War Casualties Pass 9/11 Death Toll

Grim Milestone For U.S. Soldiers Killed In Iraq, Afghanistan

(AP)  Now the death toll is 9/11 times two.

U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now surpass those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next.

The latest milestone for a country at war came Friday without commemoration. It came without the precision of knowing who was the 2,974th to die in conflict. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

An Associated Press count of the U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 2,696. Combined with 278 U.S. deaths in and around Afghanistan, the 9/11 toll was reached, then topped, the same day. The Pentagon reported Friday the latest death from Iraq, an as-yet unidentified soldier killed a day earlier after his vehicle was hit by a roadside bombing in eastern Baghdad.

Not for the first time, a war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed.

Historians note that this grim accounting is not how the success or failure of warfare is measured, and that the reasons for conflict are broader than what served as the spark.

The body count from World War II was far higher for Allied troops than for the crushed Axis. Americans lost more men in each of a succession of Pacific battles than the 2,390 people who died at Pearl Harbor in the attack that made the U.S. declare war on Japan. The U.S. lost 405,399 in the theaters of World War II.

Despite a death toll that pales next to that of the great wars, one casualty milestone after another has been observed and reflected upon this time, especially in Iraq.

There was the benchmark of seeing more U.S. troops die in the occupation than in the swift and successful invasion. And the benchmarks of 1,000 dead, 2,000, 2,500.

Now this.

"There's never a good war but if the war's going well and the overall mission remains powerful, these numbers are not what people are focusing on," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University. "If this becomes the subject, then something's gone wrong."

Beyond the tribulations of the moment and the now-rampant doubts about the justification and course of the Iraq war, Zelizer said Americans have lost firsthand knowledge of the costs of war that existed keenly up to the 1960s, when people remembered two world wars and Korea, and faced Vietnam.

"A kind of numbness comes from that," he said. "We're not that country anymore — more bothered, more nervous. This isn't a country that's used to ground wars anymore."

Almost 10 times more Americans have died in Iraq than in Afghanistan, where U.S. casualties have been remarkably light by any historical standard, although climbing in recent months in the face of a resurgent Taliban.

The Pentagon reports 56 military deaths and one civilian Defense Department death in other parts of the world from Operation Enduring Freedom, the anti-terrorism war distinct from Iraq.

Altogether, 3,031 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.

The toll among Iraqi civilians hit a record high in the summer, with 6,599 violent deaths reported in July and August alone, the United Nations said this week.

Among the latest U.S. deaths identified by the armed forces:

Army 2nd Lt. Emily J.T. Perez, 23, Fort Washington, Md., who died Sept. 12 in Kifl, Iraq, from an explosive device detonated near her vehicle. A former high school sprinter who sang in her West Point gospel choir, she was assigned to the 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

Marine Sgt. Christopher M. Zimmerman, 28, Stephenville, Texas, killed Wednesday in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

A new study on the war dead and where they come from suggests that the notion of "rich man's war, poor man's fight" has become a little truer over time.

Among the Americans killed in the Iraq war, 34 percent have come from communities reporting the lowest levels of family income. Half come from middle income communities and only 17 percent from the highest income level.

That's a change from World War II, when all income groups were represented about equally. In Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, the poor have made up a progressively larger share of casualties, by this analysis.

Eye-for-an-eye vengeance was not the sole motivator for what happened after the 2001 attacks any more than Pearl Harbor alone was responsible for all that followed. But Pearl Harbor caught the U.S. in the middle of mobilization, debate, rising tensions with looming enemies and a European war already in progress. Historians doubt anyone paid much attention to sad milestones once America threw itself into the fight.

In contrast, the United States had no imminent war intentions against anyone on Sept. 10, 2001. One bloody day later, it did.

[ronniehm]

"Finally, its a known fact that not one of the congressmen who voted for this war had any children serving in the military."

For you, it's apparently an unknown fact that Senator Tim Johnson's (D-SD) son Brooks is in the army, Representative Joe Wilson's (R-SC) son served in Iraq and Representative Duncan Hunter's (R-CA)son served in Iraq. All three voted for the war in Iraq. Not only is that not "not one," but I think it's a higher percentage than the general population. I'll let you figure that out for sure; you're so much better at facts than us unedumacated types.

[ronniehm]

U.S. Military Recruits by Household Income (2003)

Lowest quintile
Population Percent, Ages 18-24: 20%
Recruit Percent, 14.6%

Second quintile
Pop. Percent, 18-24: 20%
Recruit Percent: 19.6%

Third quintile
Pop. Percent, 18-24: 20%
Recruit Percent: 21.2%

Fourth quintile
Pop. Percent, 18-24: 20%
Recruit Percent: 22.5%

Highest quintile
Pop. Percent, 18-24: 20%
Recruit Percent: 22.0%

[ronniehm]

"one would not be able to draw any logical conclusions from if the study were designed any other way"

You hit the nail on the head. This article draws an illogical conclusion, because we know from properly designed studies, the opposite is true in 2006.

