What’s Wrong With This Picture?
From today’s First Read:
The United States involvement in Iraq is one day into the fourth year – on track to match the duration of U.S. involvement in World War II and the length of the American Civil War.
Anyone see a problem with that?
My own answer below the fold…
The problem with that statement is that it compares apples to oranges – yes, our involvement in major combat operations during World War II lasted about 4 years – then there was the allied occupation of Japan that lasted until 1951 (not to mention the allied occupation of Berlin, lasting until 1949 – and we won’t even get into the fact that the Vietnam War was really a consequence of French colonialism that frayed during the WWII years). That’s a decade of involvement, not four years.
Similarly, the Civil War was fought from 1861-1865, but Reconstruction did not end until 1877; that’s 16 years, if you’re keeping score at home…
If you really compared apples to apples, you’d say the Iraq War was one of the most quickly decided in history, but the postwar occupation has proven to be longer and harder than expected (with the acknowledgement that civil war is a possibility – though even that would not take away the decisiveness of the major combat phase), but still not long by historical standards…
First Read makes a fair statement if you equate “U. S. involvement” with “active warfare with American casualties.”
While the period of American involvement in Western Europe included the occupation and the Marshall Plan, the hostilities ceased at armistice, unlike Iraq, there were negligible casualties afterwards.
I might have expected you to disagree…
Do you also consider the
19671973 Yom Kippur War still ongoing? After all, Israel is still taking casualties in the West Bank and Gaza…Speaking of casualties, we had 37 U.S. fatalities from February 16th – March 15th – about 1 a day, with a force of 130,000. Though a tragedy for the families of those 37, that’s pretty negligible, in any military sense…
…and we might as well put our “involvement” in Vietnam in the proper context as well, given the arbitrary parameters outlined in the article. Let’s see, we put military advisors in the field around ’54, so that would put the conflict at around, say…19 years?
Even if you take out that development from the timeline, you still have active US combat forces in the field from ’65 to ’73. Another fatuous argument from someone who knows next to nothing about historical context and accurate reporting.
1) I do consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be ongoing, as both sides continue to take casualties (although of course they are civilian as well as military casualties). The proof is not only in the intermittent but continuing violence – it is also seen in the fact that if Israel were to lay down its arms today, it would be vanquished by its enemies tomorrow.
2) Military fatalities since the surrender of the Iraqi army has averaged ~ 65 per month – of course the casualty number is much higher – I don’t think this rate is negligible. My guess is that it exceeds the casualty rates for all other military conflicts since VietNam, possibly excepting the first Gulf War.
3) The VietNamese conflict did last longer than Iraq has lasted thus far, but the comparison was with the civil war and World War II. But what’s the point: that the VietNam quagmire is not as long as the Iraqi quagmire (yet)?
Comrades,
And as long as we are making fruit salad, we might as well do some casualty comparisons.
2300 dead in Iraq in 3 years. 5000+ dead on June 6th, 1944 at Normandy.
2300 dead in Iraq in 3 years. 50,000+ dead in Vietnam in 10 years.
2300 dead in Iraq in 3 years. 20,000+ dead & wounded at Antietam, 1862
2300 dead in Iraq in 3 years. 54,000 dead & wounded at Gettysburg, 1863
2300 dead in Iraq in 3 years. 80,000 casualties, USAAC 1942-45, Europe
2300 dead in Iraq in 3 years. 35,000 casualties, Revwar, 1776-1783
What the MSM can’t seem to fathom, as well, is that the number of dead and injured would continue at around 3 per day, dead, if we were in peacetime. Just get a hold of a copy of Navy Times and check out the Sea Service Obituaries sometime. Guys get killed all the time. My wing suffered 3 aircraft and over 30 aircrew lost in just an 18 month period and that was also in peacetime ops. It’s a dangerous job, made even moreso when folks shoot back.
The point is this: Never before has this nation conducted such extensive military operations at so little a cost in human terms. Nevrr before has so much been accomplished by so few with such minimal losses. That’s not to belittle the casualties, not by a damned sight. I’ve lost friends. I’ve seen death and maiming up close, both military and civilian. Whay amazes me is how small our casualty returns are, and how great the victory we have accomplished. It is staggering.
If we were to judge past administrations by the standards the moonbats abd dead tree journalists use, then FDR would have been dragged out and shot after the fall of the philipines, and we would have surrendered to Japan after the Battle of the Coral Sea.
Respects,
Gwedd
There are lots of responses to this post:
1) If the military had the medical technology in previous wars that it currently has, the death toll would have been much lower. Because soldiers in Iraq can get whisked off the field and flown to Germany, the mortality rates are lower but casualty rates are higher than in previous conflicts (such as the civil war, where if you were shot on the battlefield you were likely to die on the battlefield). Hence in the Iraqi war, you have a much higher proportion of wounded to dead among the casualties.
