Why 4,000 Wasn’t 13,747
(Found source first on RN)
Why 4,000 Wasn’t 13,747
www.strategypage.com
March 31, 2008Excerpt:
Five years of fighting in Iraq has killed 4,000 American troops. The first five years of fighting in Vietnam (1965-69) killed 40,258. There were about three times as many U.S. troops involved in the Vietnam fighting. But even then, the number of Americans killer per thousand troops in Vietnam was three times higher (19, versus 6 in Iraq). If the casualty rates were the same in Iraq, there should have been 13,747 dead so far. However, there were proportionately more wounded in Iraq. While there were 3.4 times more dead in Vietnam (in killed per thousand troops), there were only 3.2 times more wounded. Overall, there were 133 casualties per thousand troops in Vietnam, versus 47 in Iraq. Why the lower casualty rate? There are several reasons, few of which have gotten much coverage in the mass media. But the reasons are important.
The most important difference is that the troops in Iraq are fighting smarter. While the Vietnam era troops were representative of the general population, the Iraq era army is all-volunteer and highly selective. The troops are smarter, healthier and better educated than the general population. This has been the case for three decades, and during that time, new attitudes have developed throughout the army (which always got most of the draftees). The army, so to speak, has become more like the marines (which was always all-volunteer, and more innovative as a result). This ability to quickly analyze and adapt gets recognized by military historians, and other armies, but not by the media. It also saves lives in combat.
This innovation has led to better training, tactics and leadership. Smarter troops means smarter and more capable leaders, from the sergeants leading fire terms (five men) to the generals running the whole show. Smarter troops leads to tactics constantly adapting to changes on the battlefield. The better tactics, and smarter fighting, has been the biggest reason for the lower casualty rate.
Then there’s the body armor. Improvements over the past decade, in terms of design and bullet resistance, account for about 20 percent of the decline in casualties. There’s a down side to this, as the body armor is heavier and cumbersome. This reduces a soldiers mobility, and increases casualties a bit (and saves some enemy lives as well.)
Medical care has gotten better. Not only are procedures more effective, but badly wounded soldiers get to the operating table more quickly. Medics now have capabilities that, during Vietnam, only surgeons had. All this is one reason why the ratio of wounded to killed was 6 in Vietnam, compared to 7.3 for Iraq.
Full Story
This article dovetails nicely with the Heritage Foundations’ findings in their survey of the US Military and the demographics of the recruits of the current day. The Heritage Foundation’s survey from a few years ago was done to evaluate the credibility behind statements that our military has lowered its recruiting standards, and therefore our military has lowered the quality of its recruits. The study showed quite the contrary.
Those who have been so quick to suggest that today’s wartime recruits represent lesser quality, lower standards, or lower class should be expected make an airtight case. Instead, they have cited selective evidence, which is balanced by a much clearer set of evidence showing improving troop quality.
This myth, of a weaker Army due to the poor quality of recruits, has been disspelled time and time again, and with good, solid evidence, yet it continually comes up in debate. Let’s park it and give it a rest already. If you want to see the quality of a certain body of workers that has declined significantly over the decades, I suggest you start in Washington DC.
The State of Tennessee has declared March 29 “Vietnam Veterans Day” and this weekend was the first celebration of our new State holiday. I was not able to attend any of the festivities happening in Crossville (where the first celebration was sponsored) due to a sick toddler and a very busy family schedule, but from what I have read it sounds like it was celebrated well.