“Soldiers have long been subjected to invidious generational comparison,” writes Phillip Carter and Owen West in their recent Slate article, Iraq 2004 Looks Like Vietnam 1966. The opening line turns out to be prophetic as the two former military officers provide their own invidious comparison between the situation in Iraq and the early phase of the Vietnam War:
After factoring in medical, doctrinal, and technological improvements, infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004 comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966—and in some cases more lethal. Even discrete engagements, such as the battle of Hue City in 1968 and the battles for Fallujah in 2004, tell a similar tale: Today's grunts are patrolling a battlefield every bit as deadly as the crucible their fathers faced in Southeast Asia.
There is no disputing that Iraq is a dangerous area where our troops are in constant danger from terrorist activity. But is the situation comparable to Vietnam?
In 1966, a total of 6,053 servicemembers were killed either in action or because of "non-hostile" wounds; in 2004, the total number was 896. The difference between the deaths in Vietnam and those in Iraq is a ratio of almost 7 to 1.
But with a little sleight-of-hand and some tweaking of statistics, Carter and West are able to conclude that the true 2004 "constant casualty" figure in Iraq is 3,065 KIA. While the process they use to arrive at that figure is a bit murky, I trust that it was vetted by someone who knows what they are talking about. Still, the figure fails in one key respect – the death toll is 896, not 3,065.
Their methodology attempts to use a similar process as “constant dollars” in historical inflation rates. The problem with this approach is that there has been no “increase in the value” of the lives of the men and women in Iraq relative to those in Vietnam. Inflation may affect prices but it doesn’t affect the worth of soldiers and Marines. Yet that is the disturbing conclusion in the comparison. Carter and Owen are essentially arguing that the life of one servicemember in 2004 is equal to the “value” of three in 1966.
The attempt to draw attention to the dangers in Iraq is certainly noteworthy. But as Power Line points outs, the article simply creates a straw man for the “purpose of drawing a specious analogy to Vietnam.” While Carter and West are likely unaware of the hidden implications of their analysis, they should recognize that such fallacious comparisons are demeaning to those who were seriously wouned or lost their lives in service to our country. Iraq in ‘04 is not Vietnam in ’66 and, while every loss is tragic, 6,053 deaths is not the same as 896. We can honor our casualties and exhibit concern for our troops without resorting to body count inflation.
If they wish to truly devalue the lives of our service men and women to the trivial level of numbers, they should at least do so with some small amount of mathematical integrity. To wit:
A) compare the casualties as a percentage of current US population, or
B) compare them as a percentage of the number of people freed from dictatorial rule by their efforts.
Either way, the message would be clear: our military today is vastly superior to our 1960's version, in doing what a military is supposed to do: kill enemy combatants, lose as few of our own as possible, and achieve tactical and strategic goals as set forth by the commanders.
I have never heard of a "constant casualty" figure. I could understand if they compared casualty numbers to the number of military personnel involved and came up with a percentage. But, the CC number smells of statistical tinkering meaning nothing.
It sounds a lot like the attempts to measure the effectiveness of soldiers of each army in WWII. The Germans came out with a vastly superior number. The problem though was the calculation didn't take into account things such as operational mode (offensive or defense), air superiority, etc. In the end, the value of the number was useless. I am going to say that the CC falls into the same category.
The problem with this approach is that there has been no “increase in the value” of the lives of the men and women in Iraq relative to those in Vietnam. Inflation may affect prices but it doesn’t affect the worth of soldiers and Marines.
Either:
a) Sure they have because, like in everything else the military development has been involved, the trend has been greater lethality, so one American's life "on the battlefield" is indeed worth more today in terms of lives of enemy soldiers than previously, OR
b) They're not and therefore SOB Rumsfeld really fought this war on the cheap OR
c) "a" is true, but Rumsfeld still fourght this war on the cheap, and is guilty of the worst kind of cruel indifference to human life.
Oh and the death toll is greater than 896. The idea that those that died in accidents are somehow less dead is not really comforting to the families of those soldiers.
I have never heard of a "constant casualty" figure. I could understand if they compared casualty numbers to the number of military personnel involved and came up with a percentage.
