Good for James Na. This is an entirely long overdue perspective.

If I may add one other somewhat related set of statistics. Niall Ferguson's book Empire cites one of the conclusions of an 1863 Royal Commission report on the prospects for British rule in India: "With quintessentially Victorian precision, the Commission calculated that, out of an army of 70,000 British soldiers, 4,830 would die each year and 5,880 hospital beds would be occupied by those incapacitated by illness." (p. 173). Roughly these proportions would hold for nearly another 100 years. No one thought that the British presence in India was a "quagmire," until Britain's staggering losses in World War II weakened its hold on all the empire. One might add that Britain successfully governed a multiethnic nation of 250 million with only 900 British civl servants.

In a sense, we are the successor to the British Empire. Whatever order exists in the world exists largely because of us, and it necessary to approach this responsibility with some measure of sobriety. I weap, along with everyone else, over the stories about Pat Tillman and Corporal Dunham. But we do them no honor by collapsing into puddles of fear and sentimentality.

Thanks for posting this Matt, and also Mr. Rekdal for the info on the Brits.

The statistic I've been using isn't nearly as broad... looking at only the Navy Seals, you'll find that more died taking Noriega into custody in Panama, (a very short, and small action) than have given their lives in this conflict. Callous as it may sound, training dollars are tax dollars. The cost of training and equipping one Seal is a large multiple of that for an "ordinary" Marine, or Army infantryman. (or any other ground soldier) In terms of Humanity, all their lives are of equal value. It is more important that a life was lost than paying more training dolars to replace a soldier. This is merely an arguement that I had to use against a "bean-counter" who only cared what the war "cost" us monetarily. It is not my view that money superceeds human life in value.

I'd like for the statistics to show that we lost no lives in this conlict. But it isn't realistic to expect no casualties. The deaths of our own are something we will have to accept when utilizing the military to make the world a better place. Be proud that these brave men and women are willing to make that sacrifice.

As much as I disdain being the world's police force, it seems to have become our legacy.

First of all, many thanks to Matt Rosenberg for putting this piece from me on his blog.

Tom Rekdal brings up an interesting analogy to British rule in India. I have a few "stream of consciousness" remarks about the analogy.

1. On the one hand, British rule in India was before the coming of "the wars of national liberation" and nationalism in Third World regions. So perhaps the analogy might not work.

2. Also the British were colonial masters. We are not. We already promised an eventual full sovereignty transfer, so we are in a better position.

3. On the other hand, the British played factional and regional rivalries masterfully in India to keep the peace. Perhaps that is where the analogy works. This is something we need to do more in Iraq.

Some fear that this may bring about a Sunni-Shia-Kurd civil war. That is always a possibility. But this will always be the case unless we help the Iraqis institute a power-sharing system.

Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from the British in India about instituting a local balance-of-power to maintain stability. After all, India is, more or less, still stable and is one country.

Please tell Mr. Na to use numbers which are comparable.

The First Gulf War had 4 times as many troops in action for only a month. World War II had nearly 3 million men under arms for four years.

This War has 130,000 American troops who have been in action for a year and a half. And the numbers are going up, not down.

Mr. Na can speak for himself, but, from my point of view, the issue of strict comparablility in casualty rates between various wars is rather beside the point.

The more interesting question is whether our casualty rate in Iraq casts doubt on the feasibility of our objectives. We calmly accept around 40,000 highway deaths every year just to live an an auto-centered society. This is so much a part of the way we live that we no longer give it a thought, except perhaps when we read about a particularly grisly accident. Obviously, Iraq is not like that. We went in by choice, and we can leave by choice.

Do 60+ solidier deaths per month mean that we are paying too high a price? If you think that stabilization is impossible, or counter-productive, obviously, yes; even one death would be too much. On the other hand, if you think that pacification is possible, the price is not very high by any historical comparison. A stable, non-threatening Iraq, open to commercial trade, and moving, however slowly, in a democratic direction would be of enormous political and economic benefit, not just to us, but to most of the world. Whether this is a realistic effort is the interesting question, which a lachrymose focus on the current violence tends to obscure.

Mr. Rekdal is on point. The intent of my piece was putting the scale of the casualties in context of both our national fatalities rates and deaths in past wars.

Regarding "comparable numbers":

"The First Gulf War had 4 times as many troops in action for only a month. World War II had nearly 3 million men under arms for four years.

This War has 130,000 American troops who have been in action for a year and a half. And the numbers are going up, not down."

