Only one to go...

[vraiblonde]

If you use annual rates for DC and MD, you should also annualize the rates for Iraq. Since the number was for almost four years, the Iraq rate would actually be about 585 deaths per 100,000.

Obviously still way too high, but not as drastic as 2,239.

See, this is why I don't really like the news being the information be-all end-all. They all, including Fox, give the totals and make a big deal out of it, but it's really not that bad. More people are killed in car accidents in this country than are killed in Iraq.

It's like my Mom being all upset when my son was over there, and that's because she watches the news and thinks that every soldier over there has been maimed or killed. She also thinks they all come back with post-traumatic stress, which isn't true.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...More people are killed in car accidents in this country than are killed in Iraq.
...

But not per 100,000. I did the math on traffic deaths in the U.S. The latest I could find was for 2004 and I don't know the exact population in the U.S. at the time, but it works out to about 10 / 100,000 for traffic deaths. Again, the total vs. rate problem.

 

[MMDad]

I hate to quote the Post, but:

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.

That's 392 per 100,000

 

[kwillia]

U.S. Toll in Iraq Lower Than Past Wars

The country largely kept the faith during World War II, even as about 400,000 U.S. forces died - 20,000 just in the monthlong Battle of the Bulge. Before turning against the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Americans tolerated thousands more deaths than in Iraq.