How Dangerous Is Service In Iraq?
And why W. C. Fields might change his mind
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A University of Pennsylvania demographer has an op-ed in today's Washington Post.
It differs from the casualty analysis that we've grown accustomed to seeing because the Penn professor uses numbers. Anyone familiar with military history won't be too suprised but there are a couple of items that make this war unusual.
Read on.
Between March 21, 2003, when the first military death was recorded in Iraq, and March 31, 2006, there were 2,321 deaths among American troops in Iraq. Seventy-nine percent were a result of action by hostile forces. Troops spent a total of 592,002 "person-years" in Iraq during this period. The ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq.
How does this rate compare with that in other groups? One meaningful comparison is to the civilian population of the United States. That rate was 8.42 per 1,000 in 2003, more than twice that for military personnel in Iraq.
Admittedly a crude comparison but the good professor digs on.
The death rate for U.S. men ages 18 to 39 in 2003 was 1.53 per 1,000 -- 39 percent of that of troops in Iraq. But one can also find something equivalent to combat conditions on home soil. The death rate for African American men ages 20 to 34 in Philadelphia was 4.37 per 1,000 in 2002, 11 percent higher than among troops in Iraq. Slightly more than half the Philadelphia deaths were homicides.
One hears comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam until one's head is on the verge of exploding. How do the death rates compare?
The death rate of American troops in Vietnam was 5.6 times that observed in Iraq. Part of the reduction in the death rate is attributable to improvements in military medicine and such things as the use of body armor. These have reduced the ratio of deaths to wounds from 24 percent in Vietnam to 13 percent in Iraq.
Other observations:
Lieutenants have the highest mortality of any rank in the Army, 19 percent higher than all Army troops combined. Marine Corps lieutenants have 11 percent higher mortality than all Marines. But the single highest-mortality group in any service consists of lance corporals in the Marines, whose death risk is 3.3 times that of all troops in Iraq.
Again, no one should be surprised but it is also a positive sign. This is a platoon level war and one would expect the highest casualties up front where doors are being kicked in. One of the indicators of the Army unraveling in Vietnam was that the casualty rate among officers started into a precipitous decline. Troops don't fight very well if they don't feel their leaders are sharing the risks.
There are disparities in race though not the one's Charlie Rangel wants to talk about:
Hispanics have a death risk about 20 percent higher than non-Hispanics, and blacks have a death risk about 30 to 40 percent lower than that of non-blacks. That low death rate appears to result from an overrepresentation of blacks in low-risk categories...
What does all of this mean?
Probably not much that we didn't know.
It demonstrates that the risk of getting killed or wounded in combat in Iraq is fairly low and improved armor and medical care increase your chances of surviving if your are wounded. It shows that leaders at the platoon and squad level are up front and taking the extraordinary risks that we demand of young leaders in rifle platoons and squads and they are paying the price for their leadership in blood. It shows what we've said for three years now, that the war is not being fought by poor black kids.
It, in conjunction with enlistment and reenlistment numbers, shows that unlike some have claimed, we will not be driven from the battlefield by casualties.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Loose Lips Sink Ships — Comments (18) »
How Dangerous Is Service In Iraq? 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
misperceptions of what actually is happening.
I bet if you posted on a left leaning or anti war website, you would find most people believing that enlisted people and blacks would have the highest death risks (I suspect shades of Vietnam, and the whole "poor people join the military because they have no other options" meme).
It doesn't really surprise me much that the Lt's have some of the highest death rates. They have a lot of responsiblity, and I think the military overall trains into officers that good leadership means being willing to do the dirty work and take the risks (you can probably find individual exceptions, but overal this seems to be the over riding philosophy of leadership in the military-whether it is officer corps or NCO's).
I loved the comparison to death rates in Philidelphia.
Sometimes we need a little perspective.
And I can say through personal anecdotal experience that this is accurate.
I'd like to see comparison of the death rate of soldiers in garrison to soldiers deployed down-range. One factor is that soldiers in Iraq are probably under what we called in Bosnia General Order Number 1, which meant no alcohol. No beer, no wine, no anything. So as a result of that plus the fact that soldiers are under 24-hour supervision, your DUI rate goes to zero compared to when soldiers get back and go wild.
that unemployment rates don't reflect the way people think. He said "the definition of a recession is when your neighbor loses his job. The definition of a depression is when you lose yours."
I'm skeptical that the statistical analysis done by the author will affect anyone's views about the war. A high casualty rate is when someone you know is wounded or killed. An extreme casualty rate is when someone you love is wounded or killed.
In those terms, the casualty rate grows by the day. That doesn't make it acceptable or unacceptable, but it does shape the way people think about the war.
Of sending the same soldiers to Iraq over and over and over is that you are not transforming the "high casualty rate" into an "extreme one" nearly so fast.
Another, is that you don't have to institute a draft.
I'm a little tired today, perhaps you could explain what this means? What do new vs "recycled" troops have to do with casualty rates and a draft?
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Someone once observed that the foreign policy of the American people is quite simple, and can be stated thusly:
- The American people do not want to be blown up.
- The American people do not want their sons and daughters sent off to foreign lands to be shot at, unless it is the only possible way to keep from being blown up.
Bush has not done a very good job of explaining to the public why the Iraq War meets the test of principle #2. Democrats in the media and in office have done a creditable job of selling the public on the idea that the Iraq War is some botched response to the events of 9/11. "It had nothing to with 9/11! Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11!"
The idea that the events in Iraq are merely a current episode, and today's front line, in what will be a generation-long effort to defeat global Islamic Fascism is apparently outside the ability of Democrats to comprehend... fixated as they are on the notion that national defense is a kind of cop show where the objective is to 'capture the perp.' Preferably before the next commercial.
