Experienced solders are the same as new recruits? Leadership and experience is often more important than sheer numbers. But, this doesn't even address the rate of non-retention which according to DTOM is increasing.


This isn't what I'm referring to. Perhaps, you don't understand what I'm getting at. We may be able to recruit 80k per year but be unable to recruit 90k per year. Or, more precisely, the number of new people that can be recruited becomes more difficult as the desired number increases. Also, the rate of retention may not be linear either.


Plot 1 is linear. Plot 2 is non-linear.



Between 2008 & 2010, we will have reduced forces in Iraq. You need to answer this question rather than hand-waving.


I know you don't believe it will happen. I'm asking you to entertain the possibility if it does happen.


I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that 27 year old ex-convicts are better than 19 year old high school graduates?

logophage


Acording to the link I just posted they plan to try retaining soldiers longer, I guess we will see wont we?


I knew what you were talking about, terminology like that I deal with in computer animation, like I said I believe the recruiting rate will be non-linear, not constant. Well it wont be perfectly linear anyway. How that will compare with the rate of retirement I'm not positive, I read they plan to reach half their goal however just by retaining soldiers longer, and this will mean the more experienced soldiers will stay longer.



Didn't I answer that? since we are reducing forces in Iraq anyway this works in our favor. We're under a lot of stress maintaining current troop levels overseas, so in the meantime in Iraq we should be fine given we are reducing forces there.



Well we will continue to stress our forces if we don't accomplish this, not something I want to see. Also if something else should happen requiring a substantial amount of troops elsewhere we probably wouldn't be able to deal with it without pulling troops out of Iraq.



Lol, Since were into rhetorical question now , what exactly are you saying? That all 19 year olds are high school graduates while all 27 year olds are ex-convicts?

Apparently, when faced with the unpleasant fact that while everyone's opinion deserves to be respected, not everyone's opinion is equally informed on the subject, net2007 takes the not-unprecedented route to bad news: he dodges it.

As net2007 has posted several replies since my last one asking him directly what sacrifice HE is making, the answer to Dontreadonme's querying if he was going to respond to me is, "Apparently NOT."

So much for "I'm searching for truth, not simply to defend my position. If you show me something that is creditable I swear I'll look at it and take it seriously."

Everybody wants the truth. Right up until the truth steps all over their preconceived notions.

net, this is the best entertainment AD has had around here for a while - please keep this up. You are basically stating facts and statistics - along with testimony from someone who is a senior military officer/nco in Baghdad - are wrong because "you have studied this stuff".

Anyhow, while you are hanging your hat onto this "we'll get the troops we need" (as long as it ain't me), could you tell us that out of all these new recruits we will magically get, how many will actually be on the ground in Iraq with a gun in their hand? And you need to tell the generals who are on the record stating these troops levels are unsustainable that they too are wrong because you are right and they are wrong.

Do you have any clue how many support personnel are required for one infantry-person? What do you suppose we should do? Send procurement officers, chefs, and dentists into combat?

The military is losing men to the private sector. You guessed it, the mercenary groups. This is significant because as we focus on patterns within the military the number of external contractors is growing. Has it occurred to you logophage that as the contracting segment grows the military will become more insensitive to burn rates as less military folk are on the ground?

With the formation of a secondary contingent questions 2 to 6 strike me as increasingly irrelevant.



You could view this as applicable experience or you could look at it as exposure to polarizing events. You know the type that affects bias. If that is the case I'd chose two. The practical answer adds a third option, use your own eyes and place little weight on any individual opinion.

This begs the question, how trustworthy are the personal views of "a" "senior military officer/nco"?

nighttimer



When I first brought the subject of troop expansion up this is what I said word for word, while presenting sources..........

Robert Gates has received almost unanimous support from a largely democratic congress to increase the overall size of our military by almost 100,000 troops. It will take a couple years to reap the benefits of this Bill, but it will be passed if it hasn't been already.

My confidence in this bill was based on information I did show. Key points being that for starters it had the support of congress on both the left and right, and had 100 billion dollars attached to the bill. In fact in this one forum I've probably presented 10-15 creditable sources to back up what I've been saying.

My confidence was met with sharp criticism, how sharp? Well take a look at the following Quotes all in direct response to the troop expansion plan presented by Robert Gates. I'll leave names out to avoid flaming......

Quote.....

the above statement is an outlandish denial of reality.


Quote.....

