G. W. Bush

[Darrin 3]

As a commander and chief did george w bush have the fewist causuality rate in an 8 year war,of any commander and chief in war history.true numbers desired on countrys at war.and their truest numbers.Trying to finish a report.all help appreciated.

[+Dave 2,322]

As soon as this gets political, its closed.

[Darrin 3]

As soon as this gets political, its closed.

very good not trying to start anything.crunching numbers right now.

[+Dave 2,322]

I know you are not but some wont see that way and it will go right down the path of flames.

[Darrin 3]

I know you are not but some wont see that way and it will go right down the path of flames.

i believe all numbers are respectful in war for honer is with n the warrior.

[Darrin 3]

i believe all numbers are respectful in war for honer is with n the warrior.

you can pull it if you want it was just a an observation un proven i was wondering if it could be proven.

[column5 63]

The information here may be helpful:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

 

For what its worth, the question isn't really whether the casualty level in any given war is arbitrarily low enough to justify itself, but whether the outcomes justify the cost in lives and other resources required to realize them. The true outcomes of a war can take a long time to assess, by the way. Who would have predicted in 1945 that Japan would be an economic powerhouse 40 years later?

[+Gocad 26]

Comparing the casualty number of wars that are decades and centuries apart isn't that much conclusive, since warfare (tactics, technology, etc.) and the (medical) treatment of wounded is constantly changing. Not to mention that wars themselves are hardly comparable.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Gocad

[CarlosemoG 0]

The information here may be helpful:

 

http://en.wikipedia....sualties_of_war

 

For what its worth, the question isn't really whether the casualty level in any given war is arbitrarily low enough to justify itself, but whether the outcomes justify the cost in lives and other resources required to realize them. The true outcomes of a war can take a long time to assess, by the way. Who would have predicted in 1945 that Japan would be an economic powerhouse 40 years later?

 

 

Comparing the casualty number of wars that are decades and centuries apart isn't that much conclusive, since warfare (tactics, technology, etc.) and the (medical) treatment of wounded is constantly changing.

 

Also, can casualties (high or low) really be attributed to Commanders-In-Chief far from their Fronts or the to the dedicated men and women who either a) train the future service people of their countries or b) are on the terrain trying to implement the strategies devised by their superiors while preventing their own people from coming home in a body bag?

The times of kings and generals fighting in the battlefield are over.

Enter bureaucrats and button pressing.

Edited April 16, 2010 by CarlosemoG

[UnknownPilot 33]

Comparing the casualty number of wars that are decades and centuries apart isn't that much conclusive, since warfare (tactics, technology, etc.) and the (medical) treatment of wounded is constantly changing. Not to mention that wars themselves are hardly comparable.

 

 

While it's true about techniques (from tactics to medicine) and technology (ditto), you really can compare casualties.

 

Here's the thing, while this whole concept of sanctity of human life is utter bunk, IF we work under that notion, then each one should be seen as equal, right? And in that light, you can show how this screaming going on in the press and protestors of a few people going down here and there is utterly ridiculous.

 

DON'T mis-read that. I'm not spitting on the graves of any fallen ally, and do wish condolences for those who lost someone close to them. My point is just that when you look at Normandy, people did what they had to do, knew there would be losses, and they gitted their teeth and moved on. There wasn't a hippy-loaded press-corp watching their every move, raising hell for harsh language or rough housing, or screaming to bring the troops back home. Likewise in the American Civil War. The losses were catastrophic. By comparison, war is almost harmless these days.

 

So in otherwords, I'm not being cold about the losses we have today, just resentful toward the hippies and their behavior in regards to it.

 

Also, this can be applied to histories villians too. Unless you wish to play favorites in regard to the value of one person over another, then Hitler is NOT histories greatest evil.... Stalin is. (but I know that is anathema to so many people that pine for his ideals)

[Gr.Viper 131]

Isn't this the spot where the thread gets political?

[+Gocad 26]

Read the first sentence of the first post of the OP:

As a commander and chief did george w bush have the fewist causuality rate in an 8 year war,of any commander and chief in war history.

 

That's what I was getting at when I made the statement about different methods and types of war. I'm sorry to say this, but the initial post simply makes no sense to me. I do think that the OP is trying to compare something here, but I have no idea how that should work given the initial premise here.

 

(Btw, that is not a political statement.)

[JediMaster 451]

The US has been involved in no other 8 year war unless you mean the Cold War, and that did indeed have fewer direct casualties.

For other countries, exact figures will be harder to come by. I don't recall how many died in the Iran-Iraq war, or the USSR's Afghan enterprise. As mentioned, going back more than 100 yrs leads you to times of poor medicine and tech to save lives, so what would today be a wounded soldier that never returns to the battlefield would be a KIA back then.

 

Another unknown barometer is relative losses--how many were lost compared to the enemy? If you lost half as much as the enemy that's far different than if you lose only 10% of theirs. That again requires good numbers from all sides, and those are just hard to get other than estimates.

 

However, the conflicts we're involved in now differ greatly from many other recent conflicts other than really the USSR in Afghanistan in the 80s and perhaps the US in Vietnam. Pretty much everything else has been fast and/or high-intensity vs standard state-controlled forces with front lines far more clearly defined. Low-intensity ones historically last far longer because of the low attrition which lets each side sustain the fight.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is drawing any general conclusions will be hard to justify, only specific ones compared to Vietnam and 80s Afghanistan.

