This is something I've been wondering about. With all the talk of quagmire and occasional explicit comparisons to Vietnam, what do the casualty numbers look like? Here are some numbers, courtesy Daily Kos:
In Vietnam, we suffered 1,864 killed between 1961 and 1965, an average of 373 per year (someone I'm sure can find more precise numbers).In the eight months since Bush launched his war, we have suffered 316 dead, plus an additional 54 allied deaths.
And that paints just part of the picture. In the first five years of the Vietnam War, we suffered 7,337 wounded in action, or an average of 1,467 per year. In Iraq, we have suffered at least 1,695 wounded -- meaning we are running higher than casualty rates of those early years of the Vietnam War.
Of course, casualty rates are at best a crude way to look at where a conflict is headed. I would find it more enlightening to read a comparison of the political situation of similar conflicts, as well as a comparison of the types of resistance. Still, these numbers do provide at least some measure, and I'm sure that they will be used by others to argue both for and against the conflict.
Posted by Jason at October 2, 2003 11:59 AM