Although I fail to see the point of the analysis in the Slate article, except to show that battlefield medical advances have dramatically improved survivability, their "constant casuality" figure is exactly what that number is. They did it two ways. They looked at the percentage of wounded who died in Vietnam, 25%, compared to the percentage wounded who died in Iraq, 16%, and then came up with the number of KIA there would have been if our medical technology held the percentage constant--~1100 KIA. They then looked at the fact that there were over 300,000 servicemen in Vietnam in 1966 compared to about 140,000 in Iraq. Based on that ratio they come up with the 3000 number that Joe quoted. If you combined the two statistical inflations (because that's exactly what they are) then we would have a KIA count at this point of somewhere on the order of 5000-6000 soldiers. That would be inline with Vietnam, which is expected. Of course this proves nothing. We've basically transposed Vietnam statistics onto our current headcount and casuality count. Assuming that if we had three times the number of personel that we'd have three times the number of KIA is simply untennable. To then assume that we were back to having a KIA ratio 1.5 times what it actually is, to arrive back at the Vietnam ratio, has no grounding.
The end result of this analysis is that the troop to casuality ratio (not KIA ratio) is constant between Vietnam and Iraq. Without having the raw numbers you can see that by the fact that the multipliers on the number casualities to number of soldiers to KIA-rate comes up with nearly the same number of KIA (again a fictious number). I'd say that this probably isn't too surprising. I'd also like to know why Slate didn't just come right out and throw the casualty-to-troop percentages up instead of going through this labored and unnecessary analysis. The bottom line however, as Joe states, is that Iraq is a dangerous place to be working. This figure is also only looking at U.S. personel casualties, not those of the Iraqi police and military forces who now fight alongside the U.S. soldiers. I'm suspecting their KIA to casuality rate is significantly higher.
Mumon: c) "a" is true, but Rumsfeld still fourght this war on the cheap, and is guilty of the worst kind of cruel indifference to human life.
As is becoming typical, your comment borders on the incoherent. Was that entire comment suppossed to make any sense?
Oh and the death toll is greater than 896.
That figure includes both KIA (754) and "non-hostile" mishaps (142).
Assuming that if we had three times the number of personel that we'd have three times the number of KIA is simply untennable. To then assume that we were back to having a KIA ratio 1.5 times what it actually is, to arrive back at the Vietnam ratio, has no grounding.
The end result of this analysis is that the troop to casuality ratio (not KIA ratio) is constant between Vietnam and Iraq.
Maybe I missed something, but it seems that these statements contradict themselves.
If it's correct that casualties increase with boots on the ground, then why do people argue for more boots?
Joe Carter:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ lists 1043 KIA, and 1326 total, which comes from, those liberals at the DOD.
I can't understand why you'd find what I wrote incoherent, with the exception of a spelling error.
Surely you'd not defend Rumsfeld, would you?
corrie:
The issue has to do with what you need to combat a guerilla insurgency.
Now, the conventional wisdom is roughly 10-50 times the number of guerillas is needed to defeat such an insurgency (see, e.g., James F. Dunnigan's "How to Make War,").
So one usually postulates a number of guerillas, and calculates the number of boots on the ground required to defeat the insurgency.
However, it is argued by some in the Pentagon, and by the DoD's leaders (like Rumsfeld) that those numbers are somehow "old," and don't reflect the new, high tech military.
In the case of Iraq, we can estimate that there's at least say, 10,000-50,000 guerillas. Doing the math - not Rummy's "new math" would imply that at least 1 million troups would be needed.
The casualties would increase with more boots on the ground, but there is the chance- and I'd call it just that, speaking honestly- the chance, that maybe the insurgency could be defeated.
It's not clear to me that this is true, though.
mumon,
Are your figures from 2004 only or from 2003 and 2004?
Mumon: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ lists 1043 KIA, and 1326 total, which comes from, those liberals at the DOD.
Those figures are total for the entire war. The 896 is the total for 2004. The Slate article was limited to a comparison of 1966 and 2004, not the entire war. Now if they want to compare the total death tolls from both wars…
I can't understand why you'd find what I wrote incoherent, with the exception of a spelling error.