I'm not sure if I should be worried about my composition skills or your comprehension skills, but I'm worried. Let me *again* interject some reality to your argument.


Quote.....


I could have swore I wrote my post in english, but apparently not.

Let me ask again.........Since there is not a groundswell of prospective enlistees forming lines outside of recruting stations NOW, how in the world with the war dragging on, are you expecting that many more recruits to join?

Quote.....

You still don't get it do you? This will be my last word, since plain english doesn't seem to get through to you.

Quote.....

Your rather tedious diatribe did nothing to shore up your claim that enlistees will flock to the recruiters office because congress passed a bill.


Thats all very interesting given I havent seen anyone post a thing in here that suggest that this plan is such a denial of reality. Now I've said I believe it will work, I broke down the numbers in a fair manner, I presented links about the bill, and about why this wasn't done in the past when I posted several links on the Rumsfeld strategy and mindset. This is the first real attempt in the Bush administration to increase our troop numbers substantially and guess what?

This bill is already on its way to working! I figured this thanks to one of my sources and one of logophages sources. We have to recruit 80,000 a year to meet the mark is what my last link said. This is because there are obviously people being retired on a yearly basis. Now the link that logophage presented said that in the Army alone we have recruited about 80,400 new soldiers in 2007. This is weird right? I could have sworn I heard a number of people in here say these recruits don't exist, Hmmmmm. If what I'm claiming is an outlandish denial of reality, I say start presenting something. I want to know why beyond someones hunch that this is a ridiculous Idea. I'm not saying it will work without a doubt, I'm making no outrageous claims, but early indications are its already is working, and not to my surprise.

You said here........


What the hell are you talking about? "They are fighting for a number of causes and everyone is different." What does that even mean? How can individual soldiers be fighting for different causes? What cause???

Use your imagination, It meant that everyone finds their inspiration to fight a difficult war from various sources. There are also a number of underlying causes that everyone fights for together. Stopping genocide, improving our position militarily, ect, ect. Get it?

You asked....
This is America's war? You'd have a hard time proving it to me.

Ive already showed this. Its Americas war whether some like it or not, why? Ok, a congress elected by the people funded the war in Iraq, and at the time a large percentage of the general population approved of this war. You will no doubt try and say the Big Bad Bush tricked us into war, yada yada, yet pre-war documentation states clearly that this administration expressed its desire to occupy Iraq until it became a self sufficient democracy. All of this is stated in documentation dated at and before the wars start so what what else is there to say?



I'm not going to address any of that because your putting words in my mouth.



I appreciate that, personally I think thats a non constructive question anyway. I don't claim to have an opinion that is above others, and I don't pretend to know it all, being the reason why if I say something thats perhaps controversial I try and back it with sources. I appreciate that level of fairness from a poster who doesn't necessarily share my views on the war. Sometimes I see people on both the left and right side with one another if they share similar views. This war has become a war of clashing ideologies between the supporters and non supporters. Id like to see people try and meet each other halfway more.

Ok, ignore what you want. But please respond to these questions:

How many support personnel are required for one infantry-person?

Should we send procurement officers, chefs, and dentists into combat?

Yes, this has occurred to me. But it will take a long time before our military personnel become privatized as a majority (or even a significant minority).


No, these questions don't become irrelevant. The problem just gets shifted to these private military forces. There will always be a certain fraction of the population willing to fight for enough money. Will we be able to get enough to maintain a troop presence in Iraq (for whatever purpose they're supposed to have there)? This is the trillion dollar question.


This makes no sense. I would ask a doctor with 20+ years experience for her opinion in the medical domain. I would ask a civil engineer with 20+ years experience for her opinion in the structural domain. But, you're somehow discounting the opinion of a soldier with 20+ years experience in the military domain?

Let me know how it works out for you when you get a games developer to do your dental work...

Dear friends,

The war is lost. The war has been lost for a long time. The war is well lost. The war is good and lost. The war is dead lost. Repetition is not what makes that true, but the facts on the ground. All else is fluffed-up public relations, designed not to influence the outcome of the war, but to preserve the illusion of possible victory until Bush and his friends are out of office. They will then take potshots at whoever has inherited the painful task of looking the American people in the eye and saying that it was all a terrible mistake. But it really is living on another planet to point to this or that hopeful report from U.S. military sources or this or that American think tank, and conclude that the war just might be won. All you really have to do is look at oil production and electric power production to see what I mean. Or just read the news stories about just how nice and lovely it is for our troops fighting over there, and for the Iraqi people.

