Actually, the pdf has *total* number of deaths.  If you add up the columns to the right, they add up to the "Total Deaths" figure.  "Hostile Action" is the number that died from combat.

It's a strange graph, indeed, but it does have the total from all causes.

I missed the pdf somehow.

A couple things jump out at me.

First, why 1983 as a comparison year? That # is also inflated by the 241 deaths in Beruit.

Second, you'll notice that the number of "accident deaths" has gone waaaaaay the hell down since 1983.

I don't think the perspective you've chosen is particularly apt.

It would be 9500 (with TONS of accidental deaths which the US military has obviously learned to better avoid) v. 6,785 deaths (not exact since the war started in March '03 and '07 #s are not available as per the pdf).

The main thing I've learned from your comparison is that the military has improved safety standards drastically. So now instead of dying from slipping on spilled coffee and landing neck first on a fork in the DFAC, our Soldiers are being ripped apart by shrapnel so some assholes in a foreign country can have the opportunity to freely VOTE for a government that hates us and wants to oppress them.

We've come a long way, baby.

damielost

I bet the VAST majority of the dead and injured are from combat and NOT accidents. My point is that what ever the number they were lost by a needless WAR that has not made America Safer!!!!!!

whatever we know that the vast majority of dead in a war is from combat but you made a statement that you knew for a fact that non of those who are dead or hurt would not have been hurt if there had been no war. my point is that no one on the earth can know that.


and some of those who are dead or hurt in the combat zone are by accident anyways

Col Gene, I can't agree with your assessment of the war or it's result. I do know a little about the Army both in peacetime and at war. I don't know where you got the title "Col", but if it was bestowed by congress, you know that every year, peace or war, the Plans makers at every level of command factor in a certain percentage of injury and fatality. Some years are better than others. We lost more soldiers in one peacetime jump into the Mojave Desert during the eighties than were lost to combat in the first week of Desert Storm. Soldiers die and soldiers get hurt learning the trade they practice. During the manuever phase of this Iraq war, our losses were phenominally low. During some peacetime years, they were high...go figure. That is neither here nor there. I think Shadowar's point was that the numbers...high or low...are being manipulated by the press to present the image of a bitter, Vietnamish, unwinable, "insurgant" war. That point appears to be valid. Arguing about the merits of the war...the catagories of comparison...manner of death...these are all smoke and mirrors. When the Democrats succeed in taking the White House back, you will see many of the same numbers being reported to prove what a fine job the new president is doing.

Thanx for the article, Shadowar...well done.

I bet if you did a study of the general public during the same period of time the results would be similar. This was an era when the legal drinking age was 18 and later 19. Add in the fact that seatbelts were not in use at all in the public.
The numbers cited are almost all accident related. Even deaths due to illness are down. I seem to recall that during the first Gulf War there were about the same number of fatalities in the training leading up to the war as there were during the war.
These stats also do not take into account the number of people maimed. The biggest thing you are not taking into effect is the size of the military. We had on average 2.2-2.3 million compared to 1.6-1.7 million during operations in Iraq.
I guess the only thing that you've proved is that statistics can lie like you want them to.

Col Gene, I can't agree with your assessment of the war or it's result. I do know a little about the Army both in peacetime and at war. I don't know where you got the title "Col", but if it was bestowed by congress, you know that every year, peace or war, the Plans makers at every level of command factor in a certain percentage of injury and fatality. Some years are better than others. We lost more soldiers in one peacetime jump into the Mojave Desert during the eighties than were lost to combat in the first week of Desert Storm. Soldiers die and soldiers get hurt learning the trade they practice. During the manuever phase of this Iraq war, our losses were phenominally low. During some peacetime years, they were high...go figure. That is neither here nor there. I think Shadowar's point was that the numbers...high or low...are being manipulated by the press to present the image of a bitter, Vietnamish, unwinable, "insurgant" war. That point appears to be valid. Arguing about the merits of the war...the catagories of comparison...manner of death...these are all smoke and mirrors. When the Democrats succeed in taking the White House back, you will see many of the same numbers being reported to prove what a fine job the new president is doing.

Thank you. You explained it better than I would have in response to his post.

If any of you are worried about attacks against the U.S. outside of Afgahnastan or Iraq just consider what happened during years of peace. Beruit, first World Trade Center bombing, Embassy in Darfar, USS Cole, Civilian Airline flown into the Twin Towers bring them down and many others I have not mentioned. Now consider the attacks agaqins the U.S. outside of the war zone since the invasion of Iraq. Umm, can't think of any. Yes we are losing good soldiers in the war, but they joined to protect the U.S. it's interests and it's citizens. They are doing this quite well. Yes, we have lost over 3,000 good men and women in this war, but how many civilians would we have lost if we were not in Iraq attracting the terrorists to that location rather than letting them roam the globe?