Skip to main content

How much do 10,000 Americans killed or maimed matter?

Interesting question. For the longest time you have been able to get these little widgets that track deaths and casualties in Iraq. Mostly they were political toys to smack your opponents, and pretty much all references to them, or to our casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have sort of ... disappeared from the MSM.

It's sometimes difficult to recall that by December 2008, combat operations in Iraq had killed 4,538 and wounded 30,930 troops, over 95% of whom were Americans. Likewise, combat operations in Afghanistan had taken 1,045 lives and maimed another 5,647 military personnel--again mostly Americans. [These statistics do not include American civilians, military contractors, or indigenous peoples.]

That's 42,160 combat casualties--as measured from Defense Department stats via casualties.org--under the Bush administration in two wars.

What does the future hold for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Difficult to tell, as the situation in both countries is--to be as charitable as possible--fluid. Who knows if we will continue to withdraw from Iraq on an amended schedule, or if 2010 will find US troops actually in Pakistan?

But it is curiously easier to model possible statistical outcomes on casualties, because the assumptions beneath that modeling are not necessarily driven by winning or losing, but by troop numbers and operational intensity.

Of course, any such modeling starts with assumptions, and for my baseline study I have made four:

1) That statistics from January-mid-May 2009 will provide a reliable monthly indicator for yearly casualties. I'd prefer to use a weighted average, but a selection of more than a quarter yields pretty good numbers if you try it for the previous years.

2) That the Wounded in Action [WIA] figures for Afghanistan will occur at the same rate against Killed in Action [KIA] figures for Iraq, because the Defense Department has not released equally reliable stats for Afghanistan. I make the ratio that KIA accounts for 18.5% and WIA for 81.5% of all battle casualties, and that holds up pretty well in the technical studies.

3) I am assuming that casualty rates in Iraq will decline by 10%/year over the next four years as the US draws down to a 50,000-strong support presence. I actually think the straight-line, weighted decline will be closer to 12-14%, but modeling of the ups and downs of the previous five years of combat suggests that the 10% number is necessary to account for brief periods of more intensive operations. This is a middle-of-the-road projection: not extraordinarily rosey, but not pessimistic, either.

4) I am assuming that casualty rates in Afghanistan will increase by 10%/year over the next four years as the US increases its presence to the 60,000 level and engages in a population-oriented strategy. This is actually a pretty optimistic model; I personally suspect the per year increase will be in the 15-18% range, but there's not sufficient data to project that. So I won't.

Now that you know my assumptions, here are my projections:

In Iraq:

In 2009: 204 KIA and 900 WIA
In 2010: 184 KIA and 810 WIA
In 2011: 166 KIA and 729 WIA
In 2012: 149 KIA and 656 WIA
Totals: 703 KIA and 3,095 WIA= 3,798 casualties


In Afghanistan:

In 2009: 220 KIA and 1,189 WIA
In 2010: 242 KIA and 1,308 WIA
In 2011: 266 KIA and 1,439 WIA
In 2012: 292 KIA and 1583 WIA
Totals: 1,020 KIA and 5,519 WIA= 6,539 casualties


Total projected casualties, 2009-2012: 10,337

To get a fantasy case in which we completely pull out of Iraq and win in Afghanistan, drop 15% from that number.

To examine the potential nightmare if Iraq destablizes more quickly than we expect, or the war in Afghanistan metasticizes into Pakistan (or even Iran), add 30% to that number.

There would be your bounds over the next four years:

Lower bound: 8,786 total casualties
Middle bound: 10,337 casualties
Upper bound: 13,438 casualties

Do these casualties matter? What will be the political fall-out from another 10,000+ casualties in America's foreign wars?

I have this theory that there is somewhere a threshold level of politically relevant casualties. Below that number in a given period we can just percolate along and pretend it's not really happening, it's not really so bad. Cresting that level puts the casualties into the political caculations of both parties, and exceeding that level makes them potentially decisive. We have several data points that suggest this: LBJ in 1968 and Bushco in 2006/2008 [to compare with Reagan's ongoing little wars].

But where is that number? At what point would you personally stand up and begin to make your voice heard about the fact that we are still fighting imperial wars of choice to satisfy other interests than those of the citizens of the United States?

Would 10,000 killed or maimed over the next four years do it? Or are you personally ready to sacrifice them without much more than an occasional passing outrage of the treatment of veterans or the photographs of coffins at DAFB?

What number breaks the camel's back for you?

And when that happens, what are you planning to do about it?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...