2) There were plenty of good reasons to have fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II. There are no good reasons to be fighting in Iraq (or, to be more precise, no reasons which justify the American or Iraqi casualties).
3) There are currently roughly 135,000 American troops in Iraq. This is a mortality rate of roughly six dad soldiers of every thousand per year of combat. I have a hard time believing that the mortality rate of servicemen in non-combat operations is anywhere close to this rate.
4) “Never before has so much been accomplished by so few with such minimal losses.” First, this ignores the losses of Iraqi civilians, with a death toll ranging from Bush’s 30,000 to the estimates of over 100,000 in the current edition of Foreign Affairs. Secondly, exactly what has been accomplished? In addition to the dead and wounded, we have borrowed untold billions of dollars to finance the war, we have squandered any claim we have to the moral high ground, we have created a new place for terrorists to regroup and train, we have vastly strengthened Iran’s hand, we have impeded the military’s ability to recruit and to retain reservists, and – to quote Ayad Allawi in today’s Times – there is now a civil war in Iraq (Allawi: “sixty or seventy people die every day now. If that is not a civil war, God only knows what is.”).
5) American casualties in World War II were hardly a secret at the time. The reason that FDR was not “dragged out and shot” is that the war had widespread support because there were many good reasons to put American troops in harm’s way. Also, the war was executed well and the quality of FDR’s administration was unimpeachable. A Pew survey last week asked people to free-associate the first word they thought of when George Bush’s name was mentioned. The top three responses were “incompetent,” “moron,” and “idiot.” Needless to say, you would have gotten three very different responses to a similar poll in FDR’s day.
peter, negligible in the military sense – 65 fatalities a month is, of course, a horrible thing, but it makes no difference whatsoever in a force of 130,000 – again, MILITARILY. I’m not being callous, I’m speaking realistically – people die in hostile environments – we all hate it, but it’s the name of the game, unfortunately…
Gwedd’s statistics provide much-need context – again, we lost 37 brave soldiers in the last month – and God bless them and their families – but this is what would be called low-intensity by military folks…World War II and the Civil War were the very definition of high-intesity warfare…
peter, the insertion of the Pew responses from nitwits with their childish words for Bush is just sad…please keep to the subject, that’s hardly helpful….
1) This is low-intensity compared to other hot wars, but not to military occupations. Our casualty rates after the World War II armistice or Korea (which is still technically in a state of war) were negligible.
2) If we were defending our country, nobody would object to a much higher casualty rate. The issue is the casualty rate compared to the “necessity” of the conflict.
3) It is sad that so many people consider Bush to be an idiot, a moron, or an incompetent (or a combination of the three), but I think that reflects more on Bush than on those who were polled. The point I was (clumsily) trying to make is in response to the suggestion that the casualty rate in World War II would have led FDR to be run out of town. There was widespread admiration for FDR’s obvious leadership skills. There is no such admiration for Bush.
Untrue – I admire Bush, and so do most of my readers…don’t assume that your beliefs are universal. In any event, the Pew survey is tabloid junk, and contributes nothing to a discussion of casualties…your point one concedes my entire argument, which was, in case you’ve forgotten, that First Read compared hot wars to an occupation…checkmate…
Au contraire, mon ami: First Read compared hot wars to the Iraqi occupation in terms of duration – the 6:43 post compared hot wars to the Iraqi occupation in terms of casualties. The Iraqi war is low on the scale in terms of fatalities, but not in terms of duration of hostilities.
And while you are correct that the perception of Bush as a moronic incompetent is not universal, surely you will concede that while you and your readership may admire George Bush, this is by far the minority opinion. Not that the majority is always wrong, or the majority always right – but in response to the earlier post about FDR, I think even the most partisan Bush supporter will agree that FDR’s approval rating was far higher than Bush’s, and the public support of World War II was far higher than the support of the Iraq war.
Well, you’re nit-picking, I think…the point was hot war to occupation – call it duration, call it casualty level, call it whatever you want – it’s not the same – clearly, that was my point…re-read the post – I have, and it was clear.
In any event, believe what you wish, I can’t stop you…George W. Bush, thank God, doesn’t govern by opinion poll…and that’s a good thing…
Don’t mistake my upcoming silence for petulance – I must take my dog to the vet (routine visit, thankfully)…
Nit pick? Moi?
I guess it still needs to be mentioned (for the 1,000th time) that quite a few morons still elected said idiot (savant, apparently) over the nuanced and suave Senator from MA. Why Pew would conduct a survey based on a lame – duck President is beyond parody, but these are the same guys who went over to Europe and asked such non – objective polling questions as: “don’t you think President Bush is acting in a illegal fashion with regards to the Iraq war?”
No, that’s not leading the witness at all, your honor.
Let us also not forget their disasterous pollings that led up to the last Presidential contest – simply put, these guys totally screwed the pooch on that one, and they couldn’t carry George Gallup’s jockstrap.