Your comment can be summarized as:
1) Either American lives are worth more today or
2) They’re not. And since they are not worth more, Rumsfeld had a “cheap” war since there was no increase in the value of the lives lost. Or...
3) 1 is true, 2 is true, and you don’t like Rumsfeld.
Surely you'd not defend Rumsfeld, would you?
No, of course not. I mean the man only lead the DoD through two successful wars in three years. He’s obviously an abject failure worthy of scorn.
Maybe I missed something, but it seems that these statements contradict themselves.
I think you did miss something. As it stands right now the casuality to troop ratio is the same in Iraq as it was in Vietnam. That's a statement of fact. To say that tripling the number of troops will triple the number of casualities, or reducing by a third the number of troops will reduce casualities by a similar ratio, is what is untennable. It is possible that tripling the number of troops will cause that ratio to go up due to poor training of new troops or lack of maneuverability in urban warefare with the larger troop elements. IT is possible the ratio will drop as the number of troops per detail or the number of sentries minimizes the guerillas' effectiveness. I don't think anyone here or at slate know the answer to that. Considering that the original military estimate was for three times the number of present troops, I'd say the military analysts believe that the ratio will drop when the number of troops increases.
If it's correct that casualties increase with boots on the ground, then why do people argue for more boots?
By the reverse logic if we cut the number of troops to zero we'd have no casualities. The problem is there is a mission to be finished. If adding more troops increases the number of casualities but decreases the casuality-to-troop ratio, then it would be a good indication of what needs to be done. More importantly, if the number of existing troops is insufficient to stabilize the country then we need to send in more troops to finish cleaning up the mess we started even if the ratio stays constant or even increases. It pains me that the actions of these incompetents in the White House and their think tank groups on the periphery will cause even more deaths and injuries to our troops, but unfortunately this is the path we as a country have been put on and we have to stick to it.
No, of course not. I mean the man only lead the DoD through two successful wars in three years. He’s obviously an abject failure worthy of scorn.
Afghanistan I'll give him. We accomplished what the Soviets couldn't by aligning ourselves with the warlords (aka opium producers) to overthrow a common enemy in the Taliban.
The second Gulf War however is another story. We fought against a beaten down demoralized military who's loyalty to Saddam was questionable at best. I'd still give him that one except that he failed to provide the necessary planning to stabilize the country and provide the right environment for the seeds of democracy to grow there. Is that a very difficult task? Absolutely. That's why no one in the Bush I administration wanted to do it. That's why his advisors originally wanted three times the current number of troops. That's why Colin Powell warned Bush, "If you break it, you own it." Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and the rest of them however were too busy listening to their sycophant ideologue analysts instead of their reality based counterparts in the Pentagon. That is why the situation continues to deteriorate in Iraq and why we are going to be paying for their actions for the next several decades.
Moderate: I'd still give him that one except that he failed to provide the necessary planning to stabilize the country and provide the right environment for the seeds of democracy to grow there.
Why is that Rumsfeld’s job? The DoD is in charge of fighting the war, not providing the “seed of democracy.”
Is that a very difficult task? Absolutely. That's why no one in the Bush I administration wanted to do it.
The idea that we went into Iraq without a “plan” is so silly that it doesn't merit discussing. The problem is that, contrary to what liberals may believe, government planning is not a silver bullet that can solve all problems. In fact, government planning rarely works the way it is supposed to. That is why conservatives want less of it rather than more.
That's why his advisors originally wanted three times the current number of troops.
And that is why we have a Pentagon that is smart enough to recognize that three times the troop strength was not needed.
That is why the situation continues to deteriorate in Iraq and why we are going to be paying for their actions for the next several decades.
Liberals must have some secret intelligence agency that the rest of us are not aware of. From all indications, things are going much better in Iraq. The increase is violence is attributable to the fact that a democratic election is less than a month away. I realize that not everyone wants a democracy in the Middle East but I tend to think it is something worth fighting for.
