On the third anniversary of the Iraq war, the MSM keeps bombarding us with stories and statistics trying to compare this war to the carnage in Vietnam, trying to make us think that US soldiers are dying at an alarming number due to Bush's failures.
While every lost serviceman and servicewoman is certainly tragic and should be mourned, the actual statistics tell quite a different tale from the MSM and Democratic doom-and-gloom outlook. Comparing the numbers of lost US military personnel to past years, and past presidential terms, may even be a shock to supporters of the war.

Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)

In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones). The reason is that there are usually a fair number that die every year in training accidents, as well as a small number of illness and suicide. Yet the MSM would make you think that US soldiers are dying at a high number in these zones, and at a significantly higher number than in past years or under past presidents. This is all simlpy outright lies and distortion.

Other unit's mileage varies, of course, but since September 2001, and despite nearly a year in Ramadi Iraq and an additional deployment of several soldiers to Afghanistan for the last year, my own infantry headquarters company has suffered more lives lost due to off-duty accidents (2) than to enemy action (0). A third fatality was only narrowly avoided, by the grace of God, just a couple of weeks ago. (As a result of that accident, several of my own soldiers have sold their sport bikes.)

Shockingly, Jimmy Carter had higher mortality - even expressed per 100,000 soldiers in 1980 than either Bush I or Bush II. What for I can't imagine. The blood spilled in preventable accidents under Clinton, on the other hand, did result in the expulsion of Milosevic from Kosovo, at least, and ultimately, in the discrediting of Milosevic and his subsequent fall from power. But strategically, this had little upside for the United States - and we got precious little credit from the Muslim world for intervening on behalf of Muslims.

Why the downward trend?

1.) Body armor.
2.) Our troop quality is better than ever.
3.) Safer helicopters
4.) Better understanding of injury prevention - especially heat injuries.
5.) More and better institutional experience within OSHA.
6.) Smaller electrical components.
7.) Better enforcement of drivers' licensing regulations
8.) A smaller troop footprint in Germany, with its fast cars and strong beer.
9.) Low tolerance of alcohol abuse in the ranks. A DUI offense is generally considered a career-ender for officers.

The emphasis the Army places on safety management is also paying dividends - and the result is nearly a Brigade of soldiers in the field every few years. I'm sure the efforts are parallelled in other services. But in order to assume command of a company in the Florida National Guard, all officers are first required to complete an online course in safety management. By concentrating on company command and educating its unit level leadership in the principles of safety management, the Army is creating a culture of safety watchdogs. When it's important to the commander, that will drive awareness through the NCO support channels, which is where the rubber meets the road. No matter how educated the officer corps is, you don't really get traction until the NCO corps is fully engaged in the effort. And then there is no stopping you. Sometime in the last few years, the military's tremendous corps of professional NCOs really got engaged in safety management, and safety records improved substantially.

As a result, we have a much larger and stronger military for it.



Source.

Lifted from the source you provided:

This is the source for the "death rates":

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf

Pretty obviously, the columns that "count" are not total deaths but HOSTILE ACTION plus TERRORIST ATTACK. From that we get:

Reagan 1981-84: 288
Bush 1989-92: 172
Clinton 1993-96: 56
Bush 2001-2004: 1157

Not quite as much of a "good news story" for Bush II, I'm sure you'll agree. On the other hand, the source does highlight the fact that a significant number of the deaths in Iraq are accidents and illness, which happen anyway, whether the military is at war or not.

Well of course, as Bush's is the first "war on terror" in world history.

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Well of course, as Bush's is the first "war on terror" in world history.

Does the number you provided for Bill Clinton's era have any thing to do with massive military budget cuts during the Clintoon's presidency?

*groan*

Is it just me, or do others also have a hard time understanding the y-axis ? For example; how many people died in 1982? Imo the answer = 110 x 100,000= 110,000,000. This would almost have halved to entire population of the US, so it is obviously wrong! What are they saying.... or better what are they trying to say. Or does the y-axis represent more then one variable? But that is a big nono too, someone help me out please...

Uhm, no, Ted, that means 110/100,000. It means For every 100,000 Americans 110 of them died in 1982. That would be roughly around 2,500 victims if the US pop. was about 250 millions in 1982.

Right! Well.... that isn't the way we are taught to use graphs and tables overhere. Is that really the way they do it in the States or Italy?

I'm not sure, I just looked up at the "Per 100,000" on top.

Originally Posted by Ted

Right! Well.... that isn't the way we are taught to use graphs and tables overhere. Is that really the way they do it in the States or Italy?

It's how population graphs are usually represented. It breaks a number down into something easier to grasp. Most people can grasp "one out of a hundred" better than they can a rational number like a million.

It also means your "Y" axis doesn't have to stretch up into the thousands so variations in your graph are more obvious.