OIF US Casualty Status

#2
#2
I'll play your game. Here are some much more interesting statistics:

Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004:
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 .......... 2,380
1982 .......... 2,318
1983 .......... 2,465
1984 .......... 1,999
1985 .......... 2,252
1986 .......... 1,984
1987 .......... 1,983
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 .......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 .......... 1,040
1996 .......... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 .......... 774
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1007
2003 .......... 1,410 ----- 534*
2004 .......... 1,887 ----- 900*
2005 .......... 919*
2006 .......... 920* * Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
fatalities only

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Click to expand...
Most of those casualties prior to GWOT were training related.
 
#4
#4
therealUT said:
I'll play your game. Here are some much more interesting statistics:


Most of those casualties prior to GWOT were training related.
Click to expand...

good I see the same graph for expenditures over the same time frame?
 
#5
#5
Can anyone shed light on the 600+ troop deaths in OIF that were not combat related? That's about 17% of the deaths.

What is the typical cause, is that percentage typical for a military action?
 
#6
#6
Quote:
Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004:
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 .......... 2,380
1982 .......... 2,318
1983 .......... 2,465
1984 .......... 1,999
1985 .......... 2,252
1986 .......... 1,984
1987 .......... 1,983
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 .......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 .......... 1,040
1996 .......... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 .......... 774
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1007
2003 .......... 1,410 ----- 534*
2004 .......... 1,887 ----- 900*
2005 .......... 919*
2006 .......... 920* * Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
fatalities only

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Boy if the majority of the American people weren't brainwashed my the liberal media, then maybe they would see that our casualties were not catastrophic as portrayed by the media. That's one reason we can't get anywhere in this war with the American people is we have to pussyfoot around because of these bloodsucking vermin media outlets that have no idea what is going on over there. I would bet my bottom dollar that only about 30-40% of the media outlets that report on the war haven't actually been over there in the first place.
 
#7
#7
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I would bet my bottom dollar that only about 30-40% of the media outlets that report on the war haven't actually been over there in the first place.
Click to expand...

I would bet that 80% of the politicians pushing this war have not been as well. Add to that the voters who support this...have they been there? Or even in the military? There is a flipside to this and it is often greater in number.

Oddly enough we are at a faster casualty rate than the first 5 years we were 'advising' in South Vietnam. We all know how that went as well with escalations and propping up governments with locals not really appreciating the help.

I really love how people justify the numbers by bringing up examples of these casualties being lower than traffic deaths, DUI deaths, smoking, etc. I guess we've just trivialized our soldiers to common deaths and NOT being subject to stupid foreign policy decisions.
 
#8
#8
CSpindizzy said:
I would bet that 80% of the politicians pushing this war have not been as well. Add to that the voters who support this...have they been there? Or even in the military? There is a flipside to this and it is often greater in number.

Oddly enough we are at a faster casualty rate than the first 5 years we were 'advising' in South Vietnam. We all know how that went as well with escalations and propping up governments with locals not really appreciating the help.

I really love how people justify the numbers by bringing up examples of these casualties being lower than traffic deaths, DUI deaths, smoking, etc. I guess we've just trivialized our soldiers to common deaths and NOT being subject to stupid foreign policy decisions.
Click to expand...

Vietnam War US Casualties 47,410 1964-1975 = 11 soldiers killed per day.

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom US casualties 3,273 2003-2006 = 2 soldiers killed per day.

War on Terror since 2001 (pre 9-11 included) US casualties 7,033 2001-2006 = 3 soldiers killed per day

Now I know you said just the first 5 years of Vietnam but you can't take it like that since we weren't very directly involved at all. Honestly though we had 553,000 in Vietnam by 1969 and I don't think we even have that many people currently enlisted in our military right now. So you really can't compare the first 5 years in Vietnam to this war at all.
 
#10
#10
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Now I know you said just the first 5 years of Vietnam but you can't take it like that since we weren't very directly involved at all. Honestly though we had 553,000 in Vietnam by 1969 and I don't think we even have that many people currently enlisted in our military right now. So you really can't compare the first 5 years in Vietnam to this war at all.
Click to expand...

We weren't directly involved? Spin it how you may. But for 'Mission Accomplished' I'd say this is a pretty high death toll. We were 'advising' the RVN forces then. We were propping up a 'west friendly' government. We were not popular with the locals. We were trying to contain and/or destroy an enemy working within the populace. Yes, there are great differences but keep in mind we had no intentions of being in SE Asia for a while but due to local civil war/insurgencies/rebellions or whatever you want to call them we remained there to try to get control of the situation.
 
#11
#11
CSpindizzy said:
We weren't directly involved? Spin it how you may. But for 'Mission Accomplished' I'd say this is a pretty high death toll. We were 'advising' the RVN forces then. We were propping up a 'west friendly' government. We were not popular with the locals. We were trying to contain and/or destroy an enemy working within the populace. Yes, there are great differences but keep in mind we had no intentions of being in SE Asia for a while but due to local civil war/insurgencies/rebellions or whatever you want to call them we remained there to try to get control of the situation.
Click to expand...

Oh I know that, the problem I was pointing out was we have been directly involved in Iraq since we arrived there, but we weren't directly involved in Vietnam for the reasons you pointed out in your post. So if your going to compare apples to oranges then it not a very fair comparison.
 
#12
#12
We've been involved in Iraq since '90. One could argue we've been involved there even before that. But all during the 90's we had about 50% of the airspace controlled as a no-fly zone meaning we flew daily sorties all over the north and south. We had certain groups VERY involved in the north with the Kurds. We were a lot more involved than you are caring to admit.
 
#13
#13
CSpindizzy said:
We've been involved in Iraq since '90. One could argue we've been involved there even before that. But all during the 90's we had about 50% of the airspace controlled as a no-fly zone meaning we flew daily sorties all over the north and south. We had certain groups VERY involved in the north with the Kurds. We were a lot more involved than you are caring to admit.
Click to expand...

OK, so are we talking about the Iraq war front 2001-now or before that as well because your losing me here??
 
#14
#14
By 1965 we had more forces in Vietnam than we've had in Iraq: 185K. By that point we only had over 1,800 casualties. This was before the massive escalations, etc.
 
#15
#15
volinbham said:
Can anyone shed light on the 600+ troop deaths in OIF that were not combat related? That's about 17% of the deaths.

What is the typical cause, is that percentage typical for a military action?
Click to expand...

most are caused by traffic accidents.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top