In some hypothetical world, a newly militant United States might buy into George Bush's and that of every major Republican presidential contender's vision of global conflict between US and THEM, mobilize the truly massive military resources that would be necessary actually to pacify Iraq and perhaps even conquer and pacify Iran, and go do it. But in this particular world the American people, with a diminishing number of starry-eyed Bush-loyal exceptions, have come to see that the whole thing has been not only a terrible mistake, but a flagrant sham and a fraud. This scheme as defrauded us of the lives of 4,000 good young people and the bodily integrity of so many more; of a vast treasure; of our civil rights; of our friends and allies; of our reputation as a people that holds liberty much more dear than life.

It is true that the Democrats in Congress, because of a few Joseph Liebermans and Caspar Milquetoasts, and because of the essential unanimity of the Republicans in support of Bush, don't have the votes to shut off war spending. But I am rather certain the the anger of the American people over this question will not be directed against Nancy Pelosi. And I look forward with great relish to the coming Republican debacle and the utter humiliation whoever the Republicans put up. I most particularly hope it's Rudolph Guliani, because he richly deserves a good taking down.

But in any case, I find it both remarkable and disgusting that after all of this, there are still those eager to come forward here and defend the Administration and its policy of continued war.

Personally I'd pay the most attention to the distribution of funds. Watch how the president will ask for larger sums in shortening time periods. This represents the shift to a greater reliance on contracted help. As long as people are willing to pay the war can continue.



You are defining the question as a difference between two equally respected careers with one having more relevance than the other. Again logophage you have poorly constructed the question.

Given the extent of psychological stresses (from duty as well as training) within the military I think a more valid comparison is comparing a gamer to an abused spouse. You are not factoring in the potential for trauma and assume both parties are of sound mind.

The problem is one cannot vouch for the emotional state of anyone in the military and this creates an extra set of considerations which must be factored in before you compare apples with apples. Yes if you wanted to you could apply this to anyone, but not to the magnitude that exists to those serving (a truly misleading word) in the military. Maybe a death of a close friend is affecting their judgement and their comments are unnecessarily negative. Or possibly they are being coached to go online and have a loose leaf binder with prepared, approved responses just waiting to misinform and distort. You cannot discount the art of distortion. The point is by subscribing to their view you are taking on a huge variable.


With these extra considerations in place I would not compare the military with anything else. Especially with an extensive career. Gamer verses dentist? Sure. Gamer, verses soldier? Apples to oranges.

Good observations. I can agree with this.


In other words, you're saying that a soldier with 20+ years experience in the military has less credibility on military matters than almost everyone else. You live in a different world than me. It's fine to argue against bias but you need to bring actual evidence to the table for such bias and not insinuate it. Absent that, I'll conclude your arguments are the ones which are biased.

Vladimir


Hmm, So in other words in your view the war is lost? LOL, ohh man id assume thats what you believe, you said it 5 times in a row. Your welcome to that view point, but my viewpoint is that your wrong. Its not over until we quit, therefore we haven't lost or won until that time. It may be late in the 3rd quarter and we are down by 20 points but this is all about will power. If that sounds like a bumper sticker to you ohh well. To me the idea that this is a situation we can't hope to come out on top with is a matter of strict opinion.

You will be able to say what you just did and have it be a fact if the next president ends the war prematurely, and then who's fault will it be for a failed war? Well I'm fair, and I'm a realist, so primarily it will be this administrations fault, no doubt about it, but it will also be the faults of whoever is responsible for pulling the plug to an extent. We are in a tough situation now that the next president can either make an effort to use their skills as a leader to do a better job than George W. Bush, or they can give up and all this would have been a waste of time, life, and resources.


Trouble



My thoughts exactly, personally I don't vouch for the credibility of anyone I don't know. I believe one thing to be factual here. That being knowledge or position does not necessarily free a person from Bias. I try and post many links for this reason, I want people to see where I'm getting my knowledge from.
I cant prove this plan will work without a doubt, but I showed a number of things that at least proved it was more than feasible and well supported. If I'm in denial of reality, or cant understand English I'm still waiting for 2 or 3 members to show me why thats the case. In order to do that they need to show that the current plan that is the first of its kind in the bush administration really isn't feasible at all, and I'm not seeing that. I think what they don't understand is that id be more than happy to learn why this plan is utterly ridiculous, I really would. If thats the case, I want to know why so I'm not talking about something thats not feasible as if it were. Yet everything I'm learning suggest that while it will be costly and difficult, its more than achievable. We hit this years recruiting target proposed in the bill for 2007 already, thats promising news.

