« NASCAR Bumper Sticker Decision | Main | Islamists Are Run Out of Mogadishu Without So Much as a Shot »

The 9/11-Iraq Death Toll Milestone

I agree with Barcepundit's commentary on the "milestone" that was recently reached with military deaths in Iraq topping the number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks:

Did anyone ever think to criticize World War II after the 2.303 'grim milestone' was reached (the number of people killed at Pearl Harbor)? Obviously not; back then people had the moral compass in place. Just think that as the war ended, they would have been able to count that 'grim milestone' a staggering 182 times, since in WW2 about 420,000 people died, 407,000 of them military.
I am sure I have said this before, but another thing to think about is that we will never know how many more people might have been killed in subsequent terrorist attacks if the information gained from the Iraq invasion had never been obtained.

Another thing that is rarely considered is how many military deaths would have occured (in training, etc.) during the same time period even if we were not in Iraq. The death of every fallen American hero is sad, and is devastating to their family and friends (our own Kim Priestap was a first hand witness to this when her husband's cousin lost his life in Iraq recently). Whether it be the result of the war in Iraq or a downed aircraft during a training mission in North Carolina, the death of an American soldier, sailor or Marine is incredibly sad.

Some parts of Iraq are extremely dangerous, but compared to previous conflicts, the death toll there is still quite low by historical standards. That is of no comfort to the loved ones of the fallen, but it is something that should be considered when discussing "grim milestones." (Link via Instapundit)

Comments (28)

There you go using common s... (Below threshold)

There you go using common sense again. The lunatic fringe uses an entirely different metric for comparison, one that supports ONLY their idiotic philosphy. It is difficult to quantify potential deaths to inaction, but nevermind the murder rate in THIS country and others, or the number of deaths due to asshattery.

I wholly expect to see the subsequent chanting of the anti-war mantra: No war for oil. No WMDs. No Al Qaeda. True or not, whatever helps you sleep at night (Of course I know good Americans with loaded weapons do).

Most sane people know comparing the toll for the GWOT and 9-11 is idiotic to say the least. I just had to preempt the first-post trolls here.

OK, everything's even Steve... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

OK, everything's even Steven now. War's over. Time to come home.

/sarcasm tag off (like I need it...)

We had no choice in WWII we... (Below threshold)

We had no choice in WWII we were attacked, and the Nazis declared war. Like Kosovo, Iraq is a war of choice. Why don't you compare the death rates between Kosovo and Iraq?

Also, since we are the occupying power in Iraq, we are responsible for the death of every single civilian, so why don't you add a few hundred thousand to the causality count.

A lot more troops died in W... (Below threshold)

A lot more troops died in WW2, but the cause for which they died was clear, and thus the sacrifice was justified. Iraq is much less clear, and there is no objective in sight. Instead of marching toward victory, we're holed up in isolated outposts and really have no political vision to guide us. Colin Powell was right about this war -- you get the politics right first and only then introduce the military. And now our troops are paying for it. Even one death in the face of such a lack of purpose is too many.

(BTW, for those who are surely getting ready to ask me what *I* would have done, my response is that I would have followed Bush Sr's strategy of forming a powerful international alliance and working as one to help all nations root out terrorists within their own borders. If a nation supported terrorists, then a unified front would be more effective than just upsetting the applecart, as we did, thus inviting chaos and exploitation by nations like Iran and Syria.)

(1) Black Cat: The cause a... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

(1) Black Cat: The cause and the objectives of the Iraq war were clear from the start and have not changed. (Strategy & tactics have been the only things that have changed and will continue to change.) The left/MSM has tried to muddy the waters and has succeded in keeping most Americans informationally retarded, but they cannot change the facts.

(2) Barney: All wars are wars of choice. We were attacked. The Islamofascits did declare war on us.

"We were attacked." PB... (Below threshold)

"We were attacked." PB

Not by Iraq.

Barney: "Not by Iraq."<... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Barney: "Not by Iraq."

Neither were we invaded by Germany, but we chose to go to war with them anyway...

And it was the right decision in my opinion as Germany was part of the Axis powers just as Iraq was the right decision as Iraq was a big part of the Islamofascism problem that led to the 9/11 attacks. Of course if you're informationally retarded, you might not see things that way.

Yes Barney all one need do is throw a blind eye to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and they can agree with you.

"We were attacked." PB</... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

"We were attacked." PB

Not by Iraq.

Barn, not in the classic Pearl Harbor/9/11 sense. But you are you foregtting the assisination attempt on former President George HW Bush by Iraqi intelligence officers, a plot that both the CIA and DOJ determined that the Iraqi government was behind (clearly an act of aggression), as well as the near constant shooting at U.S./Coalition planes in the No-Fly Zone by the Iraqi military (a violation of ALL U.N. Resolutions). Alone, those could have and should have triggered an invasion of Iraq...

