I found this chart in the link provided in the original post.

 

[ATTACH]22287[/ATTACH]

 

The numbers seem different. Am I missing something?

 

These numbers are substantially different...and paint a slightly different picture....anybody?

These numbers are substantially different...and paint a slightly different picture....anybody?

Can you describe the picture you're seeing?

These numbers are substantially different...and paint a slightly different picture....anybody?

 

 

I saw the same thing. The number of deaths per year during the Clinton presidency in the table Habib posted (which was pulled from the website linked in LN's original post) are significantly different than what LN posted:

 

Leatherneck post:

 

1992 1,293

1993 1,213

1994 1,075

1995 2,465

1996 2,318

1997 817

1998 2,252

1999 1,984

2000 1,983

 

Linked table:

 

1992 1,293

1993 1,213

1994 1,075

1995 1,040

1996 974

1997 817

1998 827

1999 796

2000 758

 

 

And, if you divide the number of military fatalities by the FTE (full time equivalent) levels of the U.S. military, you see a very different trend than what is claimed in the opening post. I plotted it in Excel, I'll try to post it tonight.

Unless, I too, am missing something, here is what the totals are

 

Clinton (1993-2000) 7500 deaths

Bush (2001-2006) 8792 deaths (no numbers were listed for 2007).

Here is the data normalized for the size of the military (deaths per 1000 servicemembers). It tells a much different story. I added a few key events that I believe to be relevant to interpretation of the data.

H, that supports the data that I listed above in post 19.

I am also interested to see if the racial breakdown is incorrect as listed.

First, thanks H and others for looking into the numbers. As I stated in my original post, I did not verify the accuracy of the numbers.

 

Second, I think the graph you posted misses a couple of big points that people should also consider:

 

The graph you posted shows a pretty good dip during Clinton's Presidency. Do you want to venture a guess why? Its because of dramatic cuts imposed on the military training exercises during the Clinton years. And people die in training exercises. Less training, less deaths. But unfortunately, a less prepared military.

 

Furthermore, your concept of deaths/fte fails to reflect the very dramatic changes that have happened in the military's structure and organization. Back when the military was 2mm strong, the percentage of support personel to combat personnel was much higher than it is today. Since then, and particularly in this Bush's presidency, we've outsourced a lot of the support duties to companies like Halliburton (you remember those guys don't you :laugh:), which dramatically increased the percentage of active duty personnel in combat or hazardous duty assignments. Active duty numbers are now down to less than 1.4mm. Maybe the Army is different, but I don't know of any Marine combat unit that has been mothballed as part of that decrease in active duty numbers, which means a lot of the cut in numbers has been in admin and in support areas. Which further means you result in a much higher percentage of combat/hazardous duty soldiers per FTE. And that would cause the deaths/fte to go up whether we were at peace doing the training exercise we should to remain ready or whether we were at war. It only makes sense that when you have a much higher percentage of troops in combat and hazardous duty assignments, that the death/fte is going to be higher. Thus, I really don't think your graph accurately portrays the situation.

 

 

Look, I'm not trying to say that every one lost in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been dead any way if we were at peace. But on the other hand, those people screaming about the 3,000 lost over the now almost 5 years of the war need to be realistic and realize that as the charts indicate, in many years that we were at peace and doing training, we were losing close to similar number of military members each year. I know that I had to investigate a CH-53E transport helicopter with troops that crashed in a training exercise that killed everyone on board; I know that I had to investigate a Marine ran over by a tank in a training exercise; I know that I had to investigate a Marine pilot killed in a training exercise; and I know that I had to investigate even more stupid accidental deaths caused by drunk driving way too often. I know that if all of our troops were stateside, doing our normal training rotation, that unfortunately there would be a large number of fatalities each year and there would likewise be a large number of stupid deaths like drunk driving occuring each year.

 

I'll ask you two questions: if the newsmedia is truly as concerned about the loss of military lives as they seem to be these days, just where in the heck are they when we are at peace? Why don't they start off the nightly news each day with a running total of military member lives lost each day when we are at peace?

 

I'm glad you pointed out the inaccuracies in the e mail that was sent to me and I'm going to make sure the person who forwarded it to me knows that some of the numbers are wrong. And I hope you understand why I don't think your use of deaths/fte provides accurate conclusions.

LN - none of us argued against anything you said, just that the numbers in the email are wrong...as are many of those things that we get in emails. This wasn't a misrepresentation, but literally wrong data. I would assume that the number of casulties during GWB's time would be greater, due to the military actions that are occurring. However, the emailed made it seem as if during WJC's time that it was more than double that...it's simply wrong.

 

I am still interested to know why the "race" data was brought up and it, indeed, it is accurate. When I get time, I will check into that.

The race numbers are accurate but that has not stopped demagogues like Charley Rangle from repeating the accusation that minorities die in disproportional numbers in the military. Blacks participate in the military at a rate roughly equal to their proportion of the general population and they die at a slightly lower rate.

The race numbers are accurate but that has not stopped demagogues like Charley Rangle from repeating the accusation that minorities die in disproportional numbers in the military. Blacks participate in the military at a rate roughly equal to their proportion of the general population and they die at a slightly lower rate.

 

Where did you find your verification at?

LN - none of us argued against anything you said, just that the numbers in the email are wrong...as are many of those things that we get in emails. This wasn't a misrepresentation, but literally wrong data. I would assume that the number of casulties during GWB's time would be greater, due to the military actions that are occurring. However, the emailed made it seem as if during WJC's time that it was more than double that...it's simply wrong.

 

I am still interested to know why the "race" data was brought up and it, indeed, it is accurate. When I get time, I will check into that.

 

Understood. Some of the numbers were wrong in the e mail, as is the case in a lot of emails sent around, as you correctly pointed out.

 

I guess I just wanted to point out that H's graph (and I sincerely thank H for doing that as it took time) was somewhat misleading (and I'm not in anyway stating that H did it intentionally; rather he just plotted the raw data provided in the links) due to the fact that the percentage of "combat" personnel has increased due to the outsourcing of non combatant duties to private contractors. In my simple mind, that would have an effect on the deaths per fte of military personnel.

 

 

Plus the deaths per fte of military personnel during the Clinton years was probably low due to the cutback in training exercises during those years.

 

We're "good" even though we look at things differently. I learn a lot by listening to the "other side's" perspective. Like life, very few issues are black and white.

The thing about statistics are that they do not EVER represent the whole picture. The data that is not included is often the reason for the result. And usually, the data not included is not statistical, but "environmental" influence.

 

To that end, whenever I see statistical data I try to not take it at face vaule, but as an interesting anecdotal tidbit. As a person who produces statistical "backup" daily, I am skeptical when it comes down to stats that seem to overwhelmingly support one side or another.

I would like to backup LN's claim that the war is not being fought by the poor and minorities. I've seen other studies that backup or are very close to what LN presented.

I would like to backup LN's claim that the war is not being fought by the poor and minorities. I've seen other studies that backup or are very close to what LN presented.

 

I'm sure that you mean that they are not disproportionally fighting the war. The war is being fought by poor and minorities, as it is across other sectors.