343 - Real numbers in Iraq.

NRO ^ | 2/2/04 | Michael Novak

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

TThe news media, which constantly accuse the Bush administration of exaggerating the threat in Iraq, are constantly exaggerating the number of U.S. combat deaths there. I first pointed this out last August. For a while, the exaggeration stopped, but early in January it recommenced. The round number "500" was apparently irresistible.

Yet as of January 15, exactly ten months after the war began on March 16, 2003, the official number of U.S. combat deaths listed by the Defense Department was 343. Another 155 had died from non-hostile causes, including 100 in accidents and others from illness. Since non-hostile causes are responsible for army deaths in peacetime as well as wartime, in bases at home as well as in war zones, many of the non-hostile deaths ought not to be counted as specific to Iraq, although, of course, a portion of them are.

These 343 (not 500) combat deaths, furthermore, need to be set in context. During 2003, the number of homicides in Chicago was 599, in New York City 596, in Los Angeles 505, in Detroit 361, in Philadelphia 347, in Baltimore 271, in Houston 276, and in Washington 247. That makes 3,002 murders in only eight cities.

The least the media could do is print the number of combat deaths in Iraq in two columns. The first would show the number of days since the war began (as of January 15, 305). The second column might show the number of combat deaths as of the same date (343).

Since January 15, the death toll has climbed in one of its upward spurts, as roadside bombings by more sophisticated agencies become more deadly. The countdown toward the turnover of the levers of government to Iraqi leaders is now less than 150 days away. We can expect the bitter despair of the Sunni diehards and the foreign jihadists to grow. They will try to stop history in its tracks. They will become ever more violent. They have been drawn like moths to bang against the brightness of our troops in the dark. Now, more than ever, we need a steady hand at the American helm. Now is not the time for recriminations and retreat.

The war in Iraq has been one of the noblest and brightest pages in American history. At enormous risk to ourselves, and at great cost, our troops have liberated an entire people from one of the most sadistic despots in history. In the near future, they will leave behind a far better infrastructure (better schools, hospitals and clinics, power grids, telephone systems, oil technology, television, etc.) than has heretofore existed in Iraq, a greater array of free media, and the first beginnings of a new form of republican government not before experienced on the ancient soil hallowed by Hammurabi. The fear Saddam struck in the hearts of his neighbors, and the instability he promoted in the region, will be no more.

Those who died in that cause have given an unforgettable gift to the Iraqi people, which will be remembered with gratitude for generations to come. Their extraordinary achievements have burnished the glory of our nation, and their fame will long outlive the early opposition of those compromised by their past dealings with Saddam. The rich rewards raked in from Saddam's network of international bribery are only now being revealed. The predictions of those who marched against the war — about massive streams of refugees, hunger, the unleashing of weapons of mass destruction, immense domestic destruction, huge uprisings in "the Arab street," etc. — have been proved false.

The international terrorist groups led by al Qaeda have now been deprived of their bases in Afghanistan, their potential source of chemical and biological agents in Iraq, their support from Libya, their unrestricted access to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and the reliability of their hitherto totally safe assistance from Iran and Syria. All this our honored dead have won for us. Their families deserve to glory in it for generations.

"Greater love no man hath," the Good Book tells us, "than that he lay down his life for his friends." This, too, they have done for their fellow citizens. They have saved the cause of liberty from the shame of appeasing terror. They have protected their homeland and countrymen.

One day it will be a great boast for their children: "My father fought in Iraqi Freedom. He altered the course of history." And so they will be remembered by grandchildren, so long as memory lives.

[Phantom Lord]

many of the non-hostile deaths ought not to be counted as specific to Iraq,

Not specific to Iraq? To try and claim that a soldier dying in Iraq is not specific to Iraq is the worst spin I have ever heard.

[walden]

Well, "not specific to Iraq" just means to me that if the guy died of some kind of accident, that that accident was no more likely to happen in Iraq than if the guy was stationed anywhere else.

