding the pool of possible American casualties. Some right-winger on Netscape posted a thread to an article about murders committed by illegal aliens in 2006, 2,150 according to the rightwing think tank that provided the data. I couldn't believe how many people just fell for this crap. I ran the numbers and it goes like this:
In 2006, murders per by illegal aliens in the United States were 0.7 per 100K (assuming a population of 300 million)
In 2006, US troop fatalities in Iraq were 533 per 100K (approx. 800 deaths and assuming an average of 150K troops).
In spite of this, people kept hopping aboard the illegal alien fear train.
"So many rubes, so little time," says the Republican Party.