Joe Carter:
Sorry, but our main objective, getting bin Laden, wasn't met in Afghanistan, and Iraq? Please.
Why is that Rumsfeld’s job? The DoD is in charge of fighting the war, not providing the “seed of democracy.”
And how is that supposed to be accomplished without military force doing the stabilization?
The idea that we went into Iraq without a “plan” is so silly that it doesn't merit discussing. The problem is that, contrary to what liberals may believe, government planning is not a silver bullet that can solve all problems. In fact, government planning rarely works the way it is supposed to. That is why conservatives want less of it rather than more.
Yes we know the original plan. We go in and depose Saddam. The Iraqi's come out and throw flowers at our feet. We spend 6-8 months mopping up the last remnants of the pro-Saddam loyalists and then we leave with Iraq being a stable democracy. That's like planning your retirement by buying lottery tickets.
Liberals must have some secret intelligence agency that the rest of us are not aware of. From all indications, things are going much better in Iraq. The increase is violence is attributable to the fact that a democratic election is less than a month away.
We've had one of the deadliest months in Iraq since the president declared "Mission Accomplished." Both Rumsfeld and Powell this week said that the insurgency is not being effectively addressed and that it needs to be. You have the last major Sunni party pulling out of the election thus increasing the risk that a significant portion of the Iraqi population will not see the January elections as being legitimate. The signs that everything isn't turning into rainbows and gumdrops in Iraq are there if you'd just look past the Fox News smoke screen.
I realize that not everyone wants a democracy in the Middle East but I tend to think it is something worth fighting for.
It is something worth fighting for, but lets fight in a smart fashion. This group is not cutting it.
Why is that Rumsfeld’s job? The DoD is in charge of fighting the war, not providing the “seed of democracy.”
And and lest we forget that Rumsfeld was given the job of securing the peace instead of the State Department. So whether the DoD should have taken on the entire role instead of a support role is moot. Rummy screwed the pooch on it plain and simple.
In fact, government planning rarely works the way it is supposed to. That is why conservatives want less of it rather than more.
The solution being pawned off on us is to turn all of these government functions over to these corporate giants. You therefore get all the inefficiencies of gigantism that you had in government but then you add to it no accountability and surcharging to show profits. Yippy! GOP privatization sounds great to me!
And Joe...FYI...I'm for the dismantling of both government and corporate gigantism. Replacing government gigantism with corporate gigantism is going to do nothing but make the situation worse, for the reasons I stated below. A re-emphasis on local governments and small businesses I think is the key. That is not what the Republicans are selling.
Sorry, but our main objective, getting bin Laden, wasn't met in Afghanistan, and Iraq? Please.
Our main objective is to destroy terrorism and make sure 9/11 doesn't happen again. Who seriously believes that removing bin Laden would stop or even slow the thousands of militant Islamofascists, the Hamases, and the like? As if bin Laden is the source of power behind Wahhabism. He is and always has been a prime target, but never the primary objective.
Why don't we compare the efficacy of the two wars in 1966 and 2004, instead of body counts, ratios, etc? So far during 2004 not one terrorist attack has surfaced in the United States. A pro-democracy element has emerged in Iraq, and millions of people are ready and willing to vote. I don't know that we can speak as well of 1966.
As you point out, this focus on the body count is specious and stupid. And these comparisons to Vietnam via body count "inflation" are utterly idiotic.
But worse than all that, they focus the mind on the precise wrong issue. We can lose in Iraq without losing another soldier. As sad as it would be, we can win in Iraq even though, for a time, we're losing hundreds or even thousands of soldiers a month. The "body count" tells us how many brave souls have given their lives, and, to an extent, provides an glimpse of how "hot" the war is (as well as a reminder that the war is not yet over). The body count does not tell us, however, whether those brave soldiers gave their lives in victory or defeat.
The invasion and removal of Sadaam Hussein was brilliant. And there was good planning done in the Pentagon and the State Department for the post-invasion period. The problem is that Rumsfield and the Bush administration ignored it or deliberately discounted it in the name of a dirty little inter-agency turf war.
http://www.gryphmon.com/2004/09/postiraq_war_pr.html
But there another issue in your statement that needs addressing.
