« The culture of life | Main | When victory is everything »

March 25, 2005



I apologize that the graph to the left is so elongated, but if it were any shorter, you wouldn't even be able to see the bar representing Iraq.

I also annualized the casualties. Since the war in Iraq to date has been shorter (by a factor of at least two) than the other wars, a graph of straight fatalities would minimize Iraq even further. For reference, I measured World War II from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day, the Civil War from Fort Sumter to Appomattox, and Vietnam from the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to the Paris Peace Accords.

The Civil War bar only counts military fatalities. If I included civilian fatalities, it would be the tallest bar by far.

Casualties are tragic. I mourn our brave men and women who've made the ultimate sacrifice. But, c'mon, let's show a little perspective. There is not one single person who would otherwise favor the war who should oppose it on account of casualties. The casualty rate is not an argument against this war, and shame on those who try to make it one. They exploit America's heroes for their own political ends.

March 25, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Perspective:


Nice try, but misleading. Wounds that were most certainly fatal in WWII and Vietnam are survivable today. Also, there were more US combat soldiers in action in WWII and Vietnam. If you adjust for the survivability factor, and combat deaths per 10,000 soldiers, the Iraq War looks more like Vietnam circa 1966.

Posted by: heraldblog | Mar 26, 2005 6:26:05 AM

If you are going to add the wounds in from OIF then you also need to add the wounded in from Vietnam and WWII.

Posted by: TehBadPlace | Mar 26, 2005 9:21:43 AM

I don't quite understand the point about there being more soldiers in the field during WWII and Vietnam. Because we can get the job done in Iraq with less manpower, that somehow makes the war less worth fighting?

Posted by: Voice of Reason | Mar 26, 2005 11:19:58 AM

Re: Your graph.

How can WWII have more deaths per year when the Civil War had more overall deaths? Civil War - 660,000 dead. WW II - 400,000 dead. Both lasted approx. 4 years.

Everyone knows the Civil War was the bloodiest and costliest war in US History.

Am I missing something here?

Posted by: exmarine | Oct 28, 2005 1:47:28 PM

Yes. The figure of 660,000 includes non-combat fatalities, mainly from disease. For the sake of this comparison I didn't include these, but if I did, the Civil War bar would tower over the others, and the Iraq bar would be even smaller by way of comparison to the other three.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | Oct 28, 2005 1:52:54 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.