West Bend Council Stands By Previous Decision  |   Home  |   Conservatives Support the Working Class

Death Levels

Sheboygan Shenanigans has a post up about the number of deaths in our armed forces during different presidencies.  Here’s the crux of it:

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths
George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths

Her post highlights how the media covered the level of death differently depending on the occupant of the White House and it’s a great point. 

It got me thinking on a tangent topic.  Why have deaths been reduced so much despite two wars?

I have two theories.  First, the military was much larger for most of Clinton’s presidency.  After the Cold War, we scaled back over a third of the size of the military.  That was an ongoing process during Clinton’s presidency.  More people = more opportunity for death.  My second theory is the dramatic advance in technology.  Our soldiers’ body armor is much better and we use more technology to keep our distance at a tactical level (drones, Tomahawks, etc.). 

Thoughts?

UPDATE: The death numbers above appear to be false.  See the comments for more details.  Still, I’d like to hear thoughts on the advancement of military tactics and technology that results in safer troops.

Posted by Owen at 0753 hrs
Military

1. Those numbers are just completely made up. This doc only goes through 2006, but even by then deaths under Bush had exceeded deaths under Clinton. It also includes all deaths: auto accidents, murder, cancer, etc. The number of active duty deaths under Clinton was 47, and 18 were not directly caused by hostilities.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1121 hrs
   
   
   

2. Space technology and UAV’s are probably the two biggest technological advances that increase our survival rates.

   Now if we could induce members of the MSM to volunteer as human shields…

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1126 hrs
   
   
   

3. Bored troops in garrison are a danger to themselves almost more than a low tech enemy is in wartime?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1132 hrs
   
   
   

4. Total BS.

   Sheboygan Shenanigans doesn’t even cite the source other than implying he got it from a chain email:

   Thanks to Mo for sharing this- Mo rec’d it from a friend of his who shared with a ton of friend of his; let’s keep the truth going ’round, shall we?

   Lame. But, if you forward this blog entry to 10 people Bill Gates will send you a check for $1,000. Seriously.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1155 hrs
   
   
   

5. Actually, she does cite a source (it’s near the end of the post), it’s the same one I linked to in my first post. If you actually go there though, the numbers aren’t even remotely close to the ones she posted. She cited to the Congressional Research Service report and just assumed her target audience was too pliant to bother clicking on the link and performing basic addition. Shockingly, it appears she was right.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1207 hrs
   
   
   

6. I usually rely on this organization to provide accurate fact checking:

   http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_more_soldiers_die_during_bill_clintons.html

   Owen, this post is the sloppiest blogging I have seen in a long time. From anyone. 

   For those of you w/o inquisitive minds the answer is no that was not true.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1222 hrs
   
   
   

7. Not taking sides, because I don’t know, but it appears the CRS report did not list US casualties from UN actions during the Clinton years.

   But I still think it is remarkable that the death rate wasn’t higher than it appears to have been during the GWB presidency, given that it was wartime and the overall military force was smaller.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1229 hrs
   
   
   

8. It’s true.  As I click through the links, the numbers don’t add up.  Honestly, I was just using it as a jumping off point to discuss advances in technology and tactics in warfare, but yes, I should have checked the sources better.  Sorry ‘bout that. 

   Still, there is no question that our death rate in battle - as compared to previous wars - is much lower. 

   So, back to the point of my post… what other changes in our armed forces are resulting in safer troops?

   Posted by Owen on May 19, 2009 at 1234 hrs
   
   
   

9. I’d say it’s that we actually let them shoot back now when they are fired on.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1245 hrs
   
   
   

10. What about medical technology? I wonder what the ratio of wounded to deaths is now as compared to WWII, Vietnam, and so on.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1253 hrs
    
    
    

11. Great point.  The medical technology itself and the speed at which we can get people medical attention…

    Posted by Owen on May 19, 2009 at 1259 hrs
    
    
    

12. Owen, exactly.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 1423 hrs
    
    
    

13. When will you righty bloggers ever learn to quit quoting anything coming from that sheboyganshenanigans blog or its owner?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1034 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.