T Nation

Military Deaths, By President

More troops died under Clinton than GWB. Yet one is honored and gets BJs from hottie-admirers, while the other is ridiculed…

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 … 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 … 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 … 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 … 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 … 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 … 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 … 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 … 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 … 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 … 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 … 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 … 2,318 (Clinton Year)

1997 … . 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 … 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 … 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 …1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 …890 (George W Year)
2002 … 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 … 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 … 1,887 (George W Year)

2005 … 919 (George W Year)
2006… 920 (George W Year)
2007… …899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths

George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

The statistics also don’t bear out that minorities bear the brunt of all this. Compare the census with the deaths:

European descent …69.12%
Hispanic … … 12.5%
Black … …12. 3%
Asian … … 3.7%
Native American . 1.0%
Other … …2.6%

Now… here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in
Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic … … 10.74%
Black … … . 9.67%
Asian … … … 1.81%
Native American … … 1.09%
Other … … … 0.33%

(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service,
and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/ natsec/RL32492.pdf )

Clinton got more people killed than Bush. I’ve seen something like that before. The military at least respects Bush and trusts him. Other military people i’ve talked to did not say the same about Klinton.

What I don’t understand is: why doesn’t the White House do a better job of making their case? I’m sure most Americans would be shocked by this information. Thanks HH.

I’m confused.

Are you saying that:

A. Clinton should be ridiculed?
B. GW should get honours and BJs from hotties?
C. Both?

Good point though.

ElbowStrike

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
What I don’t understand is: why doesn’t the White House do a better job of making their case? I’m sure most Americans would be shocked by this information. Thanks HH. [/quote]

I’ve thought for a long time that one of GWB’s biggest failings as President has been his disdain for the media, and his distaste at articulating the reasons behind his actions.

The White House often met all the bad news reported from Iraq and Afghanistan with… nothing. If he had done a better PR job, public support for the war might’ve lasted a bit longer than it did.

Instead, it seemed as though he just hoped that the bad press would go away if he ignored it, and that people should go along with what he proposed simply because he was the President. Those two things cost him a great deal of political capital that he could’ve saved with better PR.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
What I don’t understand is: why doesn’t the White House do a better job of making their case? I’m sure most Americans would be shocked by this information. Thanks HH.

I’ve thought for a long time that one of GWB’s biggest failings as President has been his disdain for the media, and his distaste at articulating the reasons behind his actions.
[/quote]

Actually I think that pushing the WMD line to the American public was a much more intelligent approach to building support for the war than what you are advocating. Better articulating all of the reasons for the Iraq invasion would have been a big mistake.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
More troops died under Clinton than GWB. Yet one is honored and gets BJs from hottie-admirers, while the other is ridiculed…

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 … 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 … 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 … 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 … 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 … 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 … 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 … 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 … 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 … 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 … 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 … 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 … 2,318 (Clinton Year)

1997 … . 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 … 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 … 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 …1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 …890 (George W Year)
2002 … 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 … 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 … 1,887 (George W Year)

2005 … 919 (George W Year)
2006… 920 (George W Year)
2007… …899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths

George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

The statistics also don’t bear out that minorities bear the brunt of all this. Compare the census with the deaths:

European descent …69.12%
Hispanic … … 12.5%
Black … …12. 3%
Asian … … 3.7%
Native American . 1.0%
Other … …2.6%

Now… here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in
Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic … … 10.74%
Black … … . 9.67%
Asian … … … 1.81%
Native American … … 1.09%
Other … … … 0.33%

(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service,
and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
natsec/RL32492.pdf)

[/quote]

It seems to me that both major parties in US politics feel that it is America’s duty to police the world. The democrats just seem to be be able to do it in a less offensive way than the republicans.

I really can’t understand why so many Americans seem so eager to have their tax money spent on sending their men off to die fighting other people’s wars.

[quote]HH wrote:

[/quote]

Where’s the scoop? If it’s that Democrats and Republicans are two faces of the same coin w/r/t foreign policy, then I’m afraid it had been made to death already.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
More troops died under Clinton than GWB. Yet one is honored and gets BJs from hottie-admirers, while the other is ridiculed…

The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 … 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 … 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 … 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 … 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 … 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 … 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 … 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 … 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 … 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 … 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 … 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 … 2,318 (Clinton Year)

1997 … . 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 … 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 … 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 …1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 …890 (George W Year)
2002 … 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 … 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 … 1,887 (George W Year)

2005 … 919 (George W Year)
2006… 920 (George W Year)
2007… …899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths

George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

The statistics also don’t bear out that minorities bear the brunt of all this. Compare the census with the deaths:

European descent …69.12%
Hispanic … … 12.5%
Black … …12. 3%
Asian … … 3.7%
Native American . 1.0%
Other … …2.6%

Now… here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in
Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic … … 10.74%
Black … … . 9.67%
Asian … … … 1.81%
Native American … … 1.09%
Other … … … 0.33%

(These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service,
and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
natsec/RL32492.pdf)

[/quote]

First of all this is bullshit because there are almost as many private contractors in Iraq than soldiers which distorts this statistic.

So, one reason Bush has fewer dead soldiers because he privatized war and torture on a scale unseen since Wallenstein and the great religious war(s) in Europe.

Then, congratulations, after more than 1 million Iraqi dead, lots of them killed by the Clinton administration, lets nitpick over the few thousand soldiers who chose to be in harms way instead of just being killed to be “freed” without having any say in that matter.

