Service in Iraq: Just How Risky?

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082500940.html

<snip>

Between March 21, 2003, when the first military death was recorded in Iraq, and March 31, 2006, there were 2,321 deaths among American troops in Iraq. Seventy-nine percent were a result of action by hostile forces. Troops spent a total of 592,002 "person-years" in Iraq during this period. The ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq.

How does this rate compare with that in other groups? One meaningful comparison is to the civilian population of the United States. That rate was 8.42 per 1,000 in 2003, more than twice that for military personnel in Iraq.

The comparison is imperfect, of course, because a much higher fraction of the American population is elderly and subject to higher death rates from degenerative diseases. The death rate for U.S. men ages 18 to 39 in 2003 was 1.53 per 1,000 -- 39 percent of that of troops in Iraq. But one can also find something equivalent to combat conditions on home soil. The death rate for African American men ages 20 to 34 in Philadelphia was 4.37 per 1,000 in 2002, 11 percent higher than among troops in Iraq. Slightly more than half the Philadelphia deaths were homicides.

The death rate of American troops in Vietnam was 5.6 times that observed in Iraq. Part of the reduction in the death rate is attributable to improvements in military medicine and such things as the use of body armor. These have reduced the ratio of deaths to wounds from 24 percent in Vietnam to 13 percent in Iraq. Some other factors to be considered:

Branch of service: Marines are paying the highest toll in Iraq. Their death rate is more than double that of the Army, 10 times higher than that of the Navy and 20 times higher than for the Air Force. In fact, those in the Navy and Air Force have substantially lower death rates than civilian men ages 20 to 34.

[Psephos]

1. That's something I would never have thought of looking at...

although a drive through Detroit on Saturday night should have jarred my thinking a little.

I imagine part of the effect is due to the higher level of medical care and nutrition the average (unwounded) soldier receives compared to the average civilian of similar age and economic station. Other effects might include the lower level of crime among active duty soldiers due to higher levels of discipline and authority, and the prevention of some accidents due to emphasis on procedure and safety.

Peace.

[angstlessk]

2. They did a sloppy job, I think. Why change from 18-39 to 20-34?

for example when they apply the death rate to all vs Navy/Air Force comparison? Also, what about INJURED? want to determine if it is because medical advancements? Compare injured in Iraq to injured men in US between ages 18-39, if it is substantially more in Iraq, I would say that, had they had those injuries in Viet Nam, they probably would have died?

But I am no statistician nor do I have a dog in this fight, I just think you can use statistics to make ANY point you want, when you move numbers around to get your required result.

Proof. If one woman out of 10 is pregnant, statistically speaking, they are ALL 10% pregnant.