Vietnam and Iraq deaths by year

[beyurslf]

We started sending trops to Vietnam in the 1950's and really began increasing our troop numbers in the early 1960's. It wasn't until 1965 that we reached the same number of troops killed in Vietnam that we have now for Iraq. At the end of 1965, 1863 troops had died.

We are sitting at 1838 just over 2 years in. How many more troops have to die in action before we realize we made a mistake?



Number of military killed in Vietnam sorted by year:

<http://thewall-usa.com/stats/>

Number if military killed in Iraq sorted by year:

<http://icasualties.org/oif/>

[tabasco]

1. Good information. Let's keep things in perspective.

The neocons want the war to continue AS LONG AS WE ALLOW IT.

There is no exit strategy or victory strategy. Ask a freeper - how will we know when we win the Iraq war? They won't be able to tell you. The war is designed to go on indefinitely for corporate profits. The exit strategy is: the war will end when the people fighting the unnecessary war have HAD ENOUGH. Cowards started this war but brave people will end it.

[expatriot]

2. troop levels

In 1965, US troops in Vietnam went from 25,000 to 184,000.

Comparing pre-1965 Vietnam casualties to Iraq casualties thus far is apples to oranges.


from Wikipedia's article on the Vietnam War

Johnson raised the level of U.S. involvement on July 27, 1964 when 5,000 additional US military advisors were ordered to South Vietnam. This brought the total number of US forces in Vietnam to 21,000.

....

On March 8, 1965, 3,500 United States Marines became the first American combat troops to land in South Vietnam, adding to the 25,000 US military advisers already in place. The air war escalated as well; on July 24, 1965, four F-4C Phantoms escorting a bombing raid at Kang Chi became the targets of antiaircraft missiles in the first such attack against American planes in the war. One plane was shot down and the other three sustained damage. Four days later Johnson announced another order that increased the number of US troops in Vietnam from 75,000 to 125,000. The day after that, July 29, the first 4,000 101st Airborne Division paratroopers arrived in Vietnam, landing at Cam Ranh Bay.


The Pentagon told President Johnson on November 27, 1965 that if planned major sweep operations needed to neutralize Viet Cong forces during the next year were to succeed, the number of American troops in Vietnam needed to be increased from 120,000 to 400,000. By the end of 1965, 184,000 US troops were in Vietnam. In February 1966 there was a meeting between the commander of the U.S. effort, head of the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam General William Westmoreland and Johnson in Honolulu. Westmoreland argued that the US presence had prevented a defeat but that more troops were needed to take the offensive, he claimed that an immediate increase could lead to the "cross-over point" in Vietcong and NVA casualties being reached in early 1967. Johnson authorized an increase in troop numbers to 429,000 by August 1966.

[tabasco]

4. However, the enemy was larger in Vietnam.

Well-organized and equipped enemy units were deployed from North Vietnam and fought US forces. These units were in addition to thousands of irregular guerrilla fighters in South Vietnam (Viet Cong). The enemy in Vietnam had years of experience from fighting the French by the time we intervened.

In Iraq, the resistance was not in place at the time of invasion. But Iraqi guerrillas soon formed insurgent units to oppose US occupation. Allegedly, foreign fighters have entered Iraq. Probably not in large numbers, and probably to carry out suicide attacks. It would not be surprising if non-Iraqis had entered Iraq to help organize guerrilla units. The invasion was seen as an attack on all Islam by millions of people in the Middle East.

So things are just going to get worse in Iraq as the resistance gets bigger and better and more foreign aid for the insurgents arrives from other Islamic countries. It is just warming up. Vietnam was already hot by the time we got there.

The main thing in common between Vietnam and Iraq is that both wars were initiated on trumped-up evidence and events. The Bush corporate administration used fabricated evidence to launch the Iraq invasion. The Johnson administration used the Gulf of Tonkin incident to expand war powers for the President and escalate the war. In Johnson's case, Westmoreland and other generals were complicit in giving faulty information and advice to the President. In Bush's case, it seems the military gave good advice, but the administration itself wanted to launch the war. Why they wanted to start the war is a good question, but it is clear they fabricated evidence and intentionally misled he American people to get it started.

Another thing in common with Vietnam is that the local population seems at best indifferent if US forces stay or go. Guerrilla units are operating freely throughout Iraq, yet it has proven difficult to locate these units. It is apparent that a big part of the Iraqi population are not on our side. This is another way that we lost the war the day itt began. Every day the US uses violence in Iraq is another day recruiting for the insurgency. The Iraqis are outraged with our brutal invasion and occupation. Rumsfeld apparently told generals not to give a damn about collateral damage,because there have been enormous civilian casualties. We are NOT winning the war with bombing raids trying to kill guerrillas in cities. General Shinseki knew it would take boots on the ground to hold our own occupying Iraq, but he was laughed at and retired by the Bush corporate cabal. By using brutal methods such as bombing cities, we are defeating ourself by losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi People.


There are many,many similarities to the two conflicts and it is hardly comparing apples and oranges.

[confludemocrat]

3. How about Viet/Iraqi deaths vs. US troop strength yr X yr? That'd be scary

That's where it's really at if someone could compile those data. When the US military is in-country, on the ground--lotta people die. It's a killing machine that would be a great defensive asset if used that way when truly needed but a disastrously destructive liability for provoking lasting hostility as in the present case.