Is Iraq Becoming like Vietnam? Only if You’re Stuck in Woodstock

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 24 April, 2004 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[discostu]

If we hadn't been supplying weapons, donkeys and training to the Mujahadien Afghanistan for the Soviets would have been a cake walk. The resistance ammounted to nothing before we turned it into a proxy war, even then it didn't go badly for the Russians until we gave the other side SAMs. We did to them in Afghanistan what they did to us in Viet Nam, during the Cold War no hot war was exactly what it appeared. The bad guys in Iraq don't have a super power backing them, they've got backing but not to the level we gave in Afghanistan or Russia gave in Viet Nam. And meanwhile the people giving the bad guys backing are focusing on our troops in the Middle East instead of focusing on our civilians in NYC, which works well for us since our troops are better equiped to shoot back.

[RISU]

IRAQ will not become Vietnam because there is no "refuge" (like Cambodia) into which insurgents can escape. It is the death of any who come ther to fight the great Satan. The longer we keep Iraq going, the less hot heads will be alive.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

This is a product of the American press dwelling in gory detail on each individual death at the top of the nightly news.

You did not have to be at Woodstock to know Woodstock. Woodstock owned the mainstream TV media "news." Country Joe read the news every night on all three networks. No satellites in those days, the blood and gore film was booked on daily airline flights.

Anyone old enough should see the similarity -- here at home. Not over there.

The North Vietnamese Communists did not praise the American press and "anti-war" crowd for no reason.

The number of "anti-war" demonstrations today are fewer and the campus unrest is virtually non-existent compared to the 1960s and 1970s.

The "reporting" and the political shenanigans by the mainstream press and the "loyal" opposition are however virtually the same and have the same objective; to wit, the defeat / humiliation of the U.S. IMO. It is they who bring up Vietnam. It is they who should be on the defensive and doing the explaining.

[watchin]

I'm "tablizing" it for you, but there seems to be a few numbers missing - I think the "proportionate" column?

[watchin]

Is this correct?

War		Deaths	KIA/Mo.	Proportionate
Revolutionary War		4,435	55	5,500
War of 1812		2,260	75	3,750
Mexican War		1,733	87	2,900
Civil War:	Union	110,070	2,293
	Confederate
		74,524	1,553
	Combined	184,594	3,846	38,460
Spanish-American		385	96	384
World War I		53,513	2,816	8,448
World War II		292,131	6,639	15,370
Korean War		33,651	909	1,636
Vietnam War		47,369	526	842
Gulf War		148	148	264
Iraq War (to date)		500	42	42

[watchin]

War		Deaths	KIA/Mo.	Proportionate
Revolutionary War		4,435	55	5,500
War of 1812		2,260	75	3,750
Mexican War		1,733	87	2,900
Civil War:	Union	110,070	2,293	22,930
	Confederate
		74,524	1,553	15,530
	Combined	184,594	3,846	38,460
Spanish-American		385	96	384
World War I		53,513	2,816	8,448
World War II		292,131	6,639	15,370
Korean War		33,651	909	1,636
Vietnam War		47,369	526	842
Gulf War		148	148	264
Iraq War (to date)		500	42	42

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you very, very much. I never cease to be impressed by the skills and dedication of folks on FreeRepublic.

No, there aren't any numbers missing. As the article says, the Census Bureau statistics did not break out separately the Union and Confederate populations. Therefore, I didn't have a base to compute the comparable modern death rates for each side separately.

On the other hand, there was a basis to calculate the compatative death rate for the whole US population.

Again, thank you.

John / Billybob

[watchin]

You're very welcome. I freepmailed you a tip, btw.

It looked to me like the multiplier for the total in the Civil War was 10; I used it for the respective sides, and the numbers add up.

Glad to help.

[Congressman Billybob]

Kerry and other numbskulls claim that Bush "has no exit plan." As I've written previously, the final result, or the "exit plan," is clear to anyone who's bothered to read the histories of Japan and Germany after WW II.

The Emperor and Japanese culture keep that from being a close comparison. Germany, on the other hand, fits well. It took us four years to build up to a funtioning national government, elected under a constitution. We are rushing that process in Iraq, largely because the press is bone ignorant of history and is not reporting the historical patterns that were successful.

The 30 June "hand-over" will be to a token government in which all "security" decisions remain firmly in the hands of the US Military for the duration. That is EXACTLY what the US did in both Germany and Japan.

We no more need a reinstituted draft to settle the Iraqi hash, then we did to settle the German hash. History makes all this plain. But reporters don't read history, so they write and publish deceptive twaddle. Don't fall for it.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

You've missed the point, again.

