Tuesday, August 29, 2006

putting iraq losses into context

Guest blogger Voolfie over at Blonde Sagacity applies *gasp* logic to the number of servicemen we have lost in Iraq. Please do not get me wrong, one is too many, but being that I have promised to give my life in service to this country, I think I can criticize those who wrongly present the facts about those that actually have given their lives. A sample:
So, what is the context that we’re missing? Is it the weather we had at the time these soldiers were lost? (NOTE: I use "soldier" as a generic term, I am not ignoring or downplaying the efforts and sacrifices of marines, sailors or airmen) Is it the color clothing they were wearing? Is it their political affiliation? No. The only context that makes any sense is the military and historical context of their deaths. Only by comparing their loss with similar losses in similar situations can we measure ‘how bad’ these losses are.

To that end, please consider some other facts which can reasonably be compared to the one at issue in order to give us the proper context:

We’ve lost twenty-five hundred personnel in three and a half years of combat in Iraq. However...

-We lost an average of around 12,000 soldiers every month during WWII.

-We lost 2,500 soldiers in just eight hours at Normandy in 1944

-We lost 19,000 soldiers on Okinawa in three months in 1945

When these facts are placed side-by-side with the fact of our losses in Iraq, it becomes quite clear that, while tragic as every lost life is, we are doing damned well at keeping our people safe over there.
The whole post here.


At 9:20 PM, Blogger Greybeard said...

What scares me is that you have to argue this point.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But although we need to minimize casualties to the degree we can, we cannot place to much emphasis on them. They really are irrelevant.....we need to get the job done!

We are fighting for our lives.
We are fighting for our way of life.
We're are fighting for our freedoms, to include our religious freedom.
We are fighting to keep our women from becoming "things".

If, in order to preserve our freedoms, we lose it all, it would be worth it.

So far, we are engaged in this battle with very little help, as other countries are either in denial about the danger, or they hope we can get the job done before they need to get their hands dirty/bloody. I fear that sometime soon, it will be all too apparent that non-Muslim countries are in for the fight of their lives.

Thank you Chicpilot for your service. It is your willingness to serve that grants you the ability to express your thoughts here, and gives me the right to respond to them!

At 10:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was an aircraft maintenance squadron commander in the 374 FW at Myrtle Beach during Desert Storm (I retired in 1994). I was briefed during that time that the Air Force had a net REDUCTION of fatalities as a result of that war. This was attributed to a reduction in motercycle and automobile accidents, because deployed personnel were not on the US roads to have them, and the fact that deployed personnel were not allowed to drink. The last time I had access to the numbers, the most common cause of death for a service member under 25 years of age would be a motorcycle accident. With that in mind, I would be very interested in learning the NET effect on fatalities in the armed forces of the current conflict. (I am not really anonymous, it seemed the only catagory that I could choose without a number or website--Ken Harkins)

At 7:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoyed your blog and wanted to say a big thanks for what you do. Its just too bad that politics are bringing this to W0X0F. Chief E


Post a Comment

<< Home