DaytonRocker
How many support personnel are required for one infantry-person?

I don't know DaytonRocker, probably a few. However this is irrelevant though, this troop expansion plan isn't us expanding our forces by 65,000 infantry men which would require 200,000 additional soldiers of various positions. That number probably includes medics, snipers, engineers, ect. ect. It depends on what the individual recruits peruse.

Should we send procurement officers, chefs, and dentists into combat?

Um, in many cases no DaytonRocker, it depends on the specific role a soldier is fulfilling. A large percentage of non infantry men will have active positions in the field, and additionally be armed. They are all interconnected, just because someone is a medic doesn't necessarily mean he wont pull out his firearm and assist his fellow soldiers. Ask DTOM, while I'm not too sure about some things he says, by being a soldier in Iraq he should be able to tell you this just the same.

No, your links addressed the 2003 invasion force size and structure, and the rest consisted of optimistic projection math.



Allow me to [again] point out the flaw in your methodology. If my assesment is incorrect because this bill has never been passed before, then your assesment is just as incorrect because this bill has never been passed before.

Looks like things may not be off to an illustrious start:


Link



This argument is circular. You ask for concrete data to prove the plan unworkable. Yet you provide none yourself. Concrete data does not exist on a test that has yet to be conducted. The plan is very feasible, a sure thing in fact........if you exclude the variables that affect recruitment during an unpopular war. Those variables have been brought forth by myself and others, and you have seemingly chosen to disregard them. Your opinion, and your right. But don't claim that nobody has shown you why it might not work, we've given you the same standard of data that you have provided us with.



The larger issue is not the individual job specialties of soldiers. These prosepective new recruits may end up just being backfill for soldiers retireing and/or leaving service, wounded or killed. The larger issue that must be addressed, if we get these new soldiers, is the Army going to stand up new Brigade Combat Teams? Iraq is broken down into areas of responsibility by Brigades. These Brigades can be plussed or downsized by individual Battalions. But the rotation matrix for the force is Brigade based. What that means is there will not be a reduction in tour length [minus a return to 12 months, post surge] unless more Brigades are activated. A Brigade can be deployed no earlier than 12 months after activation, if all goes well.
If the recruitment goal is realized, after indivudual training concludes at Basic and AIT, plus additional specialty schools, assuming new BCT's are activated, we still aren't looking at a meaningful force expansion for about three years.
Thats about three years after the surge Brigades re-deploy and probably 2 1/2 to 3 years after Sadr lifts his freeze.
If this recruitment goal is realized, I fear it will be too little, too late in terms of Iraq. It will, however be instrumental in rebuilding the broken, hollow military we will be left with.

Dontreadonme




Thats not all my links addressed, the links also spoke of the Rumsfeld methodology in general, and the links showed the overwhelming support and money this bill has, there was a link that even broke down administration by administration how many active troops we've had over the years, and a number of other links. Then I proceeded to break all this down with numbers based on those links.

3 days ago you as well as a couple other members here suggested on a couple of occasions that these recruits would not be found, because people are not flocking to the polls as I believe you put it. Yet in 2007 alone over 80,000 new recruits were enlisted, So do you want to talk about the flaws in your methodology? Listen man I'm not making any overly ambitious comments, I'm saying I believe the plan will work and showed why I believed that with some sources. You countered by stating several bold things as if you had something to go on that was so definitive that it would interject some reality to my argument. I'm simply stating what I've researched, and have found nothing to convince me that this plan is highly unrealistic. So lets look at this link you have here........





This link is another issue DTOM, on the news I heard Fred wants to expand our forces much further than whats stated now, your link hints toward this as well. Look here.........

Thompson said Tuesday he wants a military ground force that includes 775,000 in the Army and 225,000 Marines. That would be 23,000 more Marines than the Pentagon currently is seeking.

This link is stating facts on a plan that would be carried out by Fred Thompson. He supports the current plan of course but wants to go further. So that comment about it being impractical was in reference to Fred and his plans which are more ambitious. Now I believe we can go further, It wouldn't be easy of course but I don't see why we couldn't expand by 200,000 troops over the next 5 - 7 years. Thats another story though.



