US Republican senator likens Iraq war to Vietnam

[Secret Squirrel]

An influential Republican senator said on Sunday the longer the United States stayed bogged down in Iraq, the more the conflict looked like another Vietnam War.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand and some of my colleagues, is the dam has broken on this (Iraq) policy," said Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee and possible presidential candidate in 2008.

A decorated Vietnam War veteran, Hagel also said the war in Iraq had further destabilized the Middle East and the White House needed to find an exit strategy for Iraq.

Hagel's comments on ABC's "This Week," coincide with President George W. Bush's new offensive to counter growing public discontent over U.S. involvement in Iraq and calls for a pull-out date.

The White House rejected Hagel's remarks and said it was essential the United States complete its mission in Iraq.

"The president knows a free and democratic Iraq will help transform a dangerous region and lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said in Crawford, Texas.

"Our policies of the past only allowed the Middle East to become a terrorist breeding ground," he said. "Quitting now wouldn't help anyone except terrorist killers, who certainly aren't quitting their efforts to target innocent people."

Bush is taking his message on the road this week when he will invoke the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to contend that the United States must stay the course in Iraq.

But the public is showing more discontent with Bush's handling of Iraq, with high-profile protests during his Texas ranch vacation and new poll results showing growing concern over the outcome of the war.

Hagel said there were growing similarities between Iraq and U.S. involvement in Vietnam and he predicted the longer the United States stayed in Iraq the more unpopular it would become.

"We are locked into a bogged down problem not unsimilar or dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay the more problems we are going to have," he said.

OTHERS DISAGREE

Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia, speaking on the same program, strongly disagreed with Hagel's assessment and said there were huge differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

Allen backed the president's view that the Iraq war, which began in March 2003, was a focal point in America's war on terrorism after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

"It is absolutely essential that we win it. We cannot tuck tail and run (from Iraq). We have to prevail. We must win. If we lose, that will destabilize the Middle East," said Allen.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin broke ranks with many of his colleagues this week and called for a December 2006 deadline to withdraw from Iraq, arguing this would take the wind out of the sails of the insurgency.

In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Feingold said if a target date was not set the American public would become more and more disillusioned.

"The president is not telling us the time frame ... what's happening is that the American public is despairing of the situation," said Feingold. "I felt it was time to put on the table an idea and break the taboo," he added.

But fellow Democrat Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, disagreed and said a fixed timetable was not needed.

"The senator (Feingold) is understandably frustrated, like all America is. What we need in Iraq is either a strategy to win or a strategy to get out," he told ABC.

Feingold and Allen are also on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Hagel also did not back Feingold's approach but he said there needed to be a clearer strategy from the White House.

"I don't know how many more casualties we're going to take. We're spending a billion dollars a week now (in Iraq)," said Hagel.

More than 1,800 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq and thousands more have been wounded.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there. But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East," said Hagel.

link (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21395970.htm)

[budgie]

Really? Poor reasons for going in? Lack of support from local populace? Growing insurgency and nationalism? Public disaffection at home? Politicians not being straight with us? Where's the similarity?

:bash:

[Aerosoul]

Really? Poor reasons for going in? Lack of support from local populace? Growing insurgency and nationalism? Public disaffection at home? Politicians not being straight with us? Where's the similarity?

Gee, i wonder.

[Teufel_]

Where's the similarity?




Both are illegal imperialistic wars. :bash:

[Kilgor]

Where's the similarity?




Both are illegal imperialistic wars. :bash:

how was vietnam illegal ?

[Teufel_]

apart from the genociding occupying chemical weapons and mass murder nothing illegal

[Midav]

Plays the world’s smallest violin.

[Frogg]

All wars are similar. All wars are hell.

Other than that.....I don't see any similarity.

[Teufel_]

Plays the world’s smallest violin. play for yourself, look at a map and show me south vietnam on it

[MEGR]

Where's the similarity?




Both are illegal imperialistic wars. :bash:

rofl

[Teufel_]

Where's the similarity?




Both are illegal imperialistic wars. :bash:

rofl
and both will be lost :)

[Kilgor]

Where's the similarity?




Both are illegal imperialistic wars. :bash:

Spread of communism you must mean.

[Teufel_]

Where's the similarity?




Both are illegal imperialistic wars. :bash:

Spread of communism you must mean.vietnamese appreciated the spread of democracy which was aided by agent orange, carpet bombings of civilian areas, and massacres of vietnamese civilians. not to mention diem or whatever the **** was called was more brutal than any northern communists :lol:

[Midav]

Where's the similarity?




Both are illegal imperialistic wars. :bash:

Spread of communism you must mean.vietnamese appreciated the spread of democracy which was aided by agent orange, carpet bombings of civilian areas, and massacres of vietnamese civilians. not to mention diem or whatever the f*** was called was more brutal than any northern communists :lol:

This guy just wants to start a flame.

Yes, nothing that the N Vietnamese did was as bad and blah blah blah.....

Gadz, these flunkies get old. Don't bother to respond. Just ban.

[MEGR]

He sounds familiar. I wonder if he was another one of our past trolls. Hmmm.

[Teufel_]

Yes, nothing that the N Vietnamese did was as bad and blah blah blah.....
i do not seem to recall saying anything about north vietnamese actions, are amer schools that bad that you cannot read? :roll:

[MEGR]

Yes, nothing that the N Vietnamese did was as bad and blah blah blah.....
i do not seem to recall saying anything about north vietnamese actions, are amer schools that bad that you cannot read? :roll:

Talk to some of the Vietnam vets on the forum. Maybe, they'll add their comments in on this discussion.

[Teufel_]

why do i need their input, i am not looking for effective way of massacring 2 million civilians so their advice will not help

[Midav]

Yes, nothing that the N Vietnamese did was as bad and blah blah blah.....
i do not seem to recall saying anything about north vietnamese actions, are amer schools that bad that you cannot read? :roll:

Talk to some of the Vietnam vets on the forum. Maybe, they'll add their comments in on this discussion.

As said, ignore the guy. PM has been saent. One thing to debate.

This guy is just out for arguments.