I think I wrote something about myopic hubris and blindness in another thread, feel free top apply it to this one.

Comparing total military deaths is also quite pointless.

When you have close to one and a half million military personnel on active duty there are always going to be a large number of casualties due to illness and homicide as well as self inflicted deaths.

This table gives a breakdown of the cause of death each year.

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

There were actually very few combat deaths during the Clinton years.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
What I don’t understand is: why doesn’t the White House do a better job of making their case? I’m sure most Americans would be shocked by this information. Thanks HH.

I’ve thought for a long time that one of GWB’s biggest failings as President has been his disdain for the media, and his distaste at articulating the reasons behind his actions.

The White House often met all the bad news reported from Iraq and Afghanistan with… nothing. If he had done a better PR job, public support for the war might’ve lasted a bit longer than it did.

Instead, it seemed as though he just hoped that the bad press would go away if he ignored it, and that people should go along with what he proposed simply because he was the President. Those two things cost him a great deal of political capital that he could’ve saved with better PR.[/quote]

I agree, it is like he knew he will never get fair coverage from the media so he doesn’t even try. Big mistake.

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Comparing total military deaths is also quite pointless.

When you have close to one and a half million military personnel on active duty there are always going to be a large number of casualties due to illness and homicide as well as self inflicted deaths.

This table gives a breakdown of the cause of death each year.

http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

There were actually very few combat deaths during the Clinton years.
[/quote]

Putting some numbers on that:
1980 - 2.16 million in the military and zero deaths by hostile action.

2006 - 1.65 million in the military and 761 deaths by hostile action (as of 11/22/06).

Maybe George should hold off using these numbers to make a case for BJs.

Why are the numbers for GWB lower even under war conditions? You’d think that the war totals + other causes would exceed Clinton’s…yet they did not. Maybe by taking the OFFENSE in the war on terror, one actually incurs fewer losses.

General Patton was correct: ‘When in doubt, attack!’

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why are the numbers for GWB lower even under war conditions? You’d think that the war totals + other causes would exceed Clinton’s…yet they did not. [/quote]

Well, I suppose the relentless increases in the military budget had to pay off somehow. If nothing else, to give the American soldier a better protection against the century old technology they face.

4020 dead Americans soldiers in Iraq alone. I won’t even mention the thousands of dead private contractors since this is about “military deaths”. I doubt you can honestly make the case that a potential terrorist attack by the Saddam regime on US soil would have caused anywhere near the self-inflicted casualties so far.

In fact, I don’t think anyone has made this argument ever since the initial buildup to the war. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s now about some divine mission to spread democracy and freedom, and it’s been so since 2004.

I won’t bite this time. Troll away.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why are the numbers for GWB lower even under war conditions? [/quote]

Because as far back as the Clinton and Reagan years they actually trained hard. I assure you, the way they pussyfoot with training these days, we will find ourselves unprepared to fight a truly determined foe. The days of Vegitius’s “bloodless battles” are no more. Instead, training days are “inconvenient days at the office”.

mike

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

According to this document from that same site the number of active military deaths during the Bush administration (up to 2006) is almost 1 1/2 times greater than the number of active military deaths during the Clinton administration.

Edit: I didn’t realize this was the document linked the first post. I wonder if the OP even read what he linked. The preface of the article states that the statistics the OP stated were BS and not based on the source CRS report.

"A spam e-mail making the rounds in the military community serves as a reminder that
facts can be flexible when they are launched anonymously into the vast void of
cyberspace.

The e-mail, entitled, �??Some very interesting statistics: Military losses, 1980 through 2006,�?? states that more U.S. service members died on active duty during the eight years
of the Clinton administration, when there were no major U.S. military conflicts, than in the first six years of the George W. Bush administration, during which the military was
fighting two large-scale wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The e-mail offers year-by-year U.S. military death totals from all causes �?? operations, illness, accidents, suicides, etc. �?? from 1980 through 2006. The data supposedly were taken from a periodically updated Congressional Research
Service report on the subject, which in turn is based on statistics compiled by the Pentagon�??s Defense Manpower and Data Center. There�??s just one problem: The figures listed in the email are wrong. They vary markedly from the figures published in the cited CRS source document.
[�?�]"

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
hottie-admirers
[/quote]

Your standards are extremely low.

After 30 seconds google search:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/03/military_deaths_email_032508w/

U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths 1980-2006

1980 … 2,392
1981 … 2,380
1982 … 2,319
1983 … 2,465
1984 … 1,999
1985 … 2,252
1986 … 1,984
1987 … 1,983
1988 … 1,819
1989 … 1,636
1990 … 1,507
1991 … 1,787
1992 … 1,293
1993 … 1,213
1994 … 1,075
1995 … 1,040
1996 … 974
1997 … 817
1998 … 827
1999 … 796
2000 … 758
2001 … 891
2002 … 999
2003 … 1,228
2004 … 1,874
2005 … 1,942
2006 … 1,858

Of course the Bush wackos bought that obvious bs right away, no surprises here…

I have to ask HH, did you know it was disinformation all along or did you really fall for that as the rest of us?

@ Ken Kaniff: Actually, you’re only confirming my initial surprise. Popular opinion and the mainstream media had me believing that active duty deaths under the GWB admin are dramatically higher than past administrations. Thanks for setting my erroneous opinion straight.