Ok does anyone have the causalities from vietnam year to year?

and isn't this war going down that path?
now in the middle of a civil war??
your thoughts and any #'s would be helpful :)

By my calculations, we had been in Vietnam in one form or another for *nine* years before we got to the KIA rate we have in Iraq in less than three.

Yup! The freeptards were right! This isn't Vietnam!

(It's worse)



Liberal Talk With A Southern Exposure
www.whiterosesociety.org/Kincaid.html
M-F, 7-10 p.m., ET
(877) 4-HEAD-ON

http://www.strategypage.com/the_war_in_iraq/tactics/200472922.asp

Year Combat Dead Troops in Vietnam Dead per 1,000

1966 5,008 385,000 13.0
1967 9,378 486,000 19.3
1968 14,592 535,000 27.3
1969 9,414 475,000 19.8
1970 4,221 334,000 12.6
1971 1,380 156,000 8.8
1972 300 24,000 12.5


this article says we are approaching Vietnam kill rates
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/03/escalating_casu.html
March 03, 2005

Today the media will spend a bit of time talking about how the death total for American troops in Iraq has passed 1,500. That’s a lot of soldiers, but it still far less than the soldiers lost in Vietnam in just 1968, when 16,895 American soldiers, sailors and airmen died in Vietnam. But even by other Vietnam comparisons, these casualty figures are getting worse. For instance, starting in October, 1957, when the first American soldier was killed in Vietnam, it took over 8 years—not until November, 1965—before American deaths in Vietnam surpassed 1,500. And the last 46 months of active American involvement in the war in Southeast Asia—from August, 1971 through May, 1975—we had fewer casualties (1,449) than we’ve now had in less than 24 months in Iraq.

But what is most troubling about the cold figures of American dead and wounded in Iraq are the trends. The folks who run the site Iraq Coalition Casualty Count have charts of dead and wounded by month, and the rate of both dead and wounded has been increasing for many months. Beginning with the first full calendar month of the war (April 2003), the first year—which misses most of the combat in occupying the country—saw 539 Americans killed in action (KIA) and 2,863 wounded. For the last 12 months of figures—for KIA, from February 2005 back through March 2004, for wounded it’s January 2005 through February 2004—the totals are 949 KIA, and a staggering 8,144 wounded.

In the first year after the defeat of Saddam’s military, about 3 American soldiers were killed and 15 wounded over an average two-day period. In the last year, the casualty rates jumped to about 5 Americans killed and 44 wounded over an average two-day period. And it continues to get worse; in the last six months, over an average two-day period in Iraq 6 Americans soldiers are killed and about 50 are wounded, often with horrific, disfiguring and paralyzing wounds that will haunt them the rest of their lives.

Yes, escalating casualty rates are on the march. The problem is it's hard to march to Taps.


This page has a graph, but I don't know how to add it here

http://www.multied.com/vietnam/Casulties.html

...beginning in 1956:

CACCF Record Counts by Year of Death or Declaration of Death (as of 12/98)
<http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#year>

Please note that a number of servicemen's bodies have been recovered since the end of U. S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1974.

Contrary to the thinking of some, Eisenhower sent advisors to Vietnam in 1954. That number grew to about 16,000 when JFK entered office in 1961.

JFK was trying to get the U. S. out of Vietnam shortly before his assassination on November 22, 1963, as evidenced by NSAM 263 of October 12, 1963, which called for the removal of the first 1,000 troops.

LBJ reversed JFK's intentions to withdraw from Vietnam with NSAM 273, which he signed on November 26, 1963. NSAM 273 promised to provide whatever support was necessary to assist South Vietnam.