[Teufel_]

what, now you deny the mass civilian deaths in vietnam due to indiscriminate bombing and use of agent orange? nigga pls

[ViktorNavorski]

Well, this thread certainly took a turn for ebonics.

[Frogg]

Vietnam vets in Iraq see 'entirely different war'

By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

TIKRIT, Iraq — Before dawn, the pilots digest their intelligence briefing with coffee. The sun rises as they start preflight checks. Just after 7:30, they start rotors turning on their UH-60A Black Hawk, and ease it smoothly into the desert sky.

AUDIO:
Hear DeWayne Browning, left, and Randy Weatherhead talk about their experiences in Iraq and Vietnam.

Chief Warrant Officers DeWayne Browning and Randy Weatherhead will take off and land a dozen times this hot day, ferrying infantry troops battling Iraq's insurgents in the Sunni Muslim heartland that Saddam Hussein calls home.

<snip>

Browning, 56, of Paradise, Calif., and Weatherhead, 57, of Elk Grove, Calif., are grandfathers. They first flew combat missions in Vietnam, before most of the soldiers in the current Army were born. They and others their age are here with the National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division, which includes some of the oldest soldiers to serve in combat for the modern U.S. Army. Few soldiers or officers in the military, other than the service's top generals, are as old.

If there are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, these graying soldiers and the other Vietnam veterans serving here offer a unique perspective. They say they are more optimistic this time: They see a clearer mission than in Vietnam, a more supportive public back home and an Iraqi population that seems to be growing friendlier toward Americans.

"In Vietnam, I don't think the local population ever understood that we were just there to help them," says Chief Warrant Officer James Miles, 57, of Sioux Falls, S.D., who flew UH-1H Hueys in Vietnam from February 1969 to February 1970. And the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were a tougher, more tenacious enemy, he says. Instead of setting off bombs outside the base, they'd be inside.

"I knew we were going to lose Vietnam the day I walked off the plane," says Miles, who returned home this month after nearly a year in Iraq. Not this time. "There's no doubt in my mind that this was the right thing to do," he says.

The Army says it's impossible to know exactly how many Vietnam veterans are serving in Iraq, and there might be only a few dozen. Most of them came to Iraq last winter with the 42nd Infantry, a National Guard division headquartered in Tikrit, north of Baghdad.

<snip>

"There was a lot more action in Vietnam than there is here," says Chief Warrant Officer Herbert Dargue, 57, of Brookhaven, N.Y. But the danger in Iraq is higher for those who are shot down but survive. "There's no such thing as a POW," he says, referring to the terrorists' penchant for executing Westerners.

The enemy in Iraq has "absolutely no value" for life, Dargue says, who flew Huey helicopters in Vietnam from June 1968 to June 1969.

Miles says the biggest difference he saw was that, over time, Iraqi civilians grew more positive toward U.S. forces. He says he saw more people smiling and waving near his base here than there were 10 months ago when he arrived.

1st Sgt. Patrick Olechny, 52, of Marydel, Del., an attack helicopter crew chief and door gunner in Vietnam from March 1971 to February 1972, says the most important difference to him is the attitude of the American public.

"Vietnam was an entirely different war than this one," he says. The basic job of flying helicopters is the same, but the overall mission now is clear when it wasn't then. "We thought in Vietnam we were doing the right thing, and in the end it didn't seem that way," he says.

Now, "the people in the United States respect what the soldiers are doing," says Olechny, who still fills in at the door gunner position when he can get away from his administrative duties.

Browning, recently back from two weeks of R&R in the USA, says he was overwhelmed by the reception he got stateside: More than a hundred people met the airplane to help the soldiers and wish them well. "I can't tell you what, as a Vietnam vet, that means to me," he said.

<snip>

"They have a different mind-set," says Chief Warrant Officer James Dunn, 39, of Manassas, Va., probably because "they got shot at on every mission," something he says doesn't happen often in Iraq.

<snip>

On this day, there are a couple of reminders of Vietnam. One of the Iraqi marshlands near the Tigris River looks a lot like the Mekong Delta, Weatherhead says. They watch as the other helicopter swoops slowly over a village to drop candy and toys for the kids, as they once did in Vietnam.

"Well, Augustus," Browning says. "It's a good day to be flying."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-06-20-iraq-vietnam-vets_x.htm

[jmatucd]

Teufel_ = ban? is this is same guy again and again?

[seva108]

The only way this is similar to Vietnam is that constant leftist whining and media anti-war activism undermined the will to win.

We won on the battlefield in Vietnam, and are winning big-time in Iraq in comparison with Vietnam.

Vietnam contrast/comparison:
Years it would take to match the Vietnam war's US combat deaths ... about 70 years.
Size of Iraqi insurgency versus Vietnamese insurgency ... about 5% of the size.
Zarqawi is a member of al qaeda... # of American civilians in USA killed by al qaeda = 3,000.
# of American civilians killed by vietcong in USA = 0.

[seva108]

It's time to put US military losses in Iraq in some perspective. The leftist media have been blowing our losses in Iraq way out of proportion.

During the period 1980-1997 the US military recorded 31,333 deaths from all causes. Included in the tota1 are: 18,654 died in accidents; 1,739 were homicides, 4,263 committed suicide; and 560 died from hostile fire (Beruit Marine barracks and Gulf War I). Compare that to our losses in Iraq of 1863 personnel from all causes over a 29 month period March 2003--August 2005.

The bottom line is that serving in the military is an inherently dangerous occupation in peacetime and wartime. The casualty rate in Iraq has been remarkably low and trending lower. The figures don't justify the public handwringing and just invite the enemy to redouble his efforts to inflict more given the reaction by the media, the Democrats, and numbskull Republicans like Hagel.

Worldwide US Military casualties October 1979 through March 1998:
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m07/mar98cas.pdf

[Durandal]

Both are illegal imperialistic wars. :bash:

*sigh*

Actually, you have to prove that this a war of imperialism and certainly neither was illegal.


imperialism
noun
1. The power of, or rule by, an emperor or empress.
2. The policy or principle of having and extending control over the territory of other nations, of creating or maintaining an empire, or of extending one's country's influence through trade and diplomacy, etc.

