The meager death toll in Iraq

With the combat death toll in Iraq reaching 3000, Time Magazine has an article noting that the death toll in Iraq is "a pittance" compared with previous wars. (See America's Lost 3,000.)

As disclosure, and so I don't hear any crap from someone saying "you'd think differently if those were your kids over there," I actually have friends and an in-law in Iraq at the moment. For me, the strange thing about the casualties in Iraq is the prominence it plays in the media, and the relative lack of prominence it plays in the lives of most Americans, despite the media attention. I think there are several reasons for this:

1. The media likes bad news and conflict (because, let's be honest, it sells), so a heavy emphasis is placed on casualty numbers;



2. Despite this emphasis, as wars go and for a country of 300 million people, 3000 is a very small number, particularly over three years;



3. Because the U.S. military is all-volunteer and relatively small (about a million less than, say, 15 years ago), most Americans don't know anyone serving in Iraq, and certainly don't know someone who's been killed or wounded.

The end result is something a little strange. As wars go, this one is relatively cheap, both in terms of money and lives. Of course, even one life is too much if it is yours or someone you care about. But that's the case about all wars. And saying this is a "war of choice" isn't really a very good response, either, since most wars that the US has been involved in have been wars of choice. Even WWII. Had the US not embargoed Japan, there would have been no Pearl Harbor. For that matter, it's good to remember that WWII did not technically begin for Britain and France in May 1940 when German troops crossed into the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg on their way to Paris, but with the UK and France declaring war on Germany in September 1939 after Germany invaded Poland -- i.e., the so-called "Phony War". In either case, the path to war was clear and possible deviations from that path existed. It's just that none of the parties believed the benefits of deviating from war worth the price.

Historically, it's also not just the incompetence with which the US has fought the war in Iraq. The first few years of the Civil War (for the Union) and, again, even World War II were fought more incompetently, in some cases. MacArthur lost the Philippines to the Japanese, despite having received warnings of a likely Japanese invasion months beforehand, and after rejecting an offer by George Marshall in August 1941 to supply with Philippines with an additional Army division. (MacArthur even had 8 hours advance notice of an incoming Japanese air attack after Pearl Harbor, but "Dugout Doug," as some of his troops called him, refused to meet with his air force chief or authorize his planes to be dispersed.) Similarly, Vice Admirals Frank Fletcher and Robert Ghormley failed to provide air support for the US amphibious landings in the Solomons, which put the entire invasion in danger and may well have led to the loss of hundreds of American lives. In the Atlantic, US Admiral Ernest King, Chief of Naval Operations, refused to adopt British convoy tactics against German U-boats in 1942, despite clear British experience demonstrating the efficacy of this approach. The result was that throughout most of the year, German submarines sank hundreds of US merchant ships, killing thousands of American civilian sailors. And, while many US troops in Iraq have lacked the latest body armor and up-armored Humvees, these logistical and material complaints pale in comparison to the near-criminal weapons and logistical failures of WWII -- for example, non-detonating torpedoes contracted without adequate testing, and poorly performing dive-bombers purchased by the thousands before the prototypes even flew.

But, of course, one of the differences between previous wars and this one is the media. And, to a degree, that's a good thing. MacArthur, despite his incompetence, wasn't fired until the next war. There was no public outcry about US servicemen being put in danger by malfunctioning weapons because the public never learned of them. On the other hand, there was no public doubt that the US would prevail in that war, even when, factually speaking, the actual outcome really was in doubt.

That said, there is one thing that many previous war presidents have had that President Bush does not. And that is a much freer hand with military resources. Bush did not hedge his bets on Iraq -- he gambled it all on a single number. Unfortunately, it was not a winning number. Or, perhaps to be more sympathetic, the guys he ordered to place the wager put the money down on the wrong place (by attempting to occupy Iraq with woefully few troops). Given that the United States has relatively little recent experience with occupation (as opposed to war-fighting), there has been no clear plan to adapt to the change in circumstance.

This is very different from previous wars. In WWII, while MacArthur dithered around the South Pacific, Nimitz nonetheless brought the war directly home to the Japanese through his island-hopping campaign. Churchill's repeatedly mistaken attempts to find the German "soft underbelly" was a sideshow rendered moot by Soviet victories at Stalingrad, Kuban and Kursk. Even in the failure that was Vietnam, the American presidents had the luxury of being able to massively increase troop numbers in the country, even if that strategy eventually proved futile. However, in Iraq, U.S. forces seem to be playing a reactive game, attempting to keep the snakes from escaping from the snake pit. Worse, the President's hands are more or less tied with regard to troop numbers. Unlike Lyndon Johnson, Bush hasn't shown himself willing to jeopardize his domestic program to fight this war -- something he would need to do if he were to increase the size of the US military to the point where it could successfully restore order in Iraq. (Bush would either need to reinstitute the draft -- which ain't gonna happen -- or seriously increase military pay, which would require a significant tax increase. Alternatively, Bush could cut back on future weapons programs, but that would undermine US security even further.)

And, because of the media, the American people know about it. This isn't a bad thing at all. While a quiet media gave the United States time to work through the many disasters that accompanied World War II, the same type of quiet media allowed Japan and Germany to continue making mistakes until they were defeated. George Bush is, in a sense, much like a modern CEO -- the shareholders are getting quarterly reports and can tell how good a job he's doing. Quarterly reports tend to focus the minds of business executives, but they have also been accused of creating a short-termist mindset.

In short, 3000 is a very small number, as wars go. During the first World War, tens of thousands died within a few hours at the Somme. 3000 is just a fraction of the number of gun-related fatalities that the American people tolerate each year in our own country. Nearly that many Americans died at Pearl Harbor. But the issue for 2007 isn't about the lives or the money, but about the plan. Are we engaged in a stay-the-course war of attrition in Iraq? Given the casualty rates and budgetary costs so far, we can do this. We can incur 1000 deaths per year in Iraq and it will take us 50 years before we reach the number of casualties we suffered in Vietnam.

If so, what do we envision victory looking like from such a conflict? I've got the feeling that, at this point, we don't.