Submitting that as evidence is almost as amusing as when you provided links to MediaMatters, Peter. Hee – larious.
Peter,
I agree that it is sad that so many consider Bush an idiot, a moron, or an incompetent. Some of it may be envy and part of it may be due to his lower than normal ability to talk in front of people. He just does not come across very well at times. They are also comparing him to previous Presidents such a Clinton and Reagan both who in my opinion were very good at talking in front of people. Clinton in my opinion is one of the best politicians in my lifetime.
Putting all that aside, Bush does have a BS from Yale and a MBA from Harvard and can fly a very technical fighter jet. Further, except for his first try at a congressional seat, he has won all his other political races including two stints as Governor of Texas and two as President. Not bad for an idiot, a moron, or an incompetent. He even beat such intellectual Democratic elites as Gore and Kerry.
Clinton on the other hand was a Rhodes Scholar with a undergraduate degree from Georgetown and a law degree from Yale. Smart you say. Wasn’t he the one that got involved with an intern by thinking with his wrong head. Talk about partaking in stupid activities.
On the other hand, the richest person in the world has no more than a high school diploma.
Go figure.
But who am I to judge, I just have a simple little Masters degree in Civil Engineering from University of Missouri and about 270 college credits. What do I do? I build and repair wastewater treatment plants. Now I dare you to tell your wife not to flush the toilet.
Well, I don’t think that Bush is a moron or an idiot. He has a quick sense of humor, which is a sign of intelligence.
Both Bush and Kerry had grades in the mid-70′s at Yale. Just goes to show that grade inflation existed even then.
While the richest person in the world may be a college dropout, the college was Harvard and he dropped out to make a gazillion dollars. Can’t blame him for that.
And nothing wrong with being a civil engineer — my father and brother are electrical engineers, and they tell me that the things which civil engineers figure out how to build are the things which nuclear engineers figure out how to blow up.
Peter,
I was aware you felt Bush was not a moron. Not trying to chide you for that statement. I was agreeing with your statement. It is sad so many people feel he is a moron but you look at what he has done and you can have a very different opinion.
Kerry is usually looked upon as an intellectual and the smarter of the two even though they had about even grades at Yale. Why the difference?
With all the emphasis put into needing an education to make it in this country, I feel it is very ironic that Gates has no more than a high school diploma.
I like my job building and repairing wastewater treatment plants. With people flushing their toilets all time and the adverse nature of the business which corrodes just about every type of material, I will have a job until retirement. It does smell at times. My comment about telling your wife not to flush her toilet is an old joke.
By the way, I also have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Sorry, electrical is just not me. I still haven’t figured out how to take the square root of – 1.
Just for the record, George Bush had better grades than John Kerry.
And to Mark’s original point about the flawed analogy being used by FirstRead, has anyone noted that we still have troops in Germany and Japan that are the descendents of our WWII forces? And that we continue to take losses in both countries? It’s rare, but accidents happen and an argument could be made that since we count accident victims among the casualties for Iraq, we are still taking casualties in WWII. If that seems strained, how about Bosnia? Those troops were to be home by Christmas 98. They’re still there eight years later, long, long after the end of “major operations.” Close to ten years after they were deployed. So when we’ve been in Iraq, which is a much more complicated and important mission, for ten years then I’ll start listening to such drivel.
2) There were plenty of good reasons to have fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II. There are no good reasons to be fighting in Iraq (or, to be more precise, no reasons which justify the American or Iraqi casualties).
Peter, this is clearly the crux of the matter. If you think the war is a good thing and justifiable, then you’re not going to set some arbitrary timetable. You wouldn’t say that if Hitler didn’t fall by the end of 1945, then we should just call a cease fire and keep a watch on the Rhine. If you think the war is not justifiable, then clearly the first minute of fighting is a minute too long. Thus it’s utterly irrelevant for anyone, including the writer of the original essay, to compare the war’s length to other wars and try to reach some kind of conclusion about whether it’s worth fighting based on timeline alone.
As for what people think of President Bush, you’ve repeatedly made it clear you think he’s awful and asserted the war is a disaster. Can’t you develop some shorthand and spare us the speeches?
All the calculations on casualties boil down to something that cannot really have a numerical value. peter sez NOTHING has been accomplished. It is of no moment to defeat in days the fourth largest military in the world, it is of ZERO consequence to shut down the rape centers or hold elections and establish a consensual government where none has ever been or kill Al Queda in Iraq rather than Boise. That is all a big fat nothing. Of course peter and his comrades could have done it better and faster with the average Boy Scout Troop and not had all those nasty complications. Sorry, you are in a fantasy world designed to protect your precious prejudices from reality. There have been plenty of strategic benefits to the Iraq war and it will reap more yet, both for the nation and for humanity. Don’t believe it? Who cares?
Dennis, Peter has no edit button – of that we have no doubt.