The first is out since we have a Democratic Representative Republic. No emperor. The second gets a little muddy. All nations have a policy dealing with extending influence by trade and diplomacy, but I hardly call the invasion of Iraq part of a policy of taking over nations. You have to prove to us that the United States actually has a well organized plan to take over regions in the world besides JUST Iraq. We do, however, like most nations, try to get favorable trade and diplomatic agreements, so I guess like any nation maybe we are imperialist.

Of course, I would HATE to live in a nation that did not try to do this. A nation is supposed to defend and find favorable agreements representing its people.

Anyways...you comments are simply trolling.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Despite me being a lefty and fully against the Iraqi invasion I do have this to say.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

Where are all the attacks comming from?

Do the enemy actually stand up and fight with small arms up close and personal?

Look at all the casualties and tell me what has caused them?

[Durandal]

All wars are similar. All wars are hell.

Other than that.....I don't see any similarity.

The fact that you call it a war though no President has gone to Congress to request and had a vote declaring such smacks as the most obvious comparison.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Where's the similarity?




Both are illegal imperialistic wars. :bash:

how was vietnam illegal ?

And, how was it Imperialistic?

[ElHombre]

Despite me being a lefty and fully against the Iraqi invasion I do have this to say.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

Where are all the attacks comming from?

Do the enemy actually stand up and fight with small arms up close and personal?

Look at all the casualties and tell me what has caused them?

the comparison is on the domestic side more than the military one. both wars have inept political leadership in common.

[Durandal]

Oh yeah, and the Sec Def....

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.22.04/gifs/mcnamara-0404.jpg http://www.crooksandliars.com/images/2005/01/24/donald-rumsfeld-2.jpeg

Both of whom have more that just physical appearences. ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

The only way this is similar to Vietnam is that constant leftist whining and media anti-war activism undermined the will to win.

We won on the battlefield in Vietnam, and are winning big-time in Iraq in comparison with Vietnam.

Vietnam contrast/comparison:
Years it would take to match the Vietnam war's US combat deaths ... about 70 years.

Based on what calculation? And are you comparing in ratios and factoring in medical and technological advancements? How many of the over 14,000 wounded would have died in Vietnam?


Size of Iraqi insurgency versus Vietnamese insurgency ... about 5% of the size.

So you know the size of the insurgency? Please contact the Bush administration and let them know. ;)


Zarqawi is a member of al qaeda... # of American civilians in USA killed by al qaeda = 3,000.
# of American civilians killed by vietcong in USA = 0.

I dont know where you're going with this last statement...does it make sense to you? Oh and by the way the number of civilians killed in Vietnam was not zero. But as you know, Saddam wasnt connected to 9/11 so nice attempt at trying to raise some emotions by connecting the two.

[Geezah]

Despite me being a lefty and fully against the Iraqi invasion I do have this to say.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

Where are all the attacks comming from?

Do the enemy actually stand up and fight with small arms up close and personal?

Look at all the casualties and tell me what has caused them?

the comparison is on the domestic side more than the military one. both wars have inept political leadership in common.

Vietnam kicked off during Kennedy's reign didn't it and was then inherited by LBJ, only to be passed on to Nixon?

[ElHombre]

Vietnam kicked off during Kennedy's reign didn't it and was then inherited by LBJ, only to be passed on to Nixon?

yes, vietnam was a bipartisan clusterf***. ;)

[Secret Squirrel]

Despite me being a lefty and fully against the Iraqi invasion I do have this to say.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

Where are all the attacks comming from?

Do the enemy actually stand up and fight with small arms up close and personal?

Look at all the casualties and tell me what has caused them?

the comparison is on the domestic side more than the military one. both wars have inept political leadership in common.

Vietnam kicked off during Kennedy's reign didn't it and was then inherited by LBJ, only to be passed on to Nixon?

Eisenhower first began steps to prevent a Communist government in the North from consuming the South in 1950.In 1954 Eisenhower sent advisers there to prep the south. Kennedy sent, at first, American special forces to train South Vietnamese how to fight a counter insurgency war against Communist guerrillas in South Vietnam. And Johnson took the U.S into a "full" war in Vietnam. And Nixon gets it after Johnson.

[Geezah]

Well by the looks of it, Nixon inherited all of the blame as well.

[Secret Squirrel]

Well by the looks of it, Nixon inherited all of the blame as well.

Look at any timeline regarding Nixon's time in Office and you'll probably understand why. Keep your eye out for the draft lottery, Kent State, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution revisited, Veteran's Health Care Expansion Act of 1972, watergate ( :lol: ) and War Powers Act (1973).

[ElHombre]

Well by the looks of it, Nixon inherited all of the blame as well.

not quite. johnson retired intead of running for another term due to rising opposition to vietnam. nixon was elected saying he had a plan to get the troops out of vietnam but escalated the conflict instead.

[Teufel_]

another way iraq is like vietnam: both will be lost due to the extremely negative media coverage affecting public opinions, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it :lol:

[Midav]

Well by the looks of it, Nixon inherited all of the blame as well.

not quite. johnson retired intead of running for another term due to rising opposition to vietnam. nixon was elected saying he had a plan to get the troops out of vietnam but escalated the conflict instead.

Heading out to work in a few min. but would like to post something on the above.

It had something to do with the ho chi minh trail. Had something to do with NVA forces being in both countries. Linebacker II had something to do with the Paris peace talks.

There were reasons. And those reasons should have been taken care of much earlier.

However, Nixon did fulfill what he said he would. He got the US out of there.

As a result, many more people died.

Later all!

[CG51]

He sounds familiar. I wonder if he was another one of our past trolls. Hmmm.

I was thinking the same thing, or he has a second account here and posts under another name too.

[BloodyTalon]

Another thing that's different between Iraq and Vietnam:

The VC and the NVA were all united under the same idealogy (Communism) and the same goal (taking over South Vietnam). The insurgency in Iraq, however, is split between at least two or three factions, each with conflicting idealogies and tactics. For example, the Sunnis want to restablish Saddam's regime and their attacks center on hit and run attacks on Coalition troops and targeting supporters of the new government and their families. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, want a more terrorist-friendly government and their attacks involve large car bombs that often kill more civilians than soldiers.