Well I didn't say that you aparently couldn't understand English or that your argument requires me to inject some reality into them did I ? In terms of sources Ive had more, but this isn't the point anyway. It was your demeanor, thats the point. You talked big, you said the plan wouldn't work, you said the recruits didn't exist, I said I believed there was no reason to think the plan wouldn't work and left it at that. So your comments are in general bolder than mine, yet you've had less in terms of links to back what you said. If you had simply said I really don't think this plan will work, I may have asked why you believe that but I wouldn't be sitting here scratching my head. If you don't believe it will work thats fine, not like I care. Given the boldness of your comments and rudeness in general from you, it would be nice to see why your so positive of yourself, beyond telling us your a Soldier in every post to buff up your credibility. Be proud of that of course, but I really need more than knowing your a soldier to understand your certainty on this issue.


Good question, I really couldn't say if there would be additional brigades or larger brigades. What would you think?



I hope your wrong about that, I really do. Additionally if we can continue to lower violence in Iraq with slightly less troops on the ground then we should be alright while these troops build up, I guess time will tell. Personally I'm more concerned about a new president pulling the plug on this war. In my eyes this is the number one threat to the success of this war.

The article in general was covering Thompsons proposal, but I linked the portion very relevant to this discussion. Let me bold it for easier reading: But the Army started its recruiting year Oct. 1, with fewer signed up for basic training than in any year since it became an all-volunteer service in 1973. The Army barely reached its goals the previous year, doing so as it pushed recruiters to work harder, offered fatter bonuses and issued more waivers, including for past minor crimes or drug use.

Retired Col. John Lackey, a Citadel professor, said after the speech that the Pentagon is struggling to make recruiting goals now....



Yes, you are unconvinced. Just as I remain unconvinced that more money and a whole lot of hope is going to convince 100,000 more people to enlist in the next couple of years, when nothing except an unpopular war has stopped them in the recent past from doing so. As we have not been in danger of reaching the manpower cap and turning people away from recruitment centers, [or raising the standards out of the basement for that matter], attempts to correlate the current crisis to Rumsfeld falls flat unless you can define a link between him and people's reasons for not enlisting.

Look at it this way, it took 3 years for some people on this board to find religion and see the pointlessness that I observed with the mission accomplished stunt. To entertain their unfounded optimism required I engage in an attempt to understand ideology. This was a learning experience. What became clear with the absence of a clearly defined mission - well short of get 'em, were the illusive justifications which continually sprung forth. Now as much as I dislike the current president I had to acknowledge a certain set of attitudes had come into existence and allowed the president to act unhindered. I had to widen the net of culpability. That is George could do things his predecessor could not and this required a more intensive approach.

The attitudes included a widely held belief that we could do no wrong. Another was our ideas were superior to their ideas. Another still was an exaggerated drive for action. The worst in my opinion was the belief in assured victory so long as the army would be granted the freedom to conduct and expand its operations as they saw fit. People under the employment of the United States military apparatus must act on these attitudes whether they agree with them or not. This is where my scepticism comes from logophage.

After reading Victory Culture I began to wonder if the disturbing trends had any basis in history. The above traits do not come from the Iraq war. They come a German term Vernichtungskrieg which played heavily into military thinking in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This trait encompasses a uniquely violent and genocidal trend which plays off the military and political leaderships and over time escalates into "institutional extremism". Extremism which may encourage future leaders to follow George's lead. I ask is this a valid comparison?

If we accept this president's rule as an aberration, a blip, or a mistake we have a system that would reinstall and self correct over time. This is precisely what this thread's authour has been waiting for. The correction that never comes. The problem is this is a bi-partisan collaboration which means the self correction mechanism of recognizing futility has been dumped down the memory hole. It is precisely the prolonging of pointlessness which compelled me to search in the direction I have.

Do you think I could make a case for Vernichtungskrieg today in 2007? Do you now understand my hesitation to accept military input no matter how well meaning? My over arching premise is the system is dysfunctional enough that the reign of Mr. Bush Jr. is more a symptom than the cause. Looking for rationale in a broken system from people who work in said sytem may not be the best way to approach the problem and thus we have a difference of opinion.

I understand that you're attributing the actions of a group and fallaciously applying to an individual. This is known as the fallacy of division. Or more specifically: is a fallacy.

