There is a document circulating by e-mail that purports to prove that military deaths are lower under President Bush (43) than under President Clinton. The document is fraudulent, as is shown at FactCheck.Org. You can view the document and the debunking at that link. But it did encourage me to investigate the numbers, and they are interesting.
Since the size of the U.S. armed forces changes over time, you need a standard number for comparison. This is usually deaths per 100,000 active personnel. Deaths in the following figures indicates deaths from all causes, including hostile action, accident, suicide, disease, etc. Active personnel includes regular services, National Guard, Reserves, etc. Using figures from the Congressional Research Service, I calculated the death rate for military personnel in 2005 to be 117 per 100,000. That reflects a little over 1,900 deaths out of a total number of servicemen and women amounting to 1,664,014.
How big is a death rate of 117? It is the highest in 26 years. But it is only a little higher than the rate of 111 in 1980, when the U.S. was not at war with anyone I can think of. Well, there was that Iran unpleasantness. The rate for 2006, the last year the study covers, was 112. The obvious question here is why the death rate was so high in 1980. I have no answer at hand. Between 1980 and 2000, the death rate for American military personnel steadily declined to a low of 50/100,000. It rose, for obvious reasons, every year after that, until 2006. I am guessing that 2007 will show another decline.
Those enlightened folk in Berkley, who protest the opening of a military recruiting office because it is "selling death" don't have much of a case. Consider that the 2005 death rate for all Americans ages 20-29 is 95/100,000. But that is deceptive, because it includes women. The death rate for American men in their twenties is about 140. Now that comparison also raises some questions. Military recruits are certainly healthier than the population at large. But of course, people in their twenties are healthier than the population at large. It seems very unlikely that any analysis of the numbers will not confirm this fact: men serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, in the worst years of the current war, were, on the whole, less likely to die than men of a similar age who were not serving.
Every life is precious. If the Iraq war is bad policy, then we are wasting a lot of precious and well-trained people there. But almost any policy, foreign or domestic, will cost lives. We allow people to sell, purchase, and operate motorcycles in this country. We don't have to. In 2005 alone, more Americans died on motorcycles than have yet died in the Iraq war. That 4,232 precious lives is a price we are willing to pay for the freedom to ride these frivolous toys. If the Iraq war does succeed, the price in lives will have been cheaper than any war we have ever fought before. It might even be cheaper than not having an army at all.
Update: I got this note from Captain G:
During first Gulf War, military leaders were perplexed why death rate went down when we deployed. Until the remembered the alcohol factor. Kuwait, Saudi, etc. are dry countries.
Recent Comments