[KB]

Not to hijack the thread, but Watergate sealed S Vietnam's fate. No way Nixon would have stood by in 1975 when the NVA attacked had he not been forced to resign by Watergate. It would have been Linebacker III.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

another way iraq is like vietnam: both will be lost due to the extremely negative media coverage affecting public opinions, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it :lol:

heh heh we can, and do change the channel now. Cable news anyone? Talk radio? Blogging? You can thank old-line media idiocy for the explosive growth of all these new media - people have seen through much of the tired and well-worn anti-war mantra. Oh, and there's that pesky two term neo-con in the White House that the media despises. I believe one guy, what was his name - been around a while - got started in Vietnam- Rother - Rayther- something like that - anyhow, he tried some of the old tricks and got canned.

Apart from the incessant hand-wringing of the liberal dinosaurs, there is little basis to compare Vietnam and Iraq. Vietnam was a brush war where two superpowers fought each other without resorting to direct confrontation. Where is the superpower support for the Iraqi insurgency?

[Laworkerbee]

another way iraq is like vietnam: both will be lost due to the extremely negative media coverage affecting public opinions, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it :lol:

Hey Troller Teufel

Do the world a favor, go get drunk and play dodge on the freeway....please!

[Durandal]

Rather than bitching about whether the two conflicts mirror each other (they do and do not) (a ƒucking stupid argument bordering on the inane), you all should take notice that the division is not coming from some bent liberal mom, but a REPUBLICAN representative that was duly elected by citizens of this nation and his State.

Not the only one either. ;)

[Durandal]

Vietnam kicked off during Kennedy's reign didn't it and was then inherited by LBJ, only to be passed on to Nixon?

Well, technically, if you REALLY want toget down to it, we were in since Eisenhower.

1950 MAAG (U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group) was in Saigon and we were helping fund half the war for the French by the end of the year.

Kennedy was the first to begin the military build-up. Till that point we only had about 3 dozen people in country coordinating with the French and after their defeat in 1954 a CIA intel office.

[BadKarma26]

another way iraq is like vietnam: both will be lost due to the extremely negative media coverage affecting public opinions, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it :lol:

we won the war. this is the occupation.

[Durandal]

we won the war. this is the occupation.

*cough*

We won the invasion.

Last time I checked, we were not at war with Iraq. We are at "war" on terror, though war has never been declared. ;)

[BadKarma26]

Occupation: the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force
War: A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

the war was won. we defeated Iraq's military.

this is now an occupation of a country that has been defeated. you may call the situation in Iraq a second war perhaps; maybe a counter-insurgency war but America was clearly victorious in invading Iraq, destroying its military, and arresting the leader of the country.

[SavikLion]

You can argue the political side of the conflict if you decide too, but the military facts speak for themselves if you actually look at them. Iraq after 2 years hasn't even equaled 1/3 of 1 year in Vietnam. From casualties to lost hardware, that’s just a fact. Even the hippies haven't had the strength in numbers they had back then. Though the seem to have grown in one category, that being the A$$hole category.
--------------------------
"Air mobility" came at a heavy price, however. During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1973, the United States lost 4,869 helicopters to all causes (with more than a thousand lost in 1968 and another thousand in 1969). Fifty-three percent of these losses were due to enemy fire (including enemy attacks on airbases). The rest resulted from operational accidents. The high rate of operational accidents occurred largely because helicopters are ****e to mechanical breakdown if not regularly maintained, and during a war, maintenance often suffers. Vietnam's heavy jungle canopy also made helicopter operations difficult, with few places to land a stricken helicopter.

http://www.1903to2003.gov/essay/Rotary/Heli_at_War/HE14.htm

• 8,744,000 American service personnel served in Vietnam between August 1964 - January 1973.
• The Vietnam war was second only to World War II in numbers of personnel involved.
• 58,000 US soldiers died in Vietnam.
• 314,000 US soldiers were wounded. (153,000 seriously)
• 10,000 US soldiers lost at least one limb. (more than all those in WWII and Korea)
• 2,025 US soldiers are still MIA. (Missing in Action)
• 185,000 South Vietnamese soldiers were killed.
• 500,000 South Vietnamese soldiers were wounded.
• 4,865 US helicopters were lost. ($250,000 each)
• 3,720 other aicraft were lost.
• 8,000,000 tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. (4 times the WWII amount)
• An estimated $600,000,000 damage was caused to North Vietnam, at a cost to America of $6 Billion.
For averages when America became fully involved in the war from August 1965 to January 1975 a 9 year period:
We lost 6430 personnel a year, 535 a month 133 week. 32 a day
We Lost 540 Helicopters a year, 45 helicopters a month, 11 helicopters a week, 2 a day
We lost other aircraft (fighters,Transports,ect) 413 a year, 34 a month, 8 a week, 1 a day

Now for the totals for the war in Iraq
Per DOD can be found at
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Period 3: June 29, 2004 (the day after the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq) through today's date.
Period 2: May 2, 2003 through June 28, 2004 (the day of the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq).
Period 1: March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2003 (the end of major combat).


