Peace Is Dangerous
By Erick Posted in War — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I stumbled across this a few weeks ago and have been meaning to write about this data.
Did you know that more members of the military were killed in Jimmy Carter's last year in the White House than in any of the years we've been fighting in Iraq? Think about that. In the peaceful year of 1980, 2,392 servicemen died while on duty defending our country. In 2003, the start of the Iraq War, only 1,228 servicemen and women died. In 2004, the number was 1,874, it went up to 1,942 in 2005, and it dropped to 1,858 in 2006.
In fact, only during the Clinton years of 1996 into the Bush years of 2001 and 2002, during a period of time when the Clinton policy of refusing to defend our national interest was in place, do we see the number of military deaths fall below 1000 annually.
During the 1980's, when we aggressively defended the peace against the Soviets, the number of military deaths routinely topped 2000, with a high in 1983, the year of the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, topping out at 2,465.
But let's go back to the key point, more members of the military died in 1980, while Jimmy Carter was in the White House abdicating our responsibilities around the world, than in any one of the years we've been in Iraq.
The moral of the story is that peace is dangerous.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Get Ready For Yet Another Round Of MoveOn.org Ads — Comments (0) »
Peace Is Dangerous 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Erick, don't you know you can't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good meme?
Steyn had an interesting observation about the Carter years.
Granted that during the Carter administration the Soviets were gobbling up real estate from Afghanistan to Grenada, it’s significant that in this wretched era the only loss of actual U.S. territory was to the Islamists.
Steyn was referring to the US Embassy in Iran.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
There is a point to be made here but not by using this data in this way. In 1980, there were 2392 deaths of American Servicemen and women but ZERO by hostile action. You cannot compare accidental deaths or suicides with the deaths of our service people in active combat.
If there are any conclusions to be drawn from these numbers it's that our military is much better at prevental accidental deaths than it was 25 years ago.
before. Accidental non combat deaths go way down during war. War concentrates the mind.
Also, I get less paper cuts during jury trials.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Bush is double plus good.
Very nice analysis. Good job not mentioning that the military was 50 percent larger in 1980 than it is now.
If you look at the number of deaths per 1000 soldiers, you'll see that it drops pretty consistently until 2002, when it starts ticking back up. In 1980 there were 1.17 deaths per 1000. By 2000, the number had dropped all the way 0.55.
On the positive, the military seems much less accident prone than it was 27 years ago - from .76 per 1000 in 1980 to .34 in 2007.
Math can be your friend if you're nice to it.
US Embassy in Iran ring a bell. Some people forget that little tidbit.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
How is that related to anything in this thread?
are you really arguing that an increase of 0.18 deaths per thousand during a war!, a war!, a war! is somehow intolerable?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I think he's arguing that the OP is making a disingenuous point - that casualties are less during a time of war than a time of peace ignores some fairly serious points (like size of military, number of accidents, etc, etc).
math can be your friend. Because unless you are assuming that it is the number of troops on active duty that drive the fatalities and not the intensity of combat you'd have to assume that no matter how many troops are on active duty that the combat deaths would remain the same.
And have you added into your calculations the number of Reserve and National Guard troops who have been mobilized?
Your point is real cute if you don't understand math, otherwise, not so much.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
...that the military has outsourced much of the support function.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
You make a cogent point about outsourcing. But, the source of those funds are through Congress, not the Military. They have no funding capabilities. However, military-industrial complexes do, functionally, have that capability through lobbying efforts. Hence, Blackwater, KBR, Haliburton, etc. And they provide much more than support in some cases, and actually end up usurping the duties of the military w/o having to be accountable to the UCMJ. Its lawless warfare and it pisses off many soldiers. They'd rather be fully funded through Congress w/o private soldiers involved. If we had declared war and Congress did their job in funding the military, would we need private armies? No. The administration wanted them. You can push your questionable policies and agendas alot faster w/o accountability, contract renegotiations, and a command structure tied to a purse.
Patrick Wilber
Libertarian
former Democrat to unseat Bush
Republican now for Ron Paul
former Army Captain
small business owner
I'm hearing lots of sudden noise from the left here.
madly roving the Earth.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
How they died does matter.
250 hostile deaths 1980-2002.
2,575 hostile deaths 2003-2006 and we all know that number only got bigger this year.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Thank you for agreeing that 2,500 deaths in three years facing a hostile enemy is much more preferable to 20,000+ deaths in 22 years due to mistakes and accidents.
Is it not, well, noteworthy that now the ANTI-WAR!!™ types are interested in perspective when it comes to military casualties.
Funny, that.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The Marines lost 241 men in Lebanon on a single day in 1983. The rmainder does not begin to cover the losses in Iran 1980, Granada 1983, Panama 1989, Desert Storm 1991 and Afghanistan 2001-2. Then there are the smaller counts associated with things like episodes on the Korean DMZ or the USS Cole.
More liberal thinking. Our troops are actually for DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY, not cleaning up after natural disasters. That's what the training is all about. I can guarantee you that EXACTLY ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT of my army training had to do with learning how to kill people. And I knew when I joined what I was training to become.
-The U.S. Constitutional System is simply controlled revolution-
=== 13 ===
Modern medicine reduces the amount of deaths of American solders on the battlefield. It does not reduce the numbers of wounded.
Count the WIA in the stats with the KIA, and then these comparisons are valid.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community