Now, are these comparable numbers? At first they seem so, but they are not. During the Gulf War, only a very limited number of troops actually saw combat. The rest were support troops who rarely ventured near the edge of the battle zone. Likewise, during WWII not all "3 million men under arms" were in war zones.

In contrast, most our troops in Iraq are, in fact, in combat zones. One can even argue that the entirely country is a one large combat zone. In such a war (where a hotel in the notionally "secure" rear area can blow up any moment), there is no longer a strict separation of the front and the rear.

What I mean is that, one can never get a set of exactly comparable figures. The danger levels varied from campaign to campaign, region to region and so forth.

What we do know for a fact, however, is that we have a far greater overall population than before (certainly more so than during WWII). Yet, the total deaths we've had each month from Iraq have been far fewer in number than in any war, month per month.

Again, my point is not that deaths are "cheaper" today than before. It was, rather, that as a nation we have not sustained the kind of per capita casualty level that we endured in past wars.

What's changed is that the media shows each death in an agonizing, repetitive fashion, thereby distorting the scale all out of whack in comparison to our overall national death rate and past casualty levels.

There was no complaint that American soldiers were dying "needlessly in a war of aggression" against a Nazi Germany that did not bomb Pearl Harbor.

Please make sure your historical facts are correct before posting them as the absolute truth. The USA declared war on Japan, but never Germany. After we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us. Are we not supposed to fight a country that declared war on us?

Mr. Holman:

You wrote: "Please make sure your historical facts are correct before posting them as the absolute truth."

Let me repeat:

"There was no complaint that American soldiers were dying "needlessly in a war of aggression" against a Nazi Germany that did not bomb Pearl Harbor."

What part of that statement is false? Surely you are not suggesting that Germany bombed Pearl Harbor?

Your point also brings up an interesting question. Let's say, for the moment, that Hitler was bright and decided not to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor. Then what? Despite the fact that Japan and Germany were allies, are you suggesting that the US should have done nothing against Germany?

I agree with your blog. You might also find the facts (and NY Times references) posted in
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/dec/article072.html
to be of additional interest, particularly the facts of accidental deaths in the peacetime US Army, and the total gun deaths in the US (suicide by guns, plus gun accidents, plus murders).
Dan Shanefield
P.S. Also, maybe the following is of interest, altho you might not agree with it:
http://linkerupper.blogspot.com

All of you must work in the accounting department of major corporations the way you speak of human deaths as if discussing whether or not it is justifiable to lose so many Tomahawk missiles on opening night.

I'm sorry that the agonizing, repetitive fashion of reporting death bothers you. Do you ever cry or just comment, "How tragic?" Try to get into the heart and mind of the parent or spouse when they learn their loved one died. Think of how distraught they became. Think of how overwhelmed with grief they became. Freedom isn't free but for most of us it is a damned good bargain because some one else picked up the check!

I found this blog through an inquiry as to what the average death rate was for the U.S. military during peacetime. Having served in a military capacity of one sort or another for 31 years it has been my experience that the career field has always involved the element of risk of being a combat or otherwise casualty. This realization seems to be true of most of the other people I encountered over the years who enter into the field, too. Needless to say people who elect to become firemen or police also have this awareness. Sooo....we made the choice with our eyes wide open and are willing to live with it.

I'm still interested in the statistics I mentioned before. Can you help?

Mr. Jackson,

Someone else will have to answer your question about average military deaths during peacetime. I am not sure I would even know how to define "peacetime" in a way that you would find relevant.

But I do have a suggestion that you might find worthwhile pursuing. I commend to your attention a little essay by Thomas C. Schelling, entitled "The Life You Save May be Your Own." It was originally published in Samuel B. Chase, Jr., ed., "Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis" (The Bookings Institution, 1968), pp. 127-62, and has most recently appeared in a collection of his essays titled "Choice and Consequence: Perspectives of an Errant Economist" (Harvard Unitersity Press, 1984), pp. 113-46.

Schelling's essay deals with what he calls "statistical death," more specifically with the question, "What is it worth to reduce the probability of death--the statistical frequency of death--within some identifiable group of people none of whom expects to die except eventually?"

As soon as one poses the question in this way, one is sure to be confronted by someone who lost a family member to an accident, or a buddy in war, and who is offended at the very idea that a "cost" coould be assigned to their loss.

But, of course, as a society, we do this all the time in the safety regulations we establish, the liability rules we create, the contracts we allow, and the foreign policies we pursue. To take one simple example, we know that there is a predictable relationship between speed limits and deaths on the highway: the higher the speed limit, the more people die in auto accidents. So why do we not set the speed limit at 10 miles per hour and drastically reduduce the highway death toll? The answer, quite simply, is that it would inconvenience too many people and impose too great an economic cost.