Military Fatalities for the entire conflict as of October 25, 2004
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
3
252 8 14 274 2.28 120
2
715 27 58 800 1.89 424
1
139 33 0 172 4 43
Total 1106 68 72 1246 2.12 587
To View Period Details Click The Period Number
Time Periods Defined

Latest Fatality: Oct 25, 2004


Military fatalities by month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
10-2004
48 0 2 50 1.92 26
9-2004
80 3 4 87 2.9 30
8-2004
66 4 5 75 2.42 31
7-2004
54 1 3 58 1.87 31
6-2004
42 1 7 50 1.67 30
5-2004
80 0 4 84 2.71 31
4-2004
135 0 5 140 4.67 30
3-2004
52 0 0 52 1.68 31
2-2004
20 1 2 23 0.79 29
1-2004
47 5 0 52 1.68 31
12-2003
40 0 8 48 1.55 31
11-2003
82 1 27 110 3.67 30
10-2003
43 1 2 46 1.48 31
9-2003
30 1 1 32 1.07 30
8-2003
35 6 2 43 1.39 31
7-2003
47 1 0 48 1.55 31
6-2003
30 6 0 36 1.2 30
5-2003
37 4 0 41 1.32 31
4-2003
73 6 0 79 2.63 30
3-2003
65 27 0 92 7.67 12
Total 1106 68 72 1246 2.12 587

Period Wnd-RTD Wounded
19-Mar-03 thru 03-Apr-03 115 426
04-Apr-03 thru 02-Apr-04 963 1484
03-Apr-04 thru 09-Apr-04 59 222
10-Apr-04 thru 16-Apr-04 119 242
17-Apr-04 thru 23-Apr-04 138 96
24-Apr-04 thru 03-May-04 193 76
04-May-04 thru 11-May-04 82 116
12-May-04 thru 18-May-04 100 93
19-May-04 thru 24-May-04 73 85
25-May-04 thru 31-May-04 86 114
01-Jun-04 thru 09-Jun-04 121 10
10-Jun-04 thru 16-Jun-04 71 54
17-Jun-04 thru 22-Jun-04 79 54
23-Jun-04 thru 29-Jun-04 64 59
30-Jun-04 thru 20-Jul-04 209 201
21-Jul-04 thru 03-Aug-04 183 100
04-Aug-04 thru 11-Aug-04 56 133
12-Aug-04 thru 17-Aug-04 129 92
18-Aug-04 thru 24-Aug-04 152 41
25-Aug-04 thru 31-Aug-04 84 142
01-Sep-04 thru 07-Sep-04 114 -4
08-Sep-04 thru 14-Sep-04 81 138
15-Sep-04 thru 21-Sep-04 116 52
22-Sep-04 thru 28-Sep-04 62 57
29-Sep-04 thru 05-Oct-04 87 111
06-Oct-04 thru 12-Oct-04 86 46
13-Oct-04 thru 19-Oct-04 90 64
Total 3712 4304






Wounded In Action According to The DoD
Period Wounded
Sep-2004 519
Aug-2004 878
Jul-2004 546
Jun-2004 572
May-2004 752
Apr-2004 1203
Mar-2004 321
Feb-2004 146
Jan-2004 187
Dec-2003 261
Nov-2003 337
Oct-2003 413
Sep-2003 247
Aug-2003 181
Jul-2003 226
Jun-2003 147
May-2003 54
Apr-2003 340
Mar-2003 202
Total 7532
Last update from the DoD: 27-Sep-04
The average loss of soldiers per day in Iraq is 2, with 14 lost a week, 56 a month 672 a year
1 FA-18 fighter bomber shot down by accident with US patriot missle
Could not locate a concrete number on helicopters, once estimated 20 as of September 2005
1 Soldier MIA US Army PFC Mauphin

If you add that total to a 9 year period it comes to 6048, less then 1 year in Vietnam. If you take the 9 year total in Iraq and compare it to 1 year in Vietnam We lost 382 more in just one year in Vietnam.
Though I personally feel that every Falling US soldier is one too many. Many brave American soldiers fought in a totally unappreciated war in Vietnam. It is evident that even today we still do not appreciate the sheer tenacity of the conflict and what our troops were up against. You can call the war in Iraq unjust, or a war for oil, but to compare it to Vietnam is completely inaccurate, and disrespectful to our Vietnam veterans.
Vietnam is basically mountainous lush jungle terrain thick with shadows and places to hide. Loaded with enemy combatants both insurgent and regular North Vietnamese military, land mines, snakes, and many more dangers. Jungle so thick you could loose the man in front of you. During Vietnam, out troops didn’t have most of the equipment that our soldiers now have; for example head mounted Night vision, body armor, Light weight communications gear, mobile computers, fully integrated services on the battle field, to name a few. They were up against a well armed seasoned enemy who had been fighting a war since World War II, who were being supported by China, and Russia. Another factor that should be noted is we were only fighting the Viet Cong insurgency, but also the military of the North Vietnamese who had access to MIG fighters, Mobile and Stationary Anti-aircraft systems, Multiple SAM sites, trained infantry, and a society that fully supported their effort. The Vietnamese had large continuous convoys that were able to use the jungle canopy to disguise their locations, supplying both the regular army and the Viet Cong. Our troops had better aircraft, better equipment, and they went to war with an America that didn’t support them. In Vietnam today that war is celebrated as a major victory for them, but one that cost both sides too much. In the United States Vietnam seems to be the metaphor for any war that isn’t completed quickly with an unrealistic small loss of life. A war that requires no staying power and everything goes our way. If you look at the actual numbers from both conflicts you would not equate the two wars at all. Just because insurgent groups have adopted and used guerilla tactics, of hit and run and blend in to the population, doesn’t mean it’s Vietnam. They control some cities in Iraq, that doesn’t equate to North Vietnam. Why isn’t it World War 2, specifically the Belgian and French resistance/insurgence groups to name a few? They had underground supply routes, no regular military units. They used hit and run tactics. You can call the war unjust, or a war for oil, but to compare it to Vietnam.
Ask yourself these questions: What large territories of Iraq does the insurgence have full control over? How many Jet fighters does the insurgency have access to? What kind of armor and how many armored vehicles does the insurgency have? What threat to the pose to air US superiority? What is the supply chain for the insurgency? Is the insurgency back by any trained military units? Are our casualties remotely close to those in Vietnam? How many aircraft have we lost? How many soldiers do we have in Iraqi prisons? Below are the actual numbers from both wars. Search the internet if you don’t trust me and do the math yourself.

[plodey]

but to compare it to Vietnam is completely inaccurate, and disrespectful to our Vietnam veterans.
Vietnam is basically mountainous lush jungle terrain thick with shadows and places to hide. Loaded with enemy combatants both insurgent and regular North Vietnamese military, land mines, snakes, and many more dangers. Jungle so thick you could loose the man in front of you..

Disrespectful to veterans? The Republican making the comparison IS a decorated Vietnam War veteran!!