[CalKat]

If the author truly wants clarity about the casualty count in Iraq, why isn't he calling for a public count of the wounded?

[dixierat22]

That doesn't matter. If you die in an accident, from hostile fire, or illness while in the service in a combat zone, you're still dead. The death should be classified as a death in a combat zone, as opposed to a combatr death. That's for bean counters and people who have nothing better to talk about. Bottom line, the soldiers is still dead, the wife is a widow, the parents lose a child, the children lose a parent.

[alwaysconservative]

The other comparison number that always floats through my mind when I see the combat-related deaths is that somewhere between 10,000-15,000 elderly people died in France in one month last year because their relatives couldn't be bothered to care for the welfare of their own families; most of those were totally preventable deaths.

[91B]

True enough-there was a story of some Stryker brigade troops who died when their Stryker turned over into a river because it was patrolling on a river bank that had been softened by rain. Had they not been in Iraq it is likely that they would not have been patrolling in such an area or that the infrastructure along a waterway would have been good enough to support the vehicle if they had been. Those were "accidental" deaths, but they had every thing to do with being in Iraq. It seems pretty silly to quibble.

[Backwoods Southern Lawyer]

I do not want to get into any argument or to demean anyone or lessen the valor of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, but I submit that there are probably fewer accidental and other non-combat deaths in Iraq than there would have been had our military personnel stayed at home. I live near a couple of military bases and there are regular TV news stories of fatal automobile wrecks involving high speed driving, alcohol, etc. in peace time. Those news stories seem to be fewer when the soldiers are deployed in places where they cannot drive their personal automobiles and they do not have access to alcohol.

[PISANO]

Whether anyone wants to agree or NOT......there is a difference in HOSTILE and NON-HOSTILE deaths of our troops, regardless of WHERE either occur. Non-hostile deaths occur EVERYWHERE. If one is cleaning his gun in Idaho or Iraq and accidently shoots himself or his friend it can NOT be counted as a HOSTILE death and IF it is to be reported TRUTHFULLY, it must be labeled as such. This is done for many reasons; historical accuracy is one.

So, while the report that the number of deaths of our troops since COMBAT began in March is ACCURATE...it is not the TRUTH. It doesn't take much more time to say the number of COMBAT related deaths is 345 and the number of NON-combat related deaths is 155. Reporters love simple short sound bites and 500 sounds much better/worse than reporting the WHOLE truth.

[archy]

Well, "not specific to Iraq" just means to me that if the guy died of some kind of accident, that that accident was no more likely to happen in Iraq than if the guy was stationed anywhere else.

Like the two dozen or so who've killed themselves or been murdered by their fellow soldiers?

[William Tell]

archy said: "Like the two dozen or so who've killed themselves or been murdered by their fellow soldiers?"

I was almost the last person to speak to a soldier who killed himself years ago when I was in the service. That was in New Jersey. Unhappy depressed people who feel no hope can manage to be unhappy, depressed, and without hope wherever they are.

[walden]

"Like the two dozen or so who've killed themselves or been murdered by their fellow soldiers?"

Well, yeah. They don't kill themselves here? Get murdered? Die in car accidents or bar fights? About a week before the Iraq war started, 9 or 10 Marines died in a helicopter accident in New York. Nobody gives a DAMN about them, or their widows and orphans-- in fact, I'm probably one of the few people that remembers it.

[irish guard]

Here's my take...I like the author of this article used to think that way, until I asked myself whether I would care (combat or non-combat death) if I were a parent and someone told me my son or daughter had died in Iraq......If we were not in Iraq my son or daughter would not be dead.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of everything we are doing there, but I have no desire to split hairs for the sake of the parents who's children are among the dead.

[Chu Gary]

"Unhappy depressed people who feel no hope can manage to be unhappy, depressed, and without hope wherever they are."

Oh, you mean like Terry McAwful?