Regardless of the particulars, EVERY war has a blood price to the people of the United States. ALL I am comparing is the blood prices, to make it clear that we are now in the most "sanitary" war we've ever engaged in.

And if, because of rotten reporting, Americans decide we cannot bear wvwn such a small blood burden, then the American military has just become irrelevant, politically, and we'd better start learning how to live in caves.

Got it now?

John / Billybob

[ClintonBeGone]

Regardless of the particulars,

I agree with your overall point. I just don't think including that reference is helpful.

[JLO]

Please excuse my jumping in here. Just am curious, as I'm not a Civil War expert. Population-wise back then, how could that be possible? Being the bloodiest war ever? In USA history? I'm not tormenting, just asking, as I can't envision it.

I actually find the Civil War era most fascinating - but population-wise, I don't get it.

Thanks.

[JLO]

Hello, please see my post #32 - just wondering about...

Population-wise back then.

Your graph looks good, but doesn't make sense to me.

[lainde]

Boomers who haven't seen the light!

[Congressman Billybob]

Take a look at the table which watchin made of the statistics from my article. That's at post #25. The only way that Americans are able to know the blood cost of a war is month by month, and year by year, as the war progresses. That is the way that we experience wars, progressively, battle by battle, through the press.

By the nature of war, the total costs in blood and money, and the final results, cannot be known until the end is reached.

By that measure and from the Defense Department statistics I presented, the Civil War was the bloodiest war we have ever fought. To that measure, I added another by using Census Bureau numbers. The burden of a war is in proportion to the population who bear losses.

For instance, as I noted, at the time of the American Revolution our population was only 1% of what it is today. Therefore, the burden of deaths was 100 times as large as it is today. Each death then is the equivalent of 100 deaths today. That's the last column in the chart.

By this measure, the burden of all prior wars moves up, because there were less Americans when they were fought. The Civil War becomes even worse. By both measures, the War on Terror today is the least bloody war we have ever fought.

Does that make sense?

John / Billybob

[JLO]

Yes, except for what he said earlier, ie: " I'm "tablizing" it for you, but there seems to be a few numbers missing - I think the "proportionate" column?"
24 posted on 04/22/2004 5:29:31 PM CDT by watchin

and then s/he later said 'X10'?

Curious is all. Don't seem right to MULTIPLY numbers by 10 - do you get what I mean?

[Congressman Billybob]

The multipliers are based on population. When the US population was just 1% of what it is now, one death then was the equivalent of 100 deaths now. When US population grew to 10% of today's, the multiplier dropped to 10 times. When the population grew to 50% of today's the multiplier dropped to 2 times.

In each case the basic question was the same. If this war had taken place today with almost 300 million Americans, all other things being equal, what would the modern comparative number of deaths been, per month?

Does that compute? It's important to me for what I write to be as clear as possible.

John / Billybob

[WilliamofCarmichael]

The opposition to the Iraq War has almost nothing to do with war itself, and everything to do with anti-American politics.

You see their game. The "issue" of casualties is not the issue. Why play their game of numbers? Now we see polls every day like the Washington Post reporting that "Two in three [respondents] said the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable."

Such a poll result would not occur if the press reported combat deaths in the context of history, as I have done here.

It will do no good. The twenty percent or so who are just making it an "issue" (or weapon against the Administration like during the Vietnam war) cannot be swayed and the majority of the apolitical IMO are ruled by the emotion of TV images.

But, if you must let politics/press direct the debate how about a public reminder about the 3,000 9/11 deaths? TV won't touch it, of course. Afghanistan?

How to expose anti-Administration politics and press reporting as the real issue, where it belongs? Yippie-free days of boycotting ABCNNBCBS and newspapers?

[Shooter 2.5]

Just to let you know, based on the number of combatants who served and the number of casualties, the Mexican War had the highest ratio.

The dems don't think of the value of success. All they think about is political gain. If they believe they can garner enough votes by abandoning Iraq by running away that's what they support.
In a way, it's no different than their attitude of ruining a business for the sake of a so-called "endangered" plant or insect.

[Freedom4US]

The kids at a local university at Ames, Iowa rioted the other night, for no reason that I'm aware of other than alcohol and a large crowd. $50k in damage to police cars alone, and "extensive" damage to a downtown area. If kids can riot over nothing in particular, or a football game, it doesn't surprise me that they would riot pretty heavily during the 60's. The "antiwar" movement, as near as I can determine, was really a "dont draft my ass" movement, specifically. It pretty much died off after conscription ended?