I think anyone with half a brain can work out that a jungle is not the same as a desert. The comparison with Vietnam obviously has to do with its perceived popularity back home and the political consequences of this public opinion.

[SavikLion]

but to compare it to Vietnam is completely inaccurate, and disrespectful to our Vietnam veterans.
Vietnam is basically mountainous lush jungle terrain thick with shadows and places to hide. Loaded with enemy combatants both insurgent and regular North Vietnamese military, land mines, snakes, and many more dangers. Jungle so thick you could loose the man in front of you..

Disrespectful to veterans? The Republican making the comparison IS a decorated Vietnam War veteran!!

I think anyone with half a brain can work out that a jungle is not the same as a desert. The comparison with Vietnam obviously has to do with its perceived popularity back home and the political consequences of this public opinion.


Hmm, well lets see what did I say in the first line of my post "YOU CAN ARGUE THE POLITICAL SIDE OF THE CONFLICT IF YOU DECIDE TOO, BUT THE MILITARY FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES"

Then lets see I said VIETNAM VETERANS, not veterans in general, whom not only fought a war in a foreign country but also at home.

[Durandal]

Occupation: the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force
War: A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

the war was won. we defeated Iraq's military.

this is now an occupation of a country that has been defeated. you may call the situation in Iraq a second war perhaps; maybe a counter-insurgency war but America was clearly victorious in invading Iraq, destroying its military, and arresting the leader of the country.

And please do not do a disservice to those that are over there right now...

We are STILL fighting a war, as far as they are concerned, your nice clean definition of start and end while nicely packaged for political consumption is irrelevant to them and the other people on the other side of the war.

Maybe you should could go over there and let them know the wars over and this is just occupation. Hang out in the Sunni Triangle and try to get someone to listen to you.

Maybe you could ask them something like this:

"Hey Mr. Iraqi, I know MOST of your people, want to chill out, but why can't you? Even though there was NEVER ever and formal declaration of war, starting or ending it, the conflict is still going on. I thought yoou might like to know that 'we won.""

Yeah man. I bet that would work.

Maybe, just maybe, if they KNEW we won, they would stop fighting. :cantbeli: rofl

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Personally, I really wouldn't call it a war any longer. I mean, the casualty rate, the modes of engagement the enemy is using - this is a classic insurgency, not a war. Losing 1900 people, over 2+ years (including the invasion stage) is not much of a war. We probably lost that many guys in the first 15 seconds or so of D-Day.

We lost 42,636 people to highway crashes in 2004 (the lowest figure ever). Over the same period that Iraq has been going on, that would equate to about 106,590 deaths. Hell, we lose twice as many people to motorcycle accidents alone in a single year than we have to all of the Iraq conflict. Where is the call to ban motorcycles?

Or booze for that matter - the source of so much highway carnage? In 2004, 16,694 were killed in alcohol related deaths. That rate, over the period of Iraq is 41,735 dead. That means that in Iraq, the daily number of deaths is equal to about 4.5% of the number of daily deaths on US highways just due to drunks. Or put another way - in a day, about 20 times as many people die in the US from drunk drivers than are killed in Iraq. If the "carnage" in Iraq is so terrible, why are we tolerating 20 times that carnage from drunks in the US? Where is the media attention on that?

I'm not trying to minimize the losses that have happened - any loss is tragic. I'm just trying to point out that Iraq is not some hopeless quagmire, it is not a death sentence to everybody that goes there, and we have had far more success there then you would ever guess from looking at the media. It's just very interesting to me to note what the media chooses to focus on, chooses to portray as a "quagmire" when there are clearly far bigger issues much closer to home.

[plodey]

We lost 42,636 people to highway crashes in 2004 (the lowest figure ever). Over the same period that Iraq has been going on, that would equate to about 106,590 deaths. Hell, we lose twice as many people to motorcycle accidents alone in a single year than we have to all of the Iraq conflict. Where is the call to ban motorcycles?

Or booze for that matter - the source of so much highway carnage? In 2004, 16,694 were killed in alcohol related deaths. That rate, over the period of Iraq is 41,735 dead. That means that in Iraq, the daily number of deaths is equal to about 4.5% of the number of daily deaths on US highways just due to drunks. Or put another way - in a day, about 20 times as many people die in the US from drunk drivers than are killed in Iraq. If the "carnage" in Iraq is so terrible, why are we tolerating 20 times that carnage from drunks in the US? Where is the media attention on that?

Hmmm you conveniently leave out the figures of Iraq's casualties and civilian casualties caused by US troops. Or are you saying that an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life?

In any case you make a good argument for bringing the troops home so they can set up road blocks with random breath testing to catch these drunk drivers.

[Secret Squirrel]

Personally, I really wouldn't call it a war any longer. I mean, the casualty rate, the modes of engagement the enemy is using - this is a classic insurgency, not a war. Losing 1900 people, over 2+ years (including the invasion stage) is not much of a war. We probably lost that many guys in the first 15 seconds or so of D-Day.

We lost 42,636 people to highway crashes in 2004 (the lowest figure ever). Over the same period that Iraq has been going on, that would equate to about 106,590 deaths. Hell, we lose twice as many people to motorcycle accidents alone in a single year than we have to all of the Iraq conflict. Where is the call to ban motorcycles?

around 300,000,000 people compared to an occupation force of 140,000 (of which not all are actual boots on the ground or in direct combat roles) and a population of 25,000,000 of which over 25,000 have died (not in accidents but because of a conflict)...ratios are important. ;)


Or booze for that matter - the source of so much highway carnage? In 2004, 16,694 were killed in alcohol related deaths. That rate, over the period of Iraq is 41,735 dead. That means that in Iraq, the daily number of deaths is equal to about 4.5% of the number of daily deaths on US highways just due to drunks. Or put another way - in a day, about 20 times as many people die in the US from drunk drivers than are killed in Iraq. If the "carnage" in Iraq is so terrible, why are we tolerating 20 times that carnage from drunks in the US? Where is the media attention on that?

Again, you've taken it out of context in what you believed was a valid point. However, you're mixing apples with oranges.