"since we are the occupying... (Below threshold)

"since we are the occupying power in Iraq, we are responsible for the death of every single civilian"

Wrong. The ones responsible are the terrorists and the goverments who support them. Also, we are not the only country with troops in Iraq so we are not "the occupying power". Next question...

"why don't you add a few hundred thousand to the causality count"

Because the 200,000 number is false. The true number according to the Iraqi government is about 4 times less. Don't used bad statistics to support an argument.

It is so sad how these uniformed these "milestone" people are.

Good points Peter F. & tyre... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Good points Peter F. & tyree

Why don't you comp... (Below threshold)
Why don't you compare the death rates between Kosovo and Iraq? Also, since we are the occupying power in Iraq, we are responsible for the death of every single civilian, so why don't you add a few hundred thousand to the causality count.Posted by: BarneyG2000
So in your world a Kosovo/Iraq comparison is valid.

It would be if you subtract all the US deaths by those on the ground.

Kosovo saw no ground troops - nice try!

Occupying power? Sorry BG2000, more like an invited guest at the behest of the Iraqi Gov and the UN.

I think the media has been ... (Below threshold)

I think the media has been anxiously awaiting this "milestone" for a while. They are kind of macabre if you ask me; probably sitting around enjoying the countdown so they coould print this story. And I agree, they have yet to state what relevance this holds. Weird.

One question for BG2000 as ... (Below threshold)

One question for BG2000 as related to this mindset:

Not by Iraq.

How many Americans do you guess were killed or maimed as a result of Saddam's financial and spiritual support for Palestinian terrorists?

So, when the US death toll ... (Below threshold)

So, when the US death toll in Iraq passes 3000, we'll see articles comparing it to, say, the average number of infants who die from SIDS each year? No? I guess i'm confused by the random association since everyone keeps telling me Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

As long as we are making WW... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

As long as we are making WWII parallels, it is probably worth mentioning that the first US invasion in WWII was in French North Africa. We were at war with Germany, Italy, and Japan in 1942. We were not at war with Vichy France -- yet we went and invaded them.

We invaded French North Africa to get a base against our enemies. We invaded Iraq for the same reason.

You guys are still peddling... (Below threshold)

You guys are still peddling your delusions. Powell said, "You break it, you own it". The death are our responsibilities.

The Germans declared war on us. We had no choice.

Bush said, war was the last option. By all accounts Saddam complied with all US demands including full and open inspections, and full document disclosure. The deadline he did not meet, was the turn over of WMD (which he did not have).

Keep peddling your revisionist history.

P. Bunyan: Condi Rice state... (Below threshold)

P. Bunyan: Condi Rice stated the administration's view best when she said that we needed to invade because we couldn't allow "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Obviously that justification was not valid and since then there have been several other ideas floated by the administration, but it's obvious from opinion polls that none of them resonate with the public.

By all accounts Saddam c... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

By all accounts Saddam complied with all US demands...

First, that's UN demands, not US--and, yes, that makes a difference. Second, no, Saddam did not comply with the list of UN demands and unnaccounted for WMD that he claimed he possessed in documentation presented to the UN per Resolution 1441. And ever so briefly--because I'm trying not to get off the thread here--but what did the bumbling Blix find in Iraq? Hmm, gee, al Samoud missiles that weren't allowed under 1441 or any other resolution, but Saddam had 'em. That alone was justification for invasion under 1441 and all previous resolutions.

Now, enough of that distraction. You've yet to explain why this alleged milestone number is so damn important.

P.S. Germnay (and Mussolini's Italy) declared war on the US on Dec. 11, 1941 just hours (likely thanks to the time difference) before Congress could declare it on them. And, furthermore, Germany declared war on the US in response to our DofW against Japan on Dec. 8. (And we had a choice early on to stop Hitler from invading Poland in 1939 if we had honored the threat he posed. We chose not to. In the immortal words of the knight in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" we..."chose unwisely.")

Bush's Iraqi folly was foug... (Below threshold)

Bush's Iraqi folly was fought to avenge the 9/11 victims. Bush has now succeeded in killing as many Americans. Enuf said.

barneygoogle you got to be ... (Below threshold)

barneygoogle you got to be the dumbest SOB on the planet.

BarneyG2000 "The Germans de... (Below threshold)

BarneyG2000 "The Germans declared war on us. We had no choice."

By your own admission, then, we have no choice but to go to war against Iran, since they declared war on us in 1979. There have been American casualties due to attacks on our ships and aircraft by Iran. Yet we have still not declared war on them. Why not, since we "Had no choice"?