1. Is the surge working?
2. Should this strategy be continued? If so, for how long?

I believe the facts on the ground speak for themselves. Last month the attacks on US forces were down to levels not seen in almost two years. 39 US soldiers died as a result of attacks, the lowest level since March 2006.

Investor's Business Daily reports: Dramatic Turn For Better In Iraq (Cue Sound Of Crickets Chirping)



Victory in Iraq


An editorial, I realize, but one that brings up some interesting points. Nobody is talking about what needs to be done to win. One side is talking of staying the course and one is speaking about the foregone conclusion of failure. This situation is no different than any other in life: we are where we are now let's decide where we want to be and how we're going to get there!

The surge in Baghdad has certainly done a lot of good. The statistics bear that out.

Just today, the Iraq government shut down a large Sunni group that supported AQI. link

The Iraqi government is handing over security in some areas from the military to the police: link

There is some great news out there if we care to look.

Sure, there's some "great news" out there if we care to look. But what about the "not-so great news" that the cheerleaders for Bush's folly don't want to look at?

THE US military is experiencing a "suicide epidemic" with veterans killing themselves at the rate of 120 a week, according to an investigation by US television network CBS.

At least 6256 US veterans committed suicide in 2005 - an average of 17 a day - the network reported, with veterans overall more than twice as likely to take their own lives as the rest of the general population.

While the suicide rate among the general population was 8.9 per 100,000, the level among veterans was between 18.7 and 20.8 per 100,000. link

--------

Staff Sgt. Justin Reyes spent a violent year serving in Iraq.

"The war didn't end foe him when he came home," says his mother, Jean Willis. "I think he was being tormented and tortured by his experiences."

Medical records show Reyes suffered severe psychological trauma after witnessing "multiple dead" and having to "sort through badly mutilated bodies," Keteyian reports. Earlier this year, a month after separating from the Army, Reyes hanged himself with a cord in his apartment. He was 26.

link 2

Short-term gains in Baghdad do not mean long-term peace in Iraq. At any rate, whatever the "success" of the surge may be it has come at the cost of a number of slain, wounded and shattered American lives and that price is far too high.

Supporters of the war can barely contain themselves as they declare the surge is working and victory is within our grasp. They should remember Americans have heard this song before. Only then the tune was "mission accomplished" in 2003 and the insurgency was in it's "last throes" in 2005.

Being both rashly optimistic and wildly inaccurate have been constants by those defending Bush's War. Haven't you learned your lesson yet?

Nighttimer


Well thats just the thing Nighttimer, there never seems to be a time to acknowledge the good news when it does come around. I don't ignore any news, whether it be good or bad. Even if 1 year from now we are talking about much more success on the ground and progress with the Iraqi military, there will still be people focusing on everything negative they can get their hands on, and why? I think because people such as that would rather we lost in Iraq. Ive become 100% convinced that millions of Americans get exited when there is bad news coming out of Iraq, because that brings us ever closer to retreat. So to some the more bad news the merrier.

If all the news would have been negative in this recent Iraq report for example, I don't believe we could have maintained support for this war much longer, and thats exactly why the messenger of this progress we seem to be making lately was attacked by many on the left, like moveon.org. Since there was some success to talk about finally, if they cant use the latest news as usual to demote this war, then what better than to attempt to discredit the messengers of this news.

I can see that thankfully not everyone on the left is prone to using dirty tactics, unfortunately however it seems to be the ones with the highest desire to influence others. Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, John Steward, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, as well as many others in Hollywood all speak as if they represent the masses and when it comes to this war the realistic fact that things are bad in Iraq just isn't juicy enough, Rosie for example thinks that Bush helped plan the 9/11 attacks. Elaborations of the situation are frequent from people like this, and good news is brushed off in many cases altogether. Ohh well, nothing I can do about that but call it for what it is.

I wish I could be pessimistic. It just isn't in me... I wish I could say the same for others.

You know if this "suicide rate" had anything to do with Iraq, you might have something there. Unfortunately, the numbers your article cites are for ALL veterans of all ages. By your logic, we should pull out of dentist offices and downtown America since dentists and police officers have elevated suicide rates.

Also, the tricky thing about statistics is they can say anything you want. The rate of suicide among men is 17.6 per 100,000. Among white men it is 19.5 per 100,000. The rate in Alaska is 23.6 per 100,000. Wow, suddenly the military suicide rate doesn't seem so out of whack. Source

Bringing in out of the blue, sensationalist statistics simply doesn't change my position, sorry.

