Friday, March 21, 2008

Iraq Compared

I've said Iraq isn't Vietnam. Now Gateway Pundit shows Iraq isn't World War II or Korea:
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

. . .[W]e have suffered fatalities in Iraq at a rate 200 times smaller than the Battle of the Bulge:

Indeed, as Gateway Pundit observes, Iraq isn't even the Clinton Administration:
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.

Oh, another thing: don't forget Iraqi opinion:

source: ABC/BBC Poll
as well as the limitations of polls and surveys in Iraq, plus possible sample skewing, which may necessitate re-weighting some numbers:
So we find that a somewhat astonishing 62% — nearly two-thirds – of Iraqis believe the invasion (of their country, mind you, with all the associated bombing and occupation) was right.

Furthermore, despite all the violence, we can run the same calculation and find that 70% — more than two-thirds — of Iraqis describe their security situation as “very” or “quite” good. We find that 58% have “a great deal” or “a lot” of confidence in the central government and 52% also rate that gov’t’s performance as “very good” or “quite good.”
(via reader Doug J., Michael Totten)


OBloodyHell said...

Over on Varifrank, there's a fictional, "alternate history" account that Frank is writing. It's set in WWII around the Manhattan Project.

In the latest entry, mention is made of the USS Houston. Curious, I looked it up in Wikipedia.

The Houston was part of a Cruiser/Destroyer group involved in the Battle of the Java Sea and the subsequent Battle of Sunda Strait. There were at least four ships sunk in those battles, over the course of a couple days. Total men lost -- ca. 1,000.

We've tended to focus on land battles in comparisons to Iraq, but naval victories and losses have their price, too.

Dying at sea is not a lot different from dying in the trenches. Dead is dead. You ain't warming the planet with your smiling face anymore, either way.

1000 men dead and gone in a couple days. Another statistical comparison to Iraq that marks the bed wetting pansies for the sheep they all are. Hard to believe many of these are the kids of those who won WWII, innit?

Carl said...


Agreed. And should you desire being doubly appalled, read about the loss of the USS Indianapolis (about 800 dead), notable because:

1) It was sunk less than two weeks prior to Japan's surrender;

2) Had it been torpedoed days earlier, on its outbound voyage, the Hiroshima atomic bomb would have been delayed or never completed; and

3) The majority of deaths resulted from a colossal, and avoidable, "FUBAR".