Blackcat 77
"but it's obvious from opinion polls that none of them resonate with the public"

Opinion polls show no such thing. Opinion polls are slanted in the way questions are asked, which leads to answers the pollster wanted to get. They are also stacked by the 90% Democrat newsroom that we have at this time in history, which has led to an amazing amount of revisionism of recent history. Jimmy Carter was willing to go to war for oil and Bill Clinton (and Hillary) said Saddam had WMDs, these facts are not known by the general public because the news media under report them and things like that tend to slant the polls.

Remember the poll that said that 80% or so of Americans did not know the words to our national anthem? It turns out that the correct statement was more like, "Most Americans cannot recite all of the words to "The Star Spangled Banner" from memory. The pollsters (or reporters) misrepresented what the poll actually said.

I wish my college debate teacher was reading your stuff so he could score this debate based on points. I may not have his expertise but in my opionion you would have gone down in flames to any high schooler on my team.

Michaelak"Bush's Ira... (Below threshold)

"Bush's Iraqi folly was fought to avenge the 9/11 victims."

Seriously, please take a junior college class in argument and debate. The American led forces in Iraq were not sent there to "avenge" anything. There is no statement from the President saying that revenge was our motive. Whether it is a folly or not can only be answered by historians 100 years from now. If they are writing in Arabic, it will be a folly. If they are writing in English, Bush, Blair and Howard could he hailed as the savior of Western Civilization.

Debates are low emotion-high fact.
Arguments are high emotion-low fact.

The statement that BarneyG2000, Blackcat 77, michaelak and jhow66 made might get points in an arguement, but would get nowhere in a debate. Take a minute and read the original post, and then the comments again from top to bottom. Right now the side that supports Lori is way ahead in this debate. That doesn't prove she is right, but that is a good way to bet.

How many hippie asshats lik... (Below threshold)

How many hippie asshats like sheehan will slither out from under their rocks for this 'milestone'?

I will give you something t... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I will give you something to compare...Iraq is the first place where everywhere is on the "front line"...also,; instead of comparing Iraq to other conflicts..how about where we are now vs where we were when our President said it was over back in 2003?
.....Remember back in Aug of 2003 when the numbers were low at 150 killed and 1600 wounded?
With such "low" numbers we must be kicking ass right? I hope the family and friends of the close to 3,000 take solace in that the numbers are low..I hope the family and friends of those who returned with life changing injuries can say "Hey it could be worse, the numbers are low"
...Shame on all who disrespect the courage and sacrifice of our brave men and women with this bogus comparison.

Mark L., How's that... (Below threshold)

Mark L.,
How's that working out?

Listening to what W said. There's your problem right there.

Tyree..as for what Bush sai... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Tyree..as for what Bush said..check out the transcript from Bush's radio address of 6/18/2005 ..and I quote.."We went to war because we were attacked." of course at the white house gov site you can play the audio..
Good luck in your State High School debate competetion. It is a learning experience that will benefit you all your life..

nogo, Iraq has attacked the... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

nogo, Iraq has attacked the U.S., for one example by repeatedly firing at our planes enforcing the no-fly zone. For another, we went to war because we were not going to allow Saddam the opportunity to carry out attacks against the mainland U.S. as he had repeatedly stated his intentions to do so.

Still no "revenge for 9/11" there.

The numbers game is a way... (Below threshold)

The numbers game is a way to undermine moral. Its a proven tactic and shameful. The Democratic Administration of LBJ and McNamara refined this bullshit and it bit them in the ass. The NV and their sympathizers used it to destroy our will to fight. You don't decide to have "just a little war" anymore than you can have "just a little sex." And war kills, maims and destroys.

Playing games with numbers. Like saying to a cancer patient with a curable illness like Hodgkin's Disease: well, now we've killed off as many cancer cells as the number of normal cells they destroyed. WTF cares? The patient only cares if there are still cancer cells left to kill and if you are going to get all of them before they kill the patient. The patients that weep about the hair loss and nausea AND then stop treatment before it is completed tend to die. After a fair amount of suffering that might be preceded by a short honeymoon of feeling better while the treatment side effects fade away before the cancer cells take over. Could this metaphor be any clearer?

Why anyone thirty years later would choose to ignore this and continue to hand the enemy a club to bludgeon us with is sad and stupid. Buying into the argument only feeds the process.

That being said, our casualties to this date are in line with what was expected had a fight to the last man effort been made all at once. More people are gonna die, on our side and the other sides. It sucks. Its war. Counting is doing the work of the enemy.

If you've chosen to fight for them, you should die with them.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy