Iraq War vs. Major Battles Since WWII

[viking421a]

I am in no way trying to downplay the amount of lives lost in Iraq. I found these stats and found the length of the battles VS. the number of soldiers lost very interesting. One thing is clear, our troops are very good at what they do as the casualties are no where near what they have been in the past. Also very intersting that the clinton administration lost more troops in the first 5 years than we have in 5 years of war with iraq.


Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Sizing Up Sacrifice- Iraq War vs. Major Battles Since WWII

Sizing Up Sacrifice:

Click to Enlarge

Iraq War (5 years)-- 3,990
Batan Death March (one week)-- 10,000
Battle of Guadalcanal (186 days)-- 7,099
Battle of Guam (20 Days)-- 3,000
Operation Market Garden (9 days)-- 3,664
Battle of the Bulge (41 days)-- 19,276
Battle of Iwo Jima (39 days)-- 6,821
Battle of Pusan Perimeter (61 days-Korea)-- 6,706

Numbers from Schiele.us and Iraq Casualty Count

In February 2007 antiwar Democrat John Murtha said:


"This is the most intensive combat I've seen since maybe some of the combat in Iwo Jima or some of those places in World War II."
...Far from it.
Another Rovian Conspiracy corrected the Code Pink favorite.

The Iraq War has been no Iwo Jima.

More... You won't hear this at a Hillary Clinton stump speech:

The US military lost more soldiers in the first 5 years of the Clinton Presidency than the US military lost in the first 5 years in Iraq.
(Numbers from CRS report to Congress pdf)

American forces have fought brilliantly in Iraq.

UPDATE: (23:00 PM) Kirk sends this chart which shows that we have suffered fatalities in Iraq at a rate 200 times smaller than the Battle of the Bulge:

Kirk adds-- "The chart itself shows a much more dramatic visual difference; and that's _after_ I took out the Bataan Death March because (a) it was so far off the scale it made most of the other battles look good (i.e. closer to Iraq) by comparison, and (b) it wasn't really a battle, just an atrocity committed against the already-captured."

 

[huntindude]

Then there's the rest of the story.

Vietmam cost 113 billion dollars, yes I know there's inflation to factor.

So far the official cost in Iraq is 501 billion with most saying actual cost more like 600 billion. we're spending over 341 million dollars a day and for how long? the CBO estimates the total cost of Iraq after reconstruction to tax payers at 2.4 trillion.

Now I agree loss of life is first priority but money is the second factor. where I'm from 600 billion and adding 341 million dollars a day is pretty serious cash.

Another overlooked factor is it can proved without a doubt that WWII changed the world and saved our way of life, Vietnam and Korea may have slowed communism it's debatable but I think it has merritt. can you do the same with Iraq ? cost is relevant to gain.

 

[202typical]

In my humble opinion I believe Iraq will play out to be even more significant to assuring our way of life than WWII. We can only speculate. But having control in the middle of the most hostile area in the world will go a long way in keeping us safe.
As far as cost I could care less how much it cost. I am willing to raise taxes for the war effort but nothing else. It is that important.
I have a 12 year old daughter she is highly intelegent (she did not get her smarts from me) she talks about college quite offten and wants to be an Aggie like no other. She would also like to fly jets for the military. I would be honored if one of my children joined the military. I would back her all the way.





"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)

 

[huntindude]

More important than WWII? that's classic, Bush should have you on staff.

How does a shakey situation in Iraq translate into control of the region? we won't even have control of Iraq let alone Iran and the rest of the region. kool aid in the quantity you drink it in causes brain damage, STOP IT.

I'll go along with raising taxes to pay for the war on those who want to continue the war. that's amounts to about 35% of Americans so plan on paying up. my un kool aid clouded opinion is I'm not getting 341 million dollars a day good out of this.

 

[pete37901]

Comparing Iraq to any battle from any other war is like apples and oranges. Two different eras all together. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's more important then WWII but it is the battle of our era.

 

[Cornhusker]

202 I'm sure that you just had a typing error and don't really believe the war in Iraq can compare in significance to World War II. Sorry but that isn't even logical. Is it the battle of our era as Pete says? No! not if you include Vietnam in the era which it is part of mine. Vietnams Societal implications as well as the time spent there make it much more significant.

 

[pete37901]

Cornhusker....I'll give you that one because I joined the Army just after that conflict..But the crutch of this tread is the amount of KIA's.... It's astounding that we have only lost 4000 troops in 5 years of combat....With the lethality of the weapon systems we us on the battle field today.... For example one my tank platoons was being harassed by fire last summer. In order to avoid destroying a whole block. The scout track pin pointed where the fire was coming from....With one radio call to the FIST a single F-16 dropping one 500 lb jadam hit within 2 feet of target... needless to say there wasn't any more harassing fire from that area again.....The three friends I have lost over there where killed by IED's ..... That has become the weapon of choice of or enemy...mainly because when they try to stand up to us mono a mono they always get stomped into the dirt.

