I think the war in Iraq has been a great military success. Whether or not it has been a political or moral success is a whole other can of worms, but by any traditional or reasonable measure of military success, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has been breathtaking in how quickly and efficiently it was accomplished.
For the life of me, however, I can’t fathom why someone like Glenn Reynolds is impressed by this piece of birdcage lining by the National Review’s Michael Novak. Here’s Novak’s big defense of the war,
These 343 (not 500) combat deaths, furthermore, need to be set in context. During 2003, the number of homicides in Chicago was 599, in New York City 596, in Los Angeles 505, in Detroit 361, in Philadelphia 347, in Baltimore 271, in Houston 276, and in Washington 247. That makes 3,002 murders in only eight cities.
That is just downright pathetic. Novak should be embarrassed at offering up such stupid comparisons.
Lets look at the city I know and hate best here, Detroit. The population of Detroit is roughly 1 million people, so its 361 murders in 2003 represents a murder rate of 36.1 per 100,000. But the death rate among American soldiers in Iraq is currently about 400 per 100,000. Even if we restrict ourselves just to combat deaths, the death rate is a staggering 228 per 100,000.
To suggest that the number of deaths among 150,000 or so troops should be favorably compared to the annual murders in a city of 1 million is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it’s hard to believe someone at National Review didn’t pull Novak aside and say “hey, don’t make an ass of yourself here.”
On the other hand, the death rate among soldiers deployed in Iraq is relatively low if you take into account that we are talking about a war zone here. I don’t claim to have done an exhaustive study of such statistics, but a quick look at total killed as a ratio of total served puts the death rate among soldiers who served in Vietnam at roughly 2,000 per 100,000 (if anyone knows of studies or research that arrives at different/better/more accurate numbers, please e-mail me at [email protected]). And the Vietnam War death rate appears to have been a significant improvement on the death rate among those serving in the Korean War.
Considering that the U.S. just conquered a country with modern military — regardless of how poorly run and maintained — a population of 20 million and an area the size of California, the speed with which the mission was accomplished and the extremely low level of both military and civilian casualties is an amazing testament to just how large the gap is between the United States and its allies and the rest of the world in a traditional military conflict. (Oddly, at a time when the ability to win traditional military conflicts is probably less important than at any time in world history — though it is still extremely important).
Source:
343
Real numbers in Iraq. Michael Novak, National Review, February 2, 2004.