Thanks for the study from 1989. I'm not sure what you want me to say about it. I assume you found more recent studies but elected to go with that one for some reason. If you want to join your buddy who thinks I must be stupid and uneducated because I disagree with him, then by all means, go to heII. If, however, you want to debate with modern statistics, I'll be around. Bring something better than, "you're stupid" backed up by a study from 1989.

[mrcma]

Ronnie, I agree that asking someone to post personal info on the internet is ridiculous. But this whole issue of when CMU started offerring degrees or if or when you went there is basically irrelevant since you're not demonstrating you got much of an education even if you did go there.

Granted, this article did not clearly specify how they defined low, middle or high income communities, but that would be a logical assumption since one would not be able to draw any logical conclusions from if the study were designed any other way. Unfortunately they don't cite their source so none of us can really say with any certainty.

This much is certain however and has been well documented by the government's own reckoning (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6746/89-CBO-044.pdf the Congressional Budget Office or as Dandy likes to call it the Communist Budget Office), with the advent of the all-volunteer military a disproportionate number of recruits are drawn from poorer communities. Furthermore, that imbalance is even worse when you look at just the lower ranks, the enlisted men who also make up the vast bulk of those who have been killed in Iraq. Finally, its a known fact that not one of the congressmen who voted for this war had any children serving in the military. So it does become a valid and open question whether those votes might have been different if more rich kids were being killed.

[mrcma]

Dandy, apparently anyone that posts anything that could at all be critical of your hero is a leftist pinko commie. So much for free speech in your version of the USA. Read more carefully, this article was actually written by the ZP and not by CBS. But I guess it doesn't matter since they're all out to get poor George. This article just reported the facts, including putting it into prespective relative to past wars. That's called balance, something you apparently know nothing about.

[ronniehm]

Yeah, I'm going to post my personal information on the internet. Brilliant plan. How about you post your home address and I'll mail you a copy? I'll agree to that. And I'll tell you what, if you want to think you're right, you can be right. If you think the military is made up of more lower-income folks than the general population, whatever.

And by the way, Carnegie Tech (part of what became CMU in the 60's) has offered 4-year degrees since 1912. I'm old, but I'm not that old. You're just a fountain of wisdom, huh.

[drgoodwin12]

RonnieMH I never stated the upper third,I only qouted the article which stated 17% were from the upper class.You obviously did not read the post thoroughly.By the way where is your grade transcripts and your copy of your degree?Could you not scan,copy and paste.The school you mentioned does exist and I do not understand why you are so unwilling to scan,copy and paste.Let us see your doctorate and transcripts. Oh by the way this was originally a 2 year college(technical).So what year did you get your degree?

[ronniehm]

"As to your statement that "upper income" does not necessarily means mean "upper third," I agree with you, but "upper third" really does mean "upper third" which really does mean upper 33.3%."

Show me in the article where it says "third" and I'll send you the other two-thirds of your brain. This is a fact, so get it through your thick head: upper-income families are over-represented in the military. If there are fewer rich people today than there were during WWII, that's a completely different argument. This article is intentionally misleading. Detailed statistics on the military are freely available on the internet, so go learn.

Goodwin, one of my degrees is in mathematics, and it came from Carnegie Mellon University. Your satisfaction is hardly required to complete my resume.

[drgoodwin12]

To ajgag57 at ,RonnieHM, laseitz and Dandy56,must have all been art majors,busines majors or agricultural where advanced economics and all accounting courses are not requirements.They all miss the point and fail to research anything.Come on if RonnieMH had a 4.0 grade average,he would not need me instructing him on how to display it.This is the internet and I can scan,copy and paste anything I desire and place it here as long as I go by CBS guidelines.Read the books I mentioned,look up bldg.7 and read what is going on in Iraq whereas the death toll and torture in the last three years among Iraqi civilians almost match Saddam's 20 year rule(source:U.N.,Red Cross).That is why we have to have new leadership.We started a war with no justifiable cause and created more terrorist throughout the world in the process.It's time to Impeach.

[serenetoday]

War is war. It is not pretty, it is not fair and it does not give back to those who suffer the loss of a loved one who is serving their country. No matter what class people are from, they are dying in a war that will probably never have a clear cut winner. Each time a service man or woman dies in this war, many people are left behind. Over and over we have said, "lest we forget", obviously we have forgotten. My prayers go out to all who have lost someone to this war. May we all take the time to remember those who have perished and may we all remember them on Veteran's Day. Let us offer comfort to those who have been left behind without a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, a son, a daughter, a grandson, a granddaughter, a lover, a friend, a co-worker, a neighbor and let us support them through their grief and beyond. Let us all pray for the safe return of those who are still over there and let us all demand that they be brought home. Lastly, let us all unite with each other and take care of each other instead of working so hard to destroy each other. Our service people are dying in service to this country, let us work to have a country worth their sacrifice!!!!!