The problem is that too few voters understand what the Iraq War is about. That is a major failing of the Bush Administration. Perhaps dropping the charade about "a religion of peace" will allow the Administration to make progress in this area. We can only hope.
Islamic Fascism is the ugliest thing to come down the pike since Hitler and the Nazis. It is going to require a comparable, if not larger, effort to get rid of it.
Iraq is about two things: showing the Arab people that there is more to life than living in poverty under some despot who steals all the mineral wealth; and having a forward base of operations in case the first thing doesn't work. Or doesn't work fast enough.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
You're right that Americans aren't willing to send their sons and daughters to war unless there is a grave danger. What parent wants to put his/her child in harms way?
But you (or the person you're quoting) leave out another very large segment of people who are willing to go overseas themselves to fight a foreign war. These men and women are the heart of our volunteer forces. It's a group of people who see the need and are willing to do the job themselves. These people don't need to fear being blown up to go fight. They are willing to right wrongs even if they aren't wrongs committed directly against the US (like Saddam gassing Kurdish villages).
Ask any parent if they'd send their children into a burning building to save someone else and they'd say "NO!", but many of those same people would willingly go into that building themselves.
But I get your point, Bush hasn't sold the WOT well. The Democrats either just don't get it or are purposely misleading the public for political purposes (I suspect the latter). Much of the press is so blinded by hatred of Bush that they don't have a clue what's going on.
you are an idiot.
As the father of a recently retired US Marine SpOps Lance Corporal, your comments about casualty rates are simply stupid from the perspective of the military families I know. The number of overall casualties is so low that it would take several orders of magnitude increase to shape the way people think about the war. I know many families who have lost sons and husbands in this war. Very, very few of them oppose the war. Very, very few of the Marine families I know whose sons are deployed or deploying oppose the war.
The issue is how the press treats casualties and who they talk to. Cindy Sheehan's press is way out proportion to her opinion of the war. The press is, by-and-large, opposed to the war and opposed to Bush. Thus, they print only heart wrenching stories of death. They don't bother reporting either the accomplishments of the military in Iraq or stories of military heroes. They don't print the comments of families who are supportive of the effort to free Iraqis and establish a stable government in the region. The press, both print and broadcast, is decidedly one-sided.
Another issue is the national Democratic Party's constant treasonous drumbeat. Murtha, Durbin, Reid, Pelosi and their ilk are not patriots and they don't give a damn about the troops. Their constant drumbeat, combined with the NYT and the broadcast networks shape the way people think about the war.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I think you make an excellent point.
The press seems to gravitate towards the "outraged" families of lost/injured service members, rather than those who experienced a great loss, but understand and support the mission.
Part of it is probably that outrage sells, but I also think there is a built in bias.
I don't personally know anyone who has been killed, I do know a few people who have been injured to one degree or another. The injured people I do know still support their mission, and want to go back and be with their units. I think that is one thing often overlooked is that for some guys, the injury itself isn't the hardest thing to deal with, but the fact that they aren't with their units continuing their mission.
Now it may be that I just know a different set of injureds, but I suspect the attitude of the people I do know is probably the more common one-but the press likes a sob story, therefore the Cindy Sheehans get the coverage.
I know 13 people deployed (or have been deployed) in Iraq. Every single one of them support the war and the president. From what I have been told, it's typically the families that oppose the president politically, not the troops.
One statement that always struck me as telling was from a man I grew up with who has now spent most of his life (20+ years) in the Middle East with the Army.
He said that the average muslim there has lived with constant indoctorination to hate the west and accept that death is a part of life that must be reveled in. That very few are actual terrorists, but a vast majority are supporters in some form or another. Eventully, the religeon will undergo some form of reformation, but as-is, with no defined leadership, any Imam can spew enough hate to manipulate the weak willed to do something rash.This is not a unique or new opinion, but it is telling to the point that the problem we face is not one we in the west have faced since the days of the Crusades.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
In due time we will reach a point that the Iraq war, like the Vietnam war is a mere memory refered to in the past tense and spoken about as something others did. IMHO it'll be about 20 years from now because if all goes as planned, our bases will be built and we will have a stabilizing presence there, just like Germany & Japan.
Certainly, the history will be written from this standpoint of statistical data and memoirs of the leaders. The politization of the history will still be a factor but one of less infleuance over daily activities.
What will become a topic so far in the future will be either The Terrorist Event that makes 9/11 look like just a bad hair day or how some yet unelected president lead the charge to stop terrorisim against the United States and foild The Big One.
God willing, we will never have to experience a nuclear blast in the US or elsewhere because of the Islamic Terrorist threat but this will not be from their choice to preserve life, but ours. And that is why it matters how many or how few died in lands far away because their leaders will provide the device, if they have it.
You need to separate rear echelon units and those in relatively secure FOBs from those pounding the pavement on a daily basis. The reason Marine LCpls have a higher death rate is almost certainly because a higher percentage are taking part in regular combat action. If I had to guess based on what I've read over the past two years or so (and please correct me if I'm wrong), a company of Army or Marine infantry that spends a year boots on the ground will likely suffer between 5 and 10 personnel killed. Additionally, a much lower percentage of reported casualties in this conflict are combat deaths, largely the result of medical and technological advances. But this means that many who would have perished in past wars are instead walking around without arms and legs and with other grievous injuries. Forgive me if I sound cynical, and I still believe that in the context of military history the cost in dead and wounded is still quite low (WWII saw more than 350,000 war dead from a US population barely half that of today - 150x the deaths from 1/2 the population with a much wider geographical and socioeconomic dispersal of said deaths). But let's make sure we take everything into acocunt.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.