I'm not trying to minimize the losses that have happened - any loss is tragic. I'm just trying to point out that Iraq is not some hopeless quagmire, it is not a death sentence to everybody that goes there, and we have had far more success there then you would ever guess from looking at the media. It's just very interesting to me to note what the media chooses to focus on, chooses to portray as a "quagmire" when there are clearly far bigger issues much closer to home.

Sure you're trying to minimize the losses. You're trying to throw up red-herrings by using out of context comparisons.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The numbers are what they are. Are 1900 military losses over 2+ years too much for the United States to bear, when we lose 41,000 to drunk drivers over the same period? How many is enough for us to cut and run? We've lost 1900 military folks in over 2 years- and the press calls this a military disaster on par with Vietnam.

We killed 21,000 French civilians in the Normandy invasion - is that too many to bear? Does that make us mass-murderers, or were those also necessary but regrettable deaths? Also during Normandy, individual battles at bridges were killing upwards of 5000 Allied troops over a few days. Were they too much - should we have wrung our hands and run home?

When a supposed "superpower" cannot accept 1900 dead in a conflict over 2.5 years, we may as well not bother having armed services at all. All we need to do is show that we cannot even sustain tiny losses like these before we fold like a house of cards, to relegate ourselves to 1970's paper tiger status again. Do you think this concept is lost on our enemies?

Of course you can argue all you want about whether or not Iraq was a good idea, was legal, was wise, was for oil or to block China or to distract the public while Bush constructed his Pyramid...but all of that is entirely beside the point. We are in Iraq. We have to decide what is the best course of action from here on out. We have to look to the future, and how this conflict, and our reaction to its' difficulties will affect how other nations relate to us. Is the smart thing to do, to decide the great superpower can be broken with only 760 war dead per year? Hell, if that's the new standard, the average Caribbean island will be kicking our asses in no time.

[Secret Squirrel]

The numbers are what they are. Are 1900 military losses over 2+ years too much for the United States to bear, when we lose 41,000 to drunk drivers over the same period? How many is enough for us to cut and run? We've lost 1900 military folks in over 2 years- and the press calls this a military disaster on par with Vietnam.

Another red herring.


We killed 21,000 French civilians in the Normandy invasion - is that too many to bear? Does that make us mass-murderers, or were those also necessary but regrettable deaths? Also during Normandy, individual battles at bridges were killing upwards of 5000 Allied troops over a few days. Were they too much - should we have wrung our hands and run home?

another one.


When a supposed "superpower" cannot accept 1900 dead in a conflict over 2.5 years, we may as well not bother having armed services at all. All we need to do is show that we cannot even sustain tiny losses like these before we fold like a house of cards, to relegate ourselves to 1970's paper tiger status again. Do you think this concept is lost on our enemies?

More than a little out of context and extremist without actually addressing the issue.


Of course you can argue all you want about whether or not Iraq was a good idea, was legal, was wise, was for oil or to block China or to distract the public while Bush constructed his Pyramid...but all of that is entirely beside the point. We are in Iraq. We have to decide what is the best course of action from here on out. We have to look to the future, and how this conflict, and our reaction to its' difficulties will affect how other nations relate to us. Is the smart thing to do, to decide the great superpower can be broken with only 760 war dead per year? Hell, if that's the new standard, the average Caribbean island will be kicking our asses in no time.

You've simply reiterated out of context examples without addressing the real issues. Factor in medical, tech...etc advances as well as armor (both body and vehicular) and the fact that not all of the 140,000 (i believe thats still the number) in Iraq are in direct combat roles. How many of the over 14,000 wounded would have died in previous wars? How strained is the military because as you seem to suggest, only suffering minor losses? There's a lot of ground and reasons for arguing that many of those that did die, died needlessly. What are they fighting for now? The administration has already rolled back their expectations on what can be accomplished. Yet the insurgency, which according to Cheney (the second in command who would become president should anything happen to Bush) was in it's last throes months ago. How many times can you build up someone's hopes and repeatedly crush them before they stop either listening or believing you or they turn against you?

[Midav]

2SJ-- Good points!

The figures aren't even close to Vietnam and we are losing way more people on our streets.

No, not trying to make Iraq look light but we should be greatful that casualties aren't anywhere close to previous wars we fought i.e. Vietnam, Korea, WW 2...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

You've simply reiterated out of context examples without addressing the real issues. Factor in medical, tech...etc advances as well as armor (both body and vehicular) and the fact that not all of the 140,000 (i believe thats still the number) in Iraq are in direct combat roles. How many of the over 14,000 wounded would have died in previous wars?

What has that got to do with anything? We are concerned with reality, with the here and now, not imaginary casualties that could have happened. If Iraq is to be called "another Vietnam" it must be another Vietnam, not a "could have been another Vietnam".



How strained is the military because as you seem to suggest, only suffering minor losses?

Well, for that to matter, first you will have to establish that the military is strained. Then you will have to establish that the strain is germane to the argument. Even if it were, are we now only to engage in conflicts that do not cause strain on the military?



There's a lot of ground and reasons for arguing that many of those that did die, died needlessly.

Sure there's always room to argue that in any political exercise. But political motivations have nothing to do with military success or the distortion of that to paint a picture of an alternate reality.



What are they fighting for now? The administration has already rolled back their expectations on what can be accomplished. Yet the insurgency, which according to Cheney (the second in command who would become president should anything happen to Bush) was in it's last throes months ago. How many times can you build up someone's hopes and repeatedly crush them before they stop either listening or believing you or they turn against you?

The press is not saying "Bush is jerk, and because of that, Iraq is another Vietnam" - they are trying to create the picture of military disaster when there isn't one.

[nahimov]

"War is a continuation of politics through other means"
That means if you lose the political side of the conflic you lose the war. US is losing the political will to fight in Iraq. It does not matter what the casualties are! The numbers mean nothing. Iraqi war is being lost because even after years of figthing the country is still not under control. Again war is just politics not battles and hardware and casulties, just politics.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

"War is a continuation of politics through other means"
That means if you lose the political side of the conflic you lose the war. US is losing the political will to fight in Iraq. It does not matter what the casualties are! The numbers mean nothing. Iraqi war is being lost because even after years of figthing the country is still not under control. Again war is just politics not battles and hardware and casulties, just politics.

