Say Anything Blog

One of the big arguments posed against the war in Iraq is the idea that it is an unsustainable war.  “We are spending too much money and seeing too many troops killed to continue,” many critics say.  Yet one aspect of this war in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, that almost never gets reported is just how severe the losses are that our enemies have been suffering.

As Jim Geraghty explains:

Every day, we are reminded of how many fine men and women have paid the ultimate price in the war on terror. I began to wonder, what is the casualty rate for the other side in this war?

In Iraq, I’ve seen several sources cite “about 55,000” insurgents killed; they’re listed as “Iraqi insurgents,” but I have not seen any specification of what percentage are Iraqi and what percentage are foreign fighters.

As of this writing, the number of U.S. troops who have died in Iraq stands at 2,867. I’ve also seen the figure 2,493 for deaths from hostile action.

This suggests that about 22 bad guys are killed for every U.S. combat death; 19 to 1 if you use the total U.S. death figure.

I can find no clear and specific number as to how many Taliban and al-Qaeda have been killed in Afghanistan since the start of hostilities there in 2001. I would prefer a better source than Wikipedia, but they list 5,500 killed and 1,000 captured. According to Wikipedia, 187 Americans have died in hostile action, 102 died in non-hostile action.

Again, about 29 to 1 in terms of combat deaths, or 19 to 1 in terms of all U.S. deaths.

Read the whole thing.

You would think these rather astonishing numbers (I knew they were high, but not this high) would get more attention from a media industry that is wholly fascinated with Iraq.  Especially if we’re going to talk about whether or not the mission in Iraq is sustainable.  As much as that mission is costing us, it is costing our enemies a lot more in terms of blood.  They are expending approximately 20 - 30 lives for every one of our soldiers they’re killing.

Is that something they can maintain?  I’m not sure, but you’d think it’d be a question some enterprising journalists/pundits in the media would like to ask.

One thing proponents of the war like me talk about a lot is the fact that the media undermines public support for the war here in America by endlessly focusing on nothing but the negative aspects of Iraq.  If the media devoted as much time as they spend talking about the number of our troops who have died to reporting the fact that our enemy’s losses are 20 - 30 times what we’ve lost do you think sentiment on Iraq both here in American and abroad would be a little different?  Hell, a lot different?  I think so.

On a related note, here are some additional numbers worth mentioning.  Specifically, the number of U.S. soldiers we’ve lost in Iraq for each year of the invasion/occupation:

March 2003 - February 2004: 553
March 2004 - February 2005: 946
March 2005 - February 2006: 798
March 2006 - November 2006: 570

There was a spike in the number of casualties we suffered in the second year, but in the two years since then U.S. casualties have been falling every year.  This year we’re on pace to lose about another 60 or so soldiers in Iraq, putting is in at about 630.  About 168 fewer deaths than the year before.

The media often likes to paint a picture in Iraq of spiraling violence and a situation that is trending out of control.  That’s not exactly true.  While things in Iraq couldn’t be described as “peachy,” the number of troops we’re expending on the mission is trending down.  That’s noteworthy, but much like the situation with the number of casualties we’re inflicting on our enemies in Iraq it just isn’t something the media seems interested in reporting.

Which is unfortunate, because again if they focused on it as much as they focused on other negative aspects of Iraq I think public support for the war would be a lot higher.