Slate has an interesting article today written by a former Army officer that claims when "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."
"This disparity between the 'lethal wound' rates has profound implications. Analogy is a powerful tool for perspective, and Vietnam still reverberates, but the numbers must reflect the actual risks. In 1966, for example, 5,008 U.S. servicemen were killed in action in Vietnam. Another 1,045 died of "non-hostile" wounds (17 percent of the total fatalities). Since Jan. 1, 2004, 754 U.S. servicemen and -women have been killed in action in Iraq, and 142 more soldiers died in "non-hostile" mishaps (16 percent of the fatalities, similar to Vietnam). Applying Vietnam's lethality rate (25 percent) to the total number of soldiers killed in action in Iraq this year, however, brings the 2004 KIA total to 1,131.
The scale can be further balanced. In 1966, U.S. troops in Vietnam numbered 385,000. In 2004, the figure in Iraq has averaged roughly 142,000. Comparing the burden shouldered by individual soldiers in both conflicts raises the 2004 'constant casualty' figure in Iraq to 3,065 KIA. Further, casualties in Iraq fall more heavily on those performing infantry missions. Riflemen—as well as tankers and artillerymen who operate in provisional infantry units in Iraq—bear a much higher proportion of the risk than they did in Vietnam. In Vietnam, helicopter pilots and their crews accounted for nearly 5 percent of those killed in action. In Iraq in 2004, this figure was less than 3 percent. In Vietnam, jet pilots accounted for nearly 4 percent of U.S. KIAs. In 2004, the United States did not lose a single jet to enemy action in Iraq. When pilots and aircrews are removed from the equation, 4,602 ground-based soldiers died during 1966 in Vietnam, compared to 2,975 in Iraq during 2004."
Little needs to be said about how daunting the situation in Iraq looks when compared this way.
"Critics of the war may use this analysis as one more piece of ammunition to attack the effort; some supporters may continue to refer to casualties as 'light,' noting that typically tens of thousands of Americans must die in war before domestic support crumbles. Both miss the point. The casualty statistics make clear that our nation is involved in a war whose intensity on the ground matches that of previous American wars. Indeed, the proportional burden on the infantryman is at its highest level since World War I. With next year's budget soon to be drafted, it is time for Washington to finally address their needs accordingly."
Indeed.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was surprised by this also. I'd imagined that any similarities between Vietnam and Iraq were political, not military.
I hadn't thought of it before, but when I heard it it made sense. As I was discussing with Adam, basically the biggest reason casualties have decreased since WWII is medical care. WWII began the trend of having medical care on the battlefield. In Vietnam we used helicopters to bring almost all casualties to hospitals in mere minutes instead of days. Nowadays we have even more sophisticated technology and better armor to keep our soldiers from gettin hurt, we have better medical treatment on the front lines, we have even more immediately located hospitals with better medical technology than ever before. It's no surprise so many fewer soldiers die. If you want a telling contrast, look what happened to the soldiers in Somalia. Many of them died instantly or nearly so, but there are several incidents of men who could have been saved if only we'd been able to evacuate them.
My point is this: we're fighting in a war so hot that we're still losing that many men even with all the advantages our soldiers have. People need to realize that this means something's wrong.
I think Americans are slowly coming around to that fact. It's unfortunate that we only count the costs of the war by those killed, and not by those who lose their limbs or are psychologically scarred for life, but when people see on the news five or more significant attacks or bombings all across Iraq everyday, they get a sense that things have gone very, very wrong.
Post a Comment