16 June 2006
Giving meaning back to our 2500 dead in Iraq
Some are wringing their hands over the 2500th U.S. death in Iraq, and saying yet again it’s time to cut-and-run.
Discussing death in this manner runs the risk of others viewing you as callous, or worse- but one has to put losses in perspective, or they truly are meaningless. I will not let that happen.
Here are some numbers to consider:
At Gettysburg, over 7000 killed in three days (both sides).
It is estimated that 4500 allied troops died on Normandy beaches on D-Day. The exact number is still not known. Add to that the 12000 Allied airmen killed in April and May of 1944 to prepare for the landings, as well as the 19000 civilians who died in those aerial bombardments. That’s over 35500 total deaths of Allied troops and civilians.
In ONE DAY, the Romans lost approximately 65,000 dead to Hannibal's forces at Cannae. ONE DAY.
That's nearly double what we lost in Korea in three years, and about 7000 less than we lost in Viet Nam in around eight years. It's TWENTY SIX times our losses in Iraq in the Three and a quarter years we've been there thus far.
Saddam may have killed as many as "between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"
That's 780,000 give or take a few ten thousand.
780,000 is a big number, and it is difficult to fully comprehend what the numbers mean, but there are ways to bring it into the realm of understanding-- 70-125 per day is pretty tangible (2-4 high school classrooms), and 8,000 days is only 22 years- certainly tangible to anyone over 35 or so. Imagine- 3 high school classrooms of people led out to be executed every day for 22 years...
In 2002, in the United States, for the age range of 16-34 (covering the main ages of our military casualies in Iraq), 27,267 died just from Motor Vehicle Crashes and Homocides. More than THIRTY FIVE times our yearly average KIA in Iraq (as of 16 June 2006). I think everyone knows someone firsthand who either died as a result of a motor vehicle crash or a homocide, so we all understand personal tragedy. Multiply that personal tragedy times the population of Laramie, Wyoming, and you start to get the picture. Every year America wipes out a Laramie of 16-34 year olds in car crashes and homocides.
Does it really make sense to say things that imply that our military personnel are getting killed in unacceptable numbers in Iraq? Each individual death is a tragedy, immeasurable in it's own reach- but one has to see things in context... Death can mean something, and should- but if we do not look at it closely, and understand it, and get over any irrational fears about it, we will be paralyzed into inaction. If we are willing to allow 17,706 people from 16-34 to die in a year so we can drive cars, then we sure as hell can risk losing a few thousand in three years to change a dangerous world.
If one still holds to a belief that our losses in Iraq are too great, than I am sure you would also believe that over 17,000 deaths of 16-34's per year is far too many (that's more than TWENTY THREE times our yearly average killed in Iraq), and personal automobile transport should be severely limited, or even eliminated, right?
Our losses in Iraq are, by historical standards, phenomenally low. They are, to date, still fewer losses than we sustained to our civilian population on 9/11/01 alone. Anyone who contests that must be asked what their metric is for considering ‘acceptable’ losses. I’m sure their answer would be revealing.
Discussing death in this manner runs the risk of others viewing you as callous, or worse- but one has to put losses in perspective, or they truly are meaningless. I will not let that happen.
Here are some numbers to consider:
At Gettysburg, over 7000 killed in three days (both sides).
It is estimated that 4500 allied troops died on Normandy beaches on D-Day. The exact number is still not known. Add to that the 12000 Allied airmen killed in April and May of 1944 to prepare for the landings, as well as the 19000 civilians who died in those aerial bombardments. That’s over 35500 total deaths of Allied troops and civilians.
In ONE DAY, the Romans lost approximately 65,000 dead to Hannibal's forces at Cannae. ONE DAY.
That's nearly double what we lost in Korea in three years, and about 7000 less than we lost in Viet Nam in around eight years. It's TWENTY SIX times our losses in Iraq in the Three and a quarter years we've been there thus far.
Saddam may have killed as many as "between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"
That's 780,000 give or take a few ten thousand.
780,000 is a big number, and it is difficult to fully comprehend what the numbers mean, but there are ways to bring it into the realm of understanding-- 70-125 per day is pretty tangible (2-4 high school classrooms), and 8,000 days is only 22 years- certainly tangible to anyone over 35 or so. Imagine- 3 high school classrooms of people led out to be executed every day for 22 years...
In 2002, in the United States, for the age range of 16-34 (covering the main ages of our military casualies in Iraq), 27,267 died just from Motor Vehicle Crashes and Homocides. More than THIRTY FIVE times our yearly average KIA in Iraq (as of 16 June 2006). I think everyone knows someone firsthand who either died as a result of a motor vehicle crash or a homocide, so we all understand personal tragedy. Multiply that personal tragedy times the population of Laramie, Wyoming, and you start to get the picture. Every year America wipes out a Laramie of 16-34 year olds in car crashes and homocides.
Does it really make sense to say things that imply that our military personnel are getting killed in unacceptable numbers in Iraq? Each individual death is a tragedy, immeasurable in it's own reach- but one has to see things in context... Death can mean something, and should- but if we do not look at it closely, and understand it, and get over any irrational fears about it, we will be paralyzed into inaction. If we are willing to allow 17,706 people from 16-34 to die in a year so we can drive cars, then we sure as hell can risk losing a few thousand in three years to change a dangerous world.
If one still holds to a belief that our losses in Iraq are too great, than I am sure you would also believe that over 17,000 deaths of 16-34's per year is far too many (that's more than TWENTY THREE times our yearly average killed in Iraq), and personal automobile transport should be severely limited, or even eliminated, right?
Our losses in Iraq are, by historical standards, phenomenally low. They are, to date, still fewer losses than we sustained to our civilian population on 9/11/01 alone. Anyone who contests that must be asked what their metric is for considering ‘acceptable’ losses. I’m sure their answer would be revealing.
