And, you missed another statistical adjustment that foes the other way, strongly. In absolute number of deaths, the Iraq War per month is still lower than the American Revolution deaths per month. And in absolute numbers, the Revolution is the second lowest.
However, keep in mind that the American population is about 300 million today. In 1790 (first available census) it was 3 million. So, in terms of social impact and harm, every single death then is the same as 100 deaths today.
Lastly, you are saying that total casualties in Iraq are "high" because they are about 10% of soldiers in theater. Do you know that the "Christmas Tree Regiment," the Japanese-American unit that fought with excellence in Italy, suffered more than 100% casualties. That might sound impossible, but it can happen when a unit stays in the field for more than a year, and has soldiers rotated in and out.
Again, THIS is a relatively mild war in blood costs. But people only will realize that if they are given the context of blood costs in other American wars. Compare the business news reports on rising gas prices. They report that oil has now exceeded $60 a barrel. But they also say that in constant dollars, the highest price in the 70s would be $80 a barrel, in constant dollars.
The oil price reporting in the MSM is competent reporting. The deaths in Iraq is not, because of that lack of context.
John / Billybob
I know that. That's exactly my point -- ANY attempt to make comparisons like this amounts to "playing games with statistics" in one sense or another.
Use either number, and the current Iraq War still is the LEAST bloody war.
This is a good case in point. This statement is only true because of the parameters you've laid out here. You're comparing it to a very specific group of major military campaigns from U.S. history, while ignoring a number of military campaigns that would render your point invalid if they were included in your comparison (Panama, Kosovo, first Gulf War, etc.).