 

[huntindude]

Pete I agree with you on that, but isn't that what makes this war impossible to win? they know they can't come out and fight in a conventional mannor so they drag it out reproducing as fast as they're killed. they're willing to die for their cause and their lives revolve around that cause. as all the experts say there is no military solution to this only political, and that's not made as much progress as the military end of things has.

Reports are now saying the cease-fire with al Sadr may be falling apart. lets hope not it's tough enough as it is.

 

[eelgrass]

If we were to let radical Islam run freely, it wouldn't be long and this fight could be of epic proportions. So in that sense, I agree with 202 and his comparison to WWII. And we can compare it to Vietnam. If we pull out before the job is done we can say those soldiers died for nothing, just like 58,000 of my generation did in Vietnam.

I would fight the Iraq war differently, but no way would I leave before the job was done. The Muslims can either respect us or fear us. It would be up to them.

Eel

 

[pete37901]

HDude point taken but without the military providing security then there wouldn't be any chance for the political solution...the two are connected. 90% of the people in Iraq are not much different from us ... they want to work and raise their families and be left alone. it's the other 10% that cause the problems there. If you notice they play to camera's. More bang for buck.

 

[pete37901]

That's why I could never be in charge of this war...If i was the president the day world trade center went down Medina would have been a sand lot right now. Then I would have told the the rest of the Isamic nations that if another American dies from these radical bastards that Meca would next....That would get their attention real fast.

 

[huntindude]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-24-08 AT 10:35PM (MST)[p] If the Muslims as a whole respect or fear us it isn't showing.

I don't doubt you're right about that 10%, but how do you eliminate them and their supporters from a population that protects them? if you can't they may as well be 50%

 

[202typical]

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor to get us into war they bombed military targets.
When islamofacist took out the twin towers they targeted innocent civilians.
The difference in targets is monumental. Never in our history have we been hit like this. Islamofacist methods of war are a greater threat to this country's safety than Japan and Germany combined in terms of civilian deaths.
If we do not fight them in their territory we will be fighting them in our territory on our soil. We never had to fight on our soil (aside from when the japanese invaded some desolate illution island). This threat is much greater than WWII.



"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)

 

[Cornhusker]

Pete I agree with you that it is amazing about only losing 4000 in 5 years. I think it shows how good our military actually is, very good I believe.

202 the arguement we fight them there or we fight them here doesn't make sense at all. How does fighting them in Iraq stop any Islamic fundamentalists accept the dead ones from coming here? They are capable of buying plane tickets and establishing terrorists cells here if they can gain admittance to the U.S. Homeland security has slowed them down, some are certainly here. Its the security of the U.S. that has stopped them not the war in Iraq.

We were invaded by the British in 1814 and they burned the Capital.

 

[ClorideRUS]

"Never in our history have we been hit like this. Islamofacist methods of war are a greater threat to this country's safety than Japan and Germany combined in terms of civilian deaths."

Bullsh!t!!!! Lest we forget the Oklahoma Federal Building etc.

This conflict cannot compare with the threat of WWI or WWII, to even imply that the threat coming out of these 3rd world nations is as serious of a threat as Hitler is stupid ... just plain stupid.

Do we need to defend our borders? You bet! Do we morn the loss of innocent life at the hands of terrorists? You bet! Have we accomplished a Goddamn thing in Iraq? Nope!

Bush! I hope he rot's in HELL. And no, I don't hate him, I just hate what he has done to my country!

RUS

 

[Cornhusker]

I'm writing in Rus for president. My thoughts exactly only written much more eloquently by Rus.

 

[huntindude]

Agreed, even the notion that Iraq may be as important as WWII is insane. crazy thinking like this is why we're in this quagmire.

It took less time to win WWII than it did to screw Iraq up, there is no reason to think Iraq is or ever was winnable short of genocide.

 

[nickman]

There may only be 4,000 dead.....and that statistic is good when compared to other wars.....one very overlooked fact, however, is the number of wounded....way above any war we have ever fought, percentage wise.

IED's = Amputees........

Wait and see what that will cost over the next 50 years.

 

[proutdoors]

> It took less time to
>win WWII than it did
>to screw Iraq up, there
>is no reason to think
>Iraq is or ever was
>winnable short of genocide.

Maybe if we followed Bessy's advice and turned the whole region into glass we could shorten the timeframe a bit. I'll take minimizing civilian deaths that takes more time, than just wiping out 100,000's of civilian lives being taken to 'save a few dollars' every time.

ANyone who doesn't see the HUGE threat from these radicals is blind and must have the last name of Chamberlain. I swear I just heard RUS say, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself".

PRO


Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.