[drgoodwin12]

To RonnieHM it's very simple,scan it copy it and paste it with your Master degree right here right now.As far as the the rich being overly represented, I do not need algebra to ascertain that they are not.Statitics will do it for me,the rich as defined by the goverment are those with incomes of $105,000 everyone below that is either middle class or poor.The percentage of individuals making over $105,000 is 55%.This is of course the lower end of rich(the $105,000). What the article stated was that 17% of the highest income levels that is according to goverment figures $650,000. What this really means is that the rich are and this is an assumption military officers.An individual that is in the higher income bracket normally would not be a enlisted man but would instead be a graduate of one the military academies. Okay now lets do the math 140,000 troops are in Iraq,that equates to 23,800 of the 17%.It also equates to 17% that means 83% of the soldiers are middle class or poor.The exact number is 116,230. As of 2005 the entire population of the United States was 296,410,404.Okay if you accept this info from the census bureau,then 55% of the upper class represent over half that figure.Do the math.

[dandy56]

CBS=Communist Broadcast System.....
What ignorance ! Were we suppose to be 'keeping score' or something? Any wars you guys know of where one side stops and brings their forces home when a certain number are killed as retaliation?
Anything to be anti-Bush no matter how childish or ignorant it appears, doesnt really matter to CBS.

[ronniehm]

ajgag, guess what. That's not how income distribution breaks down in America. It's not an algebra question; it's economics. Perhaps you feel that there are an equal number of poor people and rich people in America (which wouldn't be very liberal of you), but there aren't. Upper income does not mean upper third. You're confusing mean and median. I don't care what Michael Moore says; the rich are over-represented in the all-volunteer military. It must seem too much like work.

Drg, how do you propose I show you my transcript?

[emtak1]

excellent, informative story, I thought

[laseitz]

War is an undesirable part of serving in the military, and casualties unfortunately will occur.
I still grow tired of hearing "casualties in Iraq have just surpassed a new milestone" just for the sake of a "news story." Perhaps we should just pull out and let the Iraqi's and Iranian's and El Quaeda and the Taliban and all the other terrorist groups have the country. Then by the middle of next year we can fight them on more familiar grounds. . . . the United States! ! ! ! ! How long will it take for the body count to catch up to Korea or Vietnam or WW I or WWII? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[drgoodwin12]

To RonnieMH the expression "rich mans war,poor man's fight" is old as the Vietnam war.That's where recall it first being used.There were not that many jobs in the sixties, a recession was in place.Todays reallity is similar although the recruiters have deliberately targeted the poor and the middle class.Do you remember the news article about this carried on all major networks and newspapers.What was the name of your Univeristy and let's see a transcript of your 4.0 average.This is highly unusual for an individual to obtain and maintain for 5 years.I myself must confes my GPA was only 3.5 and I had to work like a dog to get it.Anything that is anti Bush or appears to be in your mind is garbage.So keep on following him right into battle,join up serve your country.I did almost 40 years ago.War is never pretty and once you have seen it's horrors firsthand, you appreciate life more.You also value life more and a war that was planned 11 days into Bush's first term Iraq under false pretense is not a war this country should have ever engaged in.If you do not beleive me about the 11 days the read "AGAINST ALL ENEMIES and "THE PRICE OF LOYALTY" neither book has been rebuked which by the way was written by prominent republicans.I cannot wait until Colin Powell comes out and spills the beans entirely.

[tabs51]

Hmmmmmmm,and so our son is puting his life on the line in Iraq. What for? The idiot King and his court, who have based this war on one lie after another... Terrorists? or could it be.... OIL, OIL, AND MORE OIL.

Patriotism and Religion are often used by those who want money and power. The two, if not perceived wisely, have been the greatest evils to beset mankind.

[sindy1983]

Why exist so manys wars in the world? People need peace!

[sharncedar]

"Why is it that despite the loss of American life in Iraq, CBS News does not carry this important story on the Evening News with Katie Couric"

The news organization/s claim they decide what to cover based on fair criteria of newworthiness. The trendy cynical folks say they cover whatever woll generate ratings. The intelligent cynical folks say they cover what will provide them with career growth inside their corporations, which is whatever they suspect upper management will feel pleased with.

so all you are saying is that corporate upper management in the megaliths that own the major news media outlets would be perceived by their underlings as not being interested in the death toll from Iraq. I would tend to agree. They might actually be interested, but the kiss-up underlings that are the producers and writers on these news entertainment shows would imagine they wouldn't want to have anything truly controversial on the show. That's how kiss-up ambitious underlings imagine the powerful will be.

Our country is not run by the powerful, it is run by toadies who are trying to suck up to the powerful ;)

[ishml]

Why is it that despite the loss of American life in Iraq, CBS News does not carry this important story on the Evening News with Katie Couric. As a matter of fact, Iraq stories seem to have disappeared from network news. Have we lost our minds?