"Iraq is not another Vietnam!" - Gruesome math shows Iraq to be FAR worse.

[Mugsy]

Via "Mugsy's Rap Sheet":

"Iraq is not another Vietnam!" - Gruesome math shows Iraq to be FAR worse.

They're trying make a case for attacking Iran. And one of the reasons they think they can get away with it is by pushing the meme that "Iraq is nowhere near as bad as Vietnam! In Vietnam, we lost over 58,000 soldiers. In Iraq, we've lost less than 3,500! (now up to 3,800.) By diminishing the scale of the Iraq war, expansion into Iran is likewise diminished. In April of 2004, President Bush was asked, "How do you answer the Vietnam comparison?" His response: "I think the analogy is false." (He did not go on to explain WHY he thought the analogy was false, only that such comparisons demoralize our troops, and then bemoaned how hard his job is.)

Now, I know any Vietnam/Iraq comparison is a touchy and deeply personal subject for many, and my intention is not to diminish, dismiss or exacerbate anyone's pain. But others are doing just that, trying to downplay the casualties in Iraq as compared to the casualties of Vietnam. My intent is only to compare the two conflicts on a level playing field in order to illustrate why their reasoning is not only false, but 180' from what they are suggesting.

My stock response to those who try and cite the faux statistic of "fewer deaths than Vietnam" has always been: (pardon the gruesome math) "2/3rds of casualties suffered in Iraq today would of been fatal 40 years ago due to lesser medical technology. Adding 2/3rds of the 27,700+ Iraq wounded to the list of fatalities would push the number of U.S. fatalities to date an additional 18,300 deaths." So, if combat injuries in Iraq today were as lethal as they were in 1965, the number of troops KIA ("killed in action") to date in Iraq would surpass 22,000!

This compelled me to look at the actual statistics for Vietnam as a basis for comparison and what I found was stunning:

During the first four years of the conflict with Vietnam (1961 to 1965), the number of US troops KIA was UNDER 1,900 (1,864 to be exact)... and that is with 1960's medical technology. Had they of had access to present-day medicine, the total number of fatalities during the first FOUR YEARS of the Vietnam war might have been closer to just 620 fatalities! Compare that to the 3,800 fatalities we've incurred so far in Iraq.

(...)

If these figures are correct... and they are... Iraq is DEMONSTRABLY worse than Vietnam was at this point, and on course to become FAR worse.

So in summary, if Iraq were being fought with 1965 medical technology, the number of fatalities over these first four years might be as high as 22,000 (vs 1,900 in Vietnam), but even if you distrust the "2/3rds increase in survivability" figure, a more direct 1:1 comparison can be made between the "9,201 casualties in the first four years of Nam" vs the "31,550 casualties suffered in the first four years of Bush's 'War on Terror'."

The next time some Right-wing wingnut tries to dismiss the severity of the Iraq war by comparing the number of deaths today to number of deaths in Vietnam 40 years ago, tell them... well, I'll leave that up to you.

Read the full article on: "Mugsy's Rap Sheet"

[NMDemDist2]

1. troop levels in VN didn't reach 200,000 until 1966

so I expect there were far fewer troops in VN in those early years, mostly Special Forces units IIRC

[Mugsy]

2. Yes, but by Bush's reasoning...

...more troops bring added "stability" and "less" violence.

Isn't that the point of his "surge"?

[Mugsy]

4. More troops also an indication of how much worse.

While you make a reasonable point on the number of deployed troops in those first years of Vietnam vs these early years of Iraq, I believe the very fact that we are ALREADY starting out with a vastly greater number of troops is likewise a demonstration of how much worse Iraq is.

Should they re-introduce the draft like they had during Nam, the Bushies would have a pool of Millions of fresh cannon fodder to increase troop levels even further into Iran.

[javelina]

6. not exactly

Starting out with more troops is merely an indication that we conquered the country. We didn't do that in Vietnam, so there was no need to have massive numbers of troops until we decided to actually start conquering the country. Completely different missions = completely different troops levels.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. I'm pretty sure therye were less than 10,000 in 1963.

They were called advisers & weren't supposed to be in direct combat. In fact, the Special Forces in the Central Highlands were in quite a bit of fighting, leading small montagnard irregular groups.

[javelina]

3. Math is inadequate

The actual ground war in Vietnam didn't really start until 1965 when we deployed 3,500 Marines to protect air bases. Before that, it was about 18,000 soldiers who kept confined to the bases. Troop strength didn't reach 200,000 until early 1966. So, the comparison is really inadequate. More troops mean more troop deaths, especially if those troops are not confined to bases as they were in early Vietnam.

Perhaps a better way to formulate the math would be to look at the number of troops vs. the number of casualties (percentage of casualties).

I'm also not sure what the advance in medical technology really has to do with anything. The fact is, we have advanced medical technology so troop deaths are fewer. Not sure why that's particularly relevant.

[Mugsy]

5. Relevance.

> we have advanced medical technology so troop deaths are fewer. Not sure why that's particularly relevant.

Because it keeps the Iraq fatality numbers "artificially low".

[javelina]

7. sure

But it still means "fewer deaths" which means that the war is not as deadly as Vietnam.

[Mugsy]

8. No one said "more deadly".

I never claimed Iraq was "more deadly"... "relatively" or otherwise.

Iraq defenders like to point to the number of Vietnam deaths to the number of Iraq deaths as "proof" that Iraq is "not as bad" as Vietnam.

[javelina]

9. And?

Wouldn't a lower "death count" be one proof of that? Whether that comes from medical technology or not, the deaths are still fewer.

What would it mean to be "as bad" as Vietnam if it is not measured in casualties? I guess I'm just confused as to what measure we're using to say that one war is "as bad" as another.

[Mugsy]

10. Metrics.

If you put the two wars on a "level playing field" with identical medical technology, then those who point to Vietnam "fatalities" as proof that that conflict was significantly worse that Iraq as a way of diminishing the severity of the Iraq war, without accounting for improvements in medical technology affecting the casualty rate, then that's deceiving.

If, in just the first four years of Iraq, we still used 1965 medical technology, the number of troop deaths in Iraq could be as high as 22,000. Now, if the Iraq conflict were to last as long as Vietnam (9+ years) with ever-growing troops levels (see: President Rudy), then the scale of the Iraq conflict DWARFS Vietnam.

[javelina]

11. I see

But even to make that comparison, you'd need to look only at years in Vietnam with comparable troop levels and then possibly take out non-hostile deaths from each war (to see if the fighting itself is as intense).

[pansypoo53219]

12. IF georgie motherfucking stoopid W bushit

gets his way, he will not have only 9/11 on his hands, but making america israel. we will have a multitude of 9/11s. they WILL come to our home. WE WILL PAY, for georgie's mistake.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Jackpine Radical]

13. What about comparisons of civilian casualties?

I think the pops of Iraq today & S. VN in 1965 are roughly comparable. What were the civilian casualties in VN in the 1st 4 years? How does that compare with the--what? 100,000?--to date in Iraq?