If we succeed, we'll leave. It seems like we are doing just that.

I agree. Sensationalist data doesn't help make an argument. Now if only this same logic were applied by pro-war folks to reconcile AQI vs. the insurgency. Or even the pro-invasion folks with regard to Iraqi WMD. Or how about equating 9/11 to Saddam?


If we "succeed", we will stay. A success for the pro-invasion/occupation folks means an Iraq with a pro-US government that "asks" the US to stay in permanent hardened military bases.

Surprising data shows military deaths below 1980 (peacetime).

MILITARY DEATHS SINCE 1980
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Military duty is inherently dangerous, even in peace time.

Some interesting numbers [pdf] have been released. They give the totals and reasons for military deaths from 1980 through 2004.

Of course we've had no full-scale war on our hands in that time other than Iraq (yes we had various actions and even the Gulf "War", but certainly nothing like Vietnam, Korea or WWII).

The reason this is interesting to me is to point out that in the very recent past we have lost as many in the military to accidents in a year as we have recently to combat in Iraq. In fact, in some years, we've lost 2 to 3 times more to accidents than we have to hostile action in Iraq.

For instance, from 1980 to 1989 the military averaged 2,123 deaths a year. Most from accidents (375 from hostile or terrorist activity). In 1991, 1,787 died on military duty. Of those 147 were KIA in the Gulf War.

In 2003 we suffered 1,410 military deaths, of which, 560 were a result of hostile action. In 2004 it was 1,887, of which 565 were a result of hostile action.

Obviously the last two numbers don't account for the number of wounded in the Iraq war, which numbers about 17,000 as I recall. Those range from light "returned to duty" wounds to multiple amputees (and is the subject for another time).

The point, historically speaking, should be obvious. While every death in Iraq is tragic, it is still a death and no more tragic than the young soldier, sailor, Marine or airman lost in training. The difference with Iraq is the politicial side of the coin. Whereas you have to scour the media to find mention of training accidents (which were higher in the'80s than combat and accidental deaths are now), opinion makers and politicians have found them indespensible in supporting their anti-war agendas. These numbers should provide some context in which to view them and assess the validity of opinions which frequently cite the "quagmire" in which we find ourselves and the cost in blood we're paying.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3609

That QandO blog needs to screen its comments. Canadian escort shemales? Dating sites? Viagra?

The reason this is interesting to me is to point out that in the very recent past we have lost as many in the military to accidents in a year as we have recently to combat in Iraq. In fact, in some years, we've lost 2 to 3 times more to accidents than we have to hostile action in Iraq.

For instance, from 1980 to 1989 the military averaged 2,123 deaths a year. Most from accidents (375 from hostile or terrorist activity). In 1991, 1,787 died on military duty. Of those 147 were KIA in the Gulf War.

In 2003 we suffered 1,410 military deaths, of which, 560 were a result of hostile action. In 2004 it was 1,887, of which 565 were a result of hostile action.

According to Wiki we have 1,838,528 active and reserve people. Reagan beefed up the military during the 80s. Anyone know how many enlisted and reserve people served annually from 1980 to 1989 to make a real comparison?

I'll let Lesly's point stand with regard to the size of the military from 1980-1989 which was far larger than it is today, thus the numbers will, of course, appear larger.


So, you're saying that accidents are no more or less tragic than US combat casualties in Iraq? If so, then why would you consider the 3000+ people who died on 9/11 more important than, say, the 38000+ auto fatalities in 2003?

No I am saying that they are not high historically when shown against accidental deaths since the 80s.

Of course it is hard to get the real numbers since the press labels all deaths the same.

And needless to say the civilians killed on 9/11 has nothing to do with my this. They were not “accidents” and not military deaths in peace or war.

And yes the 40,000 + people we lose a year to traffic accidents, and some multiple of that to injuries is bad but off point unless you are trying to minimize the military deaths.

I wasn't the one trying to minimize US casualties in Iraq. You were. You were saying that that the 1980s military had accidents at close to the same numbers as the combat casualties in Iraq.


You must be intentionally misunderstanding what I was saying (at least I hope that's the reason). This is what you wrote:
You were trying to minimize the casualties in Iraq by saying that they are equivalent to training accidents. IF you believe this, then I ask you how you believe 9/11 deaths are