In context of overall Government bureaucracy I'd agree with you. But we are talking about our National Defense, not the out-sourcing of school lunches. Even if the private sector is more efficient, (and it probably is) it would be wrong.
One of the creepiest things this Administration has done is to outsource elements of our National Security to multi-national corporations.
In the CPA for example, security was provided for Paul Bremer by Blackwater, not the US Army. There are hundreds, if not thousands of mercenaries on the ground in Iraq. I do not disparage their profession, but their participation is often inappropriate.
The US military is answerable to US American citizens, through our government. The security contractors however, are answerable to their company, which may not even be American - based. It's an inherent conflict of interest. It's also damaging to our national defense. For example, it tends to drain valuable personnel from the our military into the private sector. Thats great for private industry, and even for the individual soldier, but what about the American citizen?
There is a larger question of principle. If my country goes to war, then I am responsible for that as an American citizen. Therefore it should be my representative on the ground in Iraq, in the form of a U.S Soldier, not some third party rent-a-cop whom I've never heard of and is not answerable to me. It's also a moral obligation we owe to the to Iraqi people as the country that occupied their country. We are responsible now for Iraqi lives. We did break it. We do own it.
A few parallels in general principle to the current situation in Iraq. Your opponent will always step up offensive actions and/or make desparate moves when they are losing. The goal is to at a minimum achieve a balance to the situation or at a maximum, regain the initiative. Two previous war examples are the Battle of the Bulge and the Tet Offensive. So, why are casualty figures so high, simply put, the enemy is attempting to regain the initiative and has stepped up operations. Stepped up enemy activity is not necessarily a sign of losing.
With regards to complaints as to how the war is being fought, I think that has mainly to do with politics. I don't like the way the post invasion portion has been fought, but I don't know that you could do it any other way. Fighting insurgencies gets bloody and nasty. And, I doubt that the people complaining about how we are fighting the war now would like it better the other way. Today, I believe we are at least trying to maintain a good level of decency in operations and respect cultural sensitivities. How many here support bulldozing any mosque used as a base by the insurgents? There aren't easy answers here.
Mr. Lutz --
Your opponent will always step up offensive actions and/or make desparate moves when they are losing. The goal is to at a minimum achieve a balance to the situation or at a maximum, regain the initiative. Two previous war examples are the Battle of the Bulge and the Tet Offensive.
Quick note: No, not necessarily true. Opponents also can fold (e.g., Saddam's forces during the invasion) or retreat and retrench (e.g., the Romans fighting Hannibal; the Russians at Stalingrad) when they're losing. Opponents also, obviously, step up military actions when they're winning.
I don't mean to suggest that we're losing in Iraq, by the bye. I just want to point out that the silly "we know we are winning because of their aggression" argument is, well, silly.
I just want to point out that the silly "we know we are winning because of their aggression" argument is, well, silly.
Sorry if I implied that, because I didn't mean to. However, I think it's just as "silly" to suggest that we are losing because the enemy has stepped up operations.
I recently read Anthony Herbert's book about his time in the Army. I believe he was a highly decorated US soldier during the Korean War and had significant success during Vietnam. One point he made while he was having his success was that he didn't expect his tactics to keep working as the enemy would adapt. Thus forcing him to change. I think some of that is going on in Iraq. Both sides are adapting and at times one side or another has the upper-hand.
In insurgencies, its hard to tell who is winning.
Chris -- I wholly agree with your 3:33 post. Well said.
Joe writes
"I realize that not everyone wants a democracy in the Middle East but I tend to think it is something worth fighting for."
Is it worth dying for Joe in your opinoin? Would you rather be dead and leave your daughter fatherless as long as Iraq has some bogus affirmative action-driven fake democracy in place (there is no indication that there "democracy" is going to be anywhere near as free and democratic as our own pathetic system)?
Or might it possibly be more Christian to put down your gun, avoid killing any innocent Iraqis, and move to Canada?
Seriously.
I ask the question again that only Joe responded to last time (And, I think you could probably do better Joe), although you did at least acknowledge the query last time around). One note-I hate to say it so bluntly as 'worth it' because that implies I'm measuring human life against some standard, and I don't have that ability. But for the hundreds of billions and the carnage it has caused, the effect has to be more than marginal, for it to have been 'worth it' in my view.
Opponents: If you think the War was a bad idea, what could realistically develop in the near future, let's say two years, that would change your mind to thinking it was worth it?
Proponents: Same question, if you think the War was a good idea, what could realistically happen that would change your mind to thinking it wasn't worth it?
Now, I realize that the term 'realistically' isn't exactly precise. But I think that's OK for a Blog debate. I'll take a whack at answering both.
If two or three years from now we are mired in the same conflict we see now, with no end in sight, and we still have a 100,000 plus troops in there, it's probably not 'worth it', but it might not be a disaster, yet. We'd be looking at some manpower problems if what Barry McCaffery and Schwartzkopf, and a few others are telling me, so we might be looking at a draft. We need to see positive, measurable, developments, not the same f-d up lousy failed state we're looking at now, for it have been worth the death of thousands on both sides.
If within the next two or three years, we get attacked again by Al Qaeda or some spin off, significantly, it wasn't worth it to focus on Iraq. We can't claim we're safer, if we're not safer.
If within the next two or three years we high tail it out of there and leave behind a wrecked, fractured nation simmering with outlaws and gangs, a failed state for militants to in effect, take over portions of, it wasn't worth it.
If we have a vehemently western-hostile government, even one duly elected, which gives aid and comfort to Islamic Militants, it wasn't worth it.
If a major revolt in Saudi Arabia, or Jordan kicks up, sponsored by operatives working out of Iraq, and inflamed because of hatred for the US over Iraq, or because we took Saddam out, which results in a major nation currently at peace with us to throw in with our enemies, it wasn't worth it.
If another threat flares up, old or new, and we can't get international help because of Iraq, and we have too many resources pinned down in Iraq to respond quickly, then it wasn't worth it.
If two or three years from now, we can look back, see a reasonably peaceful, non-hostile, organized nation, the kind where you can travel without being kidnapped by roving gangs looking to sell you to terrorists for a private Al Qaeda snuff film, we have our commitment drawn down substantially, and we don't get attacked in the meantime, and no real change in AQ's numbers or operations, significantly, by someone whom we should have kept the pressure on; Then it might have been worth it. If Iraq becomes a staunch dependable ally for the US in the region in this time period, it may have been worth it.
If you can't answer those questions with some kind of direct, half-ass, non-evasive answer on either side, then you don't have any defined criteria of success, failure, or draw. It seems reasonable to me that one needs to be able to state the falsification criteria, regardless of which side you're taking, to be taken as seriously concerned about America's safety over saving face for your initial position, no matter what happens. IOW, one has to be able to admit you could be wrong, and spell out why you could be wrong. This goes for both sides. No whining if you want to play. You can either answer, or you cannot, and if you cannot then your position doesn't have any rationale behind it. I don't expect brilliant answer off the cuff, it's fine to think about it a bit, in fact I'd rather you did think about it a bit. But I won't stop asking ;)
Sorry if I came off kind of strong there people. It looks a little harsh in the light of a bright new morning. I have a corneal abrasion, and I think it's affecting my normally cheery disposition.
Opponents: If you think the War was a bad idea, what could realistically develop in the near future, let's say two years, that would change your mind to thinking it was worth it?
Well, you see many things would have to happen. Not only have we created a strategic debacle in Iraq, (though it's true- it's not Vietnam, where we were up against an organized liberation movement that happened to be Communist) but we have squandered the opportunity cost of not doing anything.
So... I'd have to see:
Iraq become a stable country.
Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace (prospects hindered greatly by the Iraq adventure)
America lessen its dependence of petroleum.
America actually vanquish al Qaeda...
America again become a respected leader in the world, with a strong dollar...
Now none of that's going to happen, and so even if Iraq comes through as a shining example of ...a western democracy?...it's never going to be anything near a complete success, and more likely is emblematic of the twighlight of the American supremacy.