Sizing Up Sacrifice- Iraq War vs. Major Battles Since WWII
Folks,
Perspective and context.
Those are two vitally important things in this day and age and they're usually the two things most lacking in reporting about controversial subjects. This has been especially concerning Iraq. To date, the US has lost just about 4,000 troops in Iraq.
To those individual troops and to their families and loved ones, a broader perspective on this issue doesn't matter. Their loss is personal and immediate and all encompassing. And this is exactly what those who oppose the war focus upon and harp upon.
That tends to skew our perspective of our losses in fighting the fight over there. The way the losses occur also skews that perception. Those losses come in dribs and drabs. One soldier killed one day, two the next, another the following day, no deaths for several days and then a chopper crashes and takes with it an entire platoon. Because the casualties are constant, they seem to be at an immense level. A huge level. An intolerable level simply because they're happening all the time and because there's been no context to their losses and no perspective given to them either.
At least until now, that is.
Over on the Gateway Pundit blog there's an article which takes the actual hard numbers of US loses in Iraq and puts those losses into perspective by showing them in context with losses the nation endured in other wars and in other battles. The result is startling.
While the US losses in Iraq are tragic at the individual level, looking back at the history of Americans being in harms way shows that our losses today are but a pittance to what has gone before. For example, the US has been fighting in Iraq for five years now and has lost about 4,000 of its own in the process. Back in December of 1944, the Germans attacked US Army positions in the Ardennes region of France and thus started what became known as "The Battle of the Bulge" due to the shape of the hole the Germans were able to push through the Allied line. In the five weeks of fighting which followed the US lost 19,276 troops. That's almost five times what we've lost in Iraq and it all happened in little over a month.
The fighting to retake the island of Guam from the Japanese during WWII took five weeks and cost the US 3,000 American lives. That's 3,000 dead in five weeks versus 4,000 in five years.
This isn't to say that Iraq is not a dangerous place, it most assuredly is, but we are fighting and winning over there and doing so while enduring a loss rate that in most previous combat would be considered almost unbelievably light.
To put things into sharper perspective, there's the fact that life in the military is dangerous and harsh even in peacetime. During the first five years of Bill Clinton's presidency, the US military suffered 5,119 deaths in total. That's in peacetime and reflects everything from training accidents, to live fire accidents, to traffic accidents while on duty, to suicides of active duty troops, to the occasional trooper killed by disgruntled Serbs whilst serving in Bosnia-Herzegovia or hacked apart by qat chewing Somalis. That's more troops lost in "peacetime" operations than we've lost in the entire five years of liberating, occupying and stabilizing Iraq.
This is something to think about when you next hear some sensationalistic reporting about our losses over there. Yes, each one is a tragedy on its own level but the nation has endured far worse in previous battles and the outcome of this battle is every bit as important as those. Our losses in Iraq are little worse than what the military endures in peacetime operations. Our troops are fighting better and more effectively than ever before and are defeating a truly evil enemy in the process. They are also enduring losses that are at an amazingly low level and unheard of for such intense and frequent combat.
That's the context and perspective needed to help size up what's happening over there.
Madoc
Hat tip
chuckles48
Perspective and context.
Those are two vitally important things in this day and age and they're usually the two things most lacking in reporting about controversial subjects. This has been especially concerning Iraq. To date, the US has lost just about 4,000 troops in Iraq.
To those individual troops and to their families and loved ones, a broader perspective on this issue doesn't matter. Their loss is personal and immediate and all encompassing. And this is exactly what those who oppose the war focus upon and harp upon.
That tends to skew our perspective of our losses in fighting the fight over there. The way the losses occur also skews that perception. Those losses come in dribs and drabs. One soldier killed one day, two the next, another the following day, no deaths for several days and then a chopper crashes and takes with it an entire platoon. Because the casualties are constant, they seem to be at an immense level. A huge level. An intolerable level simply because they're happening all the time and because there's been no context to their losses and no perspective given to them either.
At least until now, that is.
Over on the Gateway Pundit blog there's an article which takes the actual hard numbers of US loses in Iraq and puts those losses into perspective by showing them in context with losses the nation endured in other wars and in other battles. The result is startling.
While the US losses in Iraq are tragic at the individual level, looking back at the history of Americans being in harms way shows that our losses today are but a pittance to what has gone before. For example, the US has been fighting in Iraq for five years now and has lost about 4,000 of its own in the process. Back in December of 1944, the Germans attacked US Army positions in the Ardennes region of France and thus started what became known as "The Battle of the Bulge" due to the shape of the hole the Germans were able to push through the Allied line. In the five weeks of fighting which followed the US lost 19,276 troops. That's almost five times what we've lost in Iraq and it all happened in little over a month.
The fighting to retake the island of Guam from the Japanese during WWII took five weeks and cost the US 3,000 American lives. That's 3,000 dead in five weeks versus 4,000 in five years.
This isn't to say that Iraq is not a dangerous place, it most assuredly is, but we are fighting and winning over there and doing so while enduring a loss rate that in most previous combat would be considered almost unbelievably light.
To put things into sharper perspective, there's the fact that life in the military is dangerous and harsh even in peacetime. During the first five years of Bill Clinton's presidency, the US military suffered 5,119 deaths in total. That's in peacetime and reflects everything from training accidents, to live fire accidents, to traffic accidents while on duty, to suicides of active duty troops, to the occasional trooper killed by disgruntled Serbs whilst serving in Bosnia-Herzegovia or hacked apart by qat chewing Somalis. That's more troops lost in "peacetime" operations than we've lost in the entire five years of liberating, occupying and stabilizing Iraq.
This is something to think about when you next hear some sensationalistic reporting about our losses over there. Yes, each one is a tragedy on its own level but the nation has endured far worse in previous battles and the outcome of this battle is every bit as important as those. Our losses in Iraq are little worse than what the military endures in peacetime operations. Our troops are fighting better and more effectively than ever before and are defeating a truly evil enemy in the process. They are also enduring losses that are at an amazingly low level and unheard of for such intense and frequent combat.
That's the context and perspective needed to help size up what's happening over there.
Madoc
Hat tip
chuckles48