I grabbed this from my friend TheBisch’s blog:
(Edited 9/5/2008 to correct some incorrect numbers…)
Whatever your politics, however you lean and however you feel about the current administration, this report is interesting. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the below statistics:
The annual fatalities, by any cause, of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
1980 2,392 (Carter)
1981 2,380 (Reagan)
1984 1,999 (Reagan)
1988 1,819 (Reagan)
1989 1,636 (George H W)
1990 1,507 (George H W)
1991 1,787 (George H W)
1992 1,293 (George H W)
1993 1,213 (Clinton)
1994 1,075 (Clinton)
1995 1,040 (Clinton)
1996 974 (Clinton)
1997 817 (Clinton)
1998 827 (Clinton)
1999 796 (Clinton)
2000 758 (Clinton)
2001 891 (George W)
2002 999 (George W)
2003 1,410 (George W)
2004 1,873 (George W)
2005 1,941 (George W)
2006 1,875 (George W)
Clinton years (1993-2000): 7,500 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 8,989 deaths
Are you surprised when you look at these figures? The media will have you believe that there is much more military death in the Bush administration than during Clinton ’s presidency. Why were the death tolls so high during Clinton’s administration when America wasn’t even involved in a war–unless you include Bosnia and Mogadishu, Somalia. (Remember ”Blackhawk Down”?) Even more surprising is that in 1980, during Carter’s presidency, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures appear to indicate many members of our media and politicians pick and choose the information on which they report–that they present only those “facts” that support their agenda. Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following distribution of American citizens by race:
European descent 69.12 percent
Hispanic 12.50 percent
Black 12.30 percent
Asian 3.70 percent
Native American 1.00 percent
Other 2.60 percent
Many members of the media lead us to believe the military death ratio is off balance compared to the distribution by race in America. Here are the fatalities by race over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent 74.31 percent
Hispanic 10.74 percent
Black 9.67 percent
Asian 1.81 percent
Native American 1.09 percent
Other 0.33 percent
Surprised again? Hopefully, during the time between now and November, intelligent Americans can decipher–
the facts from the spin.
the spinners from the leaders.
those who seek even more power from those that seek justice.
the dividers from the uniters.
These statistics are published by the Congressional Research Service and may be confirmed here
Related Articles
5 users responded in this post
Unfortunately, your friend has made up his facts or gotten them from some source other than the one he references (which, being the offical federal tally of deaths, I am inclined to believe). I suggest reading page 8 of the report you have linked to.
I’ve looked at Page 8 and other than seeing the subtitle of “Selected Military Operations” (which leads me to believe that they aren’t reporting the whole picture.) I do see however a little later in the report where they break it out by cause, however I believe that in TheBisch’s original post what he was stating was that given the total number of death’s per year under a specific Commander-in-Chief that the total count was lower under G.W.B. than it was under Clinton or any of his predecessors. If I am missing your point, I would truly like for you to elaborate as I don’t think Bisch would “make up facts” seeing as how he doesn’t have a vested interest in these numbers going one way or another.
Also posted on the Bisch’s site, he has corrected the numbers. He has also clarified that he received the numbers in an email that he believed to be accurate, which should clear him of the charge of making stuff up.
I should have been more clear when I said page 8 — I meant page CRS-8, which is page 11 of the PDF. Sorry about that.
As for the total deaths/year being lower under GWB than Clinton, you will note that the Bisch’s revised figures indicate that the total is slightly higher under GWB than Clinton; however, for the point that was being made (whether a given president is “really the Warmonger”), it seems to me that the more accurate measure would be total combat deaths, not total deaths (the vast majority of which are, particularly in peacetime, “accident”). I suggest combining the totals for “hostile action” and “terrorist attack” to give you combat deaths. Using that metric the numbers are:
1993-2000: 76
2001-2006: 2733
I think those numbers speak for themselves and “Who is really the Warmonger?” should be clear. (Which, obviously, does not prove that said Warmonger was wrong to Mong a War).
Thanks for the info. I have updated my post to reflect the changes in TheBisch’s post. As for the combined numbers, you are correct, the numbers are higher.
As for monging the war, I supported it at first and still support the troops but think that the time has come that the Iraqi people need to determine if they want to stand on their own. If they do, then take up the mantle for your own security, if not, well, I guess we know what happens then.
I appreciate your comments and dialogue and thank you for contributing to my blog!
Thanks for fixing it Rick… I don’t know why I felt compelled to say something about it, I guess I was really surprised by the original numbers too.
That’s a pretty reasonable position on the war, pretty close to my own. I too supported it initially and now think its time for the Iraqis to take charge of their own country — though I’d add that I think events have shown that maybe I was wrong to support it in the first place. The whole business has left me a lot more of a non-interventionist than I used to be (which leaves me feeling somewhat left out in this election as there’s a conservative interventionist on one side and a liberal interventionist on the other — though I think in this case the least bad might be the liberal interventionist, as I think at the moment that leads to less total interventionism).
Leave A Reply