I think you have a bit of a contradictory statement there - but it does point out a critical aspect of the media's strategy.

I agree that war is an extension of politics, and I agree that political support must exist. But - casualty numbers - or just "good news from the front" form a huge part of political support. This is why we have very, very expensive weapons systems and procedures that allow us to keep casualties low.

But the low casualties form a problem for those trying to erode support based on a perceived failure. How can you have a failure when your casualty numbers clearly show there isn't one? Well, when you own a TV station or newspaper, you can create a failure- even if one doesn't exist.

By constantly portraying the war as a flop, much of the media (not all) hope to withdraw enough political support to end it. This is the one and only similarity to Vietnam that I can see. This conflict will not be lost due to the insurgency - if it is lost, it will be lost because of TV.

[nahimov]

"War is a continuation of politics through other means"
That means if you lose the political side of the conflic you lose the war. US is losing the political will to fight in Iraq. It does not matter what the casualties are! The numbers mean nothing. Iraqi war is being lost because even after years of figthing the country is still not under control. Again war is just politics not battles and hardware and casulties, just politics.

I think you have a bit of a contradictory statement there - but it does point out a critical aspect of the media's strategy.

I agree that war is an extension of politics, and I agree that political support must exist. But - casualty numbers - or just "good news from the front" form a huge part of political support. This is why we have very, very expensive weapons systems and procedures that allow us to keep casualties low.

But the low casualties form a problem for those trying to erode support based on a perceived failure. How can you have a failure when your casualty numbers clearly show there isn't one? Well, when you own a TV station or newspaper, you can create a failure- even if one doesn't exist.

By constantly portraying the war as a flop, much of the media (not all) hope to withdraw enough political support to end it. This is the one and only similarity to Vietnam that I can see. This conflict will not be lost due to the insurgency - if it is lost, it will be lost because of TV.

Politics are more than just "good news" vs "bad news". There are several issues which are even more important:
1. The rest of the world does not approve of the war in Iraq.
2. Quick victory was promised and expected but was not delivered.
3. Oil prices are going up like crazy and are hitting back home.
4. The reasons for war are still vague and half of the US and almost no one abroad sees them as valid.

If Iraq was under control none of these issues would seem as important but it is not and that mean insurgents are winning.

[stephane from Paris]

The biggest thread is:
Are US in process to win the hearts and soul of muslims especialy in irak?

In Vietnam you loosed on this thread!
Like neocons opponents thought, you're loosing too in Irak!
Even the shias hate US and western values and if they are happy that SH was remove they will be certainly a future problem!

rest the kurds, but since they dreams of Kurdistan, they will offens Turkey so certainly will become another problem for US!

The sunnis who count most of the seculars people turns in integrism!

Thanks Mr Bush great future for our children!

[pistol]

if it is lost, it will be lost because of TV.

Yea, I think I saw my TV running down the street eating some cheese and waving a white flag.

:roll:

If the war is "lost", whatever that means, it will be because of poor leadership.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

It's a rebuttathon...



Politics are more than just "good news" vs "bad news". There are several issues which are even more important:
1. The rest of the world does not approve of the war in Iraq.

For the most part, we don't care. I invite you to look at our parking space at the UN and red vs. blue states.



2. Quick victory was promised and expected but was not delivered.
Promised and expected by who? Certainly not the administration. On the contrary, Bush has said nothing except that it will be a long and difficult process. If you have information to the contrary, please post it.



3. Oil prices are going up like crazy and are hitting back home.


True, but that's hardly going to improve if we allow Iraqi oil to fall into fundamentalist hands, and most folks understand that.



4. The reasons for war are still vague and half of the US and almost no one abroad sees them as valid.

Again, red and blue states & who cares.



If Iraq was under control none of these issues would seem as important but it is not and that mean insurgents are winning.

The insurgents aren't winning anything apart from having the sexiest 15 seconds on the nightly news. If US news chose to suddenly report nothing but the good news from Iraq, opinions would swing entirely the other way. But good news is not sexy, and TV news is a commercial enterprise driven by advertising dollars linked to viewership numbers.


The biggest thread is:
Are US in process to win the hearts and soul of muslims especialy in irak?

In Vietnam you loosed on this thread!
Like neocons opponents thought, you're loosing too in Irak!
Even the shias hate US and western values and if they are happy that SH was remove they will be certainly a future problem!

rest the kurds, but since they dreams of Kurdistan, they will offens Turkey so certainly will become another problem for US!

The sunnis who count most of the seculars people turns in integrism!

Thanks Mr Bush great future for our children!

Fools! Behold the power of the exclamation!



if it is lost, it will be lost because of TV.

Yea, I think I saw my TV running down the street eating some cheese and waving a white flag.

:roll:

If the war is "lost", whatever that means, it will be because of poor leadership.

Never underestimate the power of a pissed off TV. I once saw a 19" Trinitron take down a full grown man and steal his wallet.

But seriously, you act as if US military victory is a foregone conclusion - as if we're entitled to win no matter what. A failure to win is due to our own failure, not the enemy's success? This is a failure to recognize that there is conflict and there is a determined and clever enemy.

[nahimov]

1. You personally might not care but Administration does and should. Besides losing allies no one is interested in helping out US in Iraq.

2. Quick victory was promised by this guy:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/vstory.bush.banner.afp.jpg

3. It is going to improve because if there is a Dictator in Iraq the oil will flow because there will be control. It flows just nicely from other countries with fundamental goverenments.

4. Many people care about the reasons why we are fighting. Remember that war is just politics, if you don't have clear agenda and political reasons to fight you lose.

The insergents prevent 150K of US troops from leaving Iraq. What other army in the world is capable of something like that?

[pistol]

But seriously, you act as if US military victory is a foregone conclusion - as if we're entitled to win no matter what. A failure to win is due to our own failure, not the enemy's success? This is a failure to recognize that there is conflict and there is a determined and clever enemy.

The US military has already achieved victory. And they did so decisively. Who was responsible for achieving our political objectives?