Is this shocking? Well, yes, if you think about death as an individual event. But we all occupy two roles, do we not? In one capacity, as citizens, we weigh the costs and benefits of "statistical deaths." And in another, as human beings, we read about those who died for our comfort--in Iraq--and we feel guilty. And we weep.

since the number of american soldiers are dying, how could anyone agree with the war in Iraq?

im not understanding the real purpose of this site. i mean from showing the death rate of our American neighbor shouldnt you want to try and bring our men and women in uniform home.

Hi, I understand this is an old blog, but what is says still applies today.

You mention how in WWII the media was respectful of the mourning and did not cover death tolls like the media today does.

First off, this is not WWII. To compare it to any other war we fought is ridiculous. This has probably been our worst military action since Clinton refused to send in tanks in N. Africa (for some reason it wont let me type in the name of the country). It is a war based upon lies told by your politicians, and judging by your rhetoric, the politicians you helped vote in (and many others you probably didnt, it still amazes me how few people spoke out against the war).

The fact is, every death matters simply because they died without a cause. Sure, they were looking after their buddy next to them and were there looking out for Iraqis, but that wasnt out original intent, after all Bush's reason for attacking Iraq went from WMDS (which was found to be incredibly false), to giving Iraqis freedom (which they had until we backed Saddam so he could rise to power), and then finally fighting terrorism, a terror that we created by going over there in the first place. Terrorism goes along with the old phrase, you can't fight fire with fire.

So for you to play off the deaths in Iraq as nothing when compared to actual wars such as WWII (in which we enacted a draft because of the sheer number of troops we needed), I need to say this, you should sign up for the Army and go over there yourself, instead of sitting behing a keyboard writing critiques about the media whos only crime has been to remind of of how many have died in such a quagmire, it is a quagmire, and will be a qugmire until we find a real reason to continue fighting.

Oh, and by the way, our all volunteer force as you describe it consists largely of people who simply needed a job, and is stretched thin. And in the event we go to war with another country, there will be a draft as it will be necessary, and I can only hope you are of draft age such as myself, so that I can address you in person when I see you in boot camp.

Reading through Mr. Minnery's stream-of-consciousness objections to the war in Iraq reminded me of General De Gaulle's sour reflection on his fellow countrymen: "How is it possible to rally a nation with 57 varieties of cheese?"

If most Americans share Mr. Minnery's belief that Iraqis were free until "we" put Saddam in power, or that there was not terror in Iraq until we went there to eliminate it, I have no doubt that our cause is, indeed, in vain.

But perhaps there is some hope in Mr. Minnery's suggestion that only direct combat exposure qualifies anyone to have an opinion on matters of war and peace. Why not restrict the franchise to those currently serving in the front lines of Iraq and Afganhistan? This does not exactly comport with my understanding of democracy, but it certainly solves the conflict of interest problem that worries Mr. Minnery.

I can abide the result. I wonder if Mr. Minnery could.

One of the numerous problems with the war against Iraq in regard to the home front was the difficulty many people had and have in seeing the immediacy of the threat we face. However, in at least one sense, the final confrontation of Saddam's government was vital not because it destroyed actively researched weapons programs, but rather because it demonstrated clearly to numerous dictators and warmongers around the world the willingness the US had to address the growing threat they continue to present. It matters very little how powerful the US military is if those it is meant to keep in check do not believe America has the stomach to use it... in fact, this mentality may have contributed to the successful development of nuclear weapons technology in such countries as North Korea and Iran. It is certain, at any rate, that the invasion of Iraq prompted Libya to abandon its nuclear ambitions...
Inevitably, the ensuring of international stability will require violent intervention into regions of the world where civilized and legitimate governments do not exist. It is entirely unrealistic to expect dictators without localized restraints on their exercise of power to deal with America and the democratic world honestly; indeed, we do more to support their illegitimate activities by pretending to respect their sovreignity. More military actions, though perhaps not of such an involved nature, such as the elimination of weapons factories and military installations, might prove an efficient and useful insentive for their cooperation in the war against terror. We cannot wait for governments to arm terrorists with weapons capable of causing mass terror, as the results of their application would be a disruption of society capable of bringing about a second great depression. Instead, we must continue to pursue a policy of deceptively 'unnecessary' warfare, so as to continually upset our enemies' plans and make clear to them the tenuiousness of their position in the world. Iraq, democracy aside, showed the world America was prepared to intervene even in the face of the international division. More such examples could easily drive the point home with attention-grabbing effect.