[column5 63]

Also, can casualties (high or low) really be attributed to Commanders-In-Chief far from their Fronts

 

One of the most important lessons learned from Vietnam is that selecting targets and imposing ROE from the Oval Office has disastrous consequences. Johnson and Macnamara are directly responsible for the loss of many thousnads of lives as a direct result of their policies.

[macelena 1,070]

I don´t think it´s a merit of GWB, but of the advances qich make the US military be so much ahead of their enemies compared to other conflicts. You can´t compare the US armed forces of the 90s vs lets say the serbians (the mothas who downed the F-117 and even outnumbered besieged Sarajevo for years), with the US forces of the 21st century against the terrorists. However, you can say that this advantage is because the Bush administration increased the budget in I+D something like that.

[Darrin 3]

. the introduction of cameras in war and though i loathe them i believe they account for fewer casualities rate. and i am speaking weather his tactics or buttun pushers the fact remains he was the sitting commander and chief. so as just having the title warrents the war in his 8 years.not the time the war took to become classified as different by the new commander and chief. so im speaking his time.not the length of the conflict we still share. this is the comparison of leaders of militarys.reguardless of true decisionmakers. from the time he declared war till the time he stepped out of office.All things considered. this be the answer im trying to prove.

[Darrin 3]

One of the most important lessons learned from Vietnam is that selecting targets and imposing ROE from the Oval Office has disastrous consequences. Johnson and Macnamara are directly responsible for the loss of many thousnads of lives as a direct result of their policies.

i hoped to keep it to the commander and chiefs of the macnamaras .title states responseability in the end.

[column5 63]

i hoped to keep it to the commander and chiefs of the macnamaras .title states responseability in the end.

 

Hence, Johnson, the POTUS...

[eraser_tr 29]

Actually HW Bush had fewer casualties occur during desert storm, or if you add up Somalia and Kosovo, even fewer casualties under Clinton. But none of those were prolonged wars.

 

It really has little or nothing to do with who's in charge (beyond the decision to use troops in the first place) so much as the training and equipment our forces have. Similarly with an all volunteer military, the soldiers are more committed.

[shotdown 8]

The US has been involved in no other 8 year war unless you mean the Cold War

 

Vietnam, perhaps?

 

One of the most important lessons learned from Vietnam is that selecting targets and imposing ROE from the Oval Office has disastrous consequences. Johnson and Macnamara are directly responsible for the loss of many thousnads of lives as a direct result of their policies.

 

It seems like learning it the first time (Korea) was asking too much from politicians.

Edited April 17, 2010 by shotdown

[column5 63]

It seems like learning it the first time (Korea) was asking too much from politicians.

 

I think that the important lesson from Korea that we failed to learn was that a country should never enter into a war with anything less than total victory as the objective. Look at the misery that has existed in North Korea for 60 years now as a result. In Vietnam that was compunded by Macnamara's belief that a war could be run like the Ford Motor Company--based on statistics.

[+Gepard 11,314]

Its all statistics. With statistics you can do everything. Or how Churchill said: "I trust only the statistic that i have forged myself."

 

It is not important who has the fewest losses. The result is important. And so you sadly must say: Iraq was a defeat and in Afghanistan we are on a good way to the next defeat.

 

With the use of high tech weapons you can conquer, you can win a open ground battle. This are the strong points of US military and and the other western armies.

But to hold a territory you finally need the man with the rifle in the hand. And this man is unfortunatly vulnerable.

 

The reduce the own losses the US sent to less troops in the Iraq and the western community has today to less troops in Afghanistan.

 

Only a comparision. In the german sector we have 4500 german troops, plus some swedish, some hungarian, some latvian etc, lets say 5.000 men. The sector has the size of half Germany. After WW2 the allied forces (US, british, soviet, french) had 2 - 3 million troops to cover Germany and supress the Nazis. Imagine what would have happen if in 1945 only 5.000 or 10.000 men would have tried to cover Germany. I think the Nazis would have come back very fast.

Same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Gepard

[MigBuster 2,884]

Thats an interesting point there on numbers - half the battle has been trying to get countries to actually commit more troops!

 

Im not looking on either as defeats though - Iraq will stabilise eventually - just takes a long time without the man power.

[Derk 265]

Only a comparision. In the german sector we have 4500 german troops, plus some swedish, some hungarian, some latvian etc, lets say 5.000 men. The sector has the size of half Germany. After WW2 the allied forces (US, british, soviet, french) had 2 - 3 million troops to cover Germany and supress the Nazis. Imagine what would have happen if in 1945 only 5.000 or 10.000 men would have tried to cover Germany. I think the Nazis would have come back very fast.

Same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

 

This is an interesting thing and I guess quite true !! Just the same I'm happy they did it this way, not only because of the Nazis but foremost because of the Russkis, and that may have been the main reason for it.

 

In the mean time two Dutch soldiers got killed yesterday.......

 

Hou doe

 

Derk

Edited April 18, 2010 by Derk

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

The human cost of a war, at most if seen only from the victor's side, is not a sufficient data in itself to make a war just. The Nazis didn't lose but 150 KIAs to conquer whole Yugoslavia in 1941, but seeing what they did there later, it's not really the archetype of a fair war. Actually, it's usually up to the victor to decide if History will see a just war or not, and here, the Germans lost in the end.

 

By the way, staying in WWII Yugoslavia, the Nazis suffered much heavier casualties after their easy conquest, when trying to garrison a generally inhospitable country who was an artificial aggregate made of several opposing ethnic groups with ancient grievances against each other, several opposing political ideologies, and several opposing religions. They then discovered that they had opened the Pandora Box after having blasted the late volens nolens accepted central authority. Actually, all of these data make me think of the situation of Iraq after 2003.