Numbers and Tragedies, Statistics and Losses

It's been just over 5 years since the start of the Iraq war, and we've just passed another of those morbid little milestones that get so much attention in the press. This particular milestone has a nice round number on it - 4,000 - which apparently makes it somehow more important, or significant, or something than less neat numbers like 2526, or 3981, or 1135. The media's spent a little while circling over the battlefield, waiting for the 4,000th American corpse to hit the ground. The milestone arrived and passed more or less on schedule, and the media will settle back down and wait for the next round number. But these numbers, round or otherwise are nonsense. They're worse than meaningless. They allow us to care about this war on cue for some fraction of a news cycle. But by the time we've gone to the fridge, grabbed a beer, and slapped our fat asses back down on the sofa, things have moved on to the story of the drug-addled starlet's custody fight with her 5th ex-husband. In six or seven months, when the number's climbed to another round increment, the press will spare a few more minutes of air time and remind us to care again briefly. Between now and then, most of the deaths will be back below the fold on page A-39.

Somehow or another, I doubt that the parents of the 3683rd soldier to die are somehow injured less than the parents of the 4,000th. I doubt that the parents of the 4010th will feel any differently. And, of course, American soldiers aren't the only ones who have died in the course of this disaster. We don't know how many Iraqis have died. Every estimate that's been published so far has been the subject of some controversy, because the different estimates aren't in complete agreement with each other. After five years, the whole country is still so comprehensively screwed that it's not possible to safely conduct the censuses and surveys needed to come up with an answer that everyone can agree with. The survivors of the family that becomes the collateral damage from an American air strike don't mourn any less than the family of the American soldier killed by friendly fire.

Every single person who has died in this war leaves behind a hole. Their absence is felt by their families, by their friends, by their colleagues, no matter who they were or why they fought.

And those aren't the only holes that are left.

When you tell the troops to go to war, you tell them to leave things behind. You pull them out of their everyday surroundings, out of their normal lives, out of their families, and you send them off together to fight. Their absence leaves holes while they're gone. When they get back, it's not always easy for them to fit back in. The holes change shape while they're gone, and they do, too. The process of fitting things back together can be painful.

This is true even when the war is a necessary evil. Afghanistan makes sense to me. I don't think the war there is being fought well, largely because of the war in Iraq and its demands on the resources needed there, but I understand why we went in there, and why there's a need to keep troops there. But the troops are still sent there for long periods of time, and they sacrifice a lot along the way. So do the families who don't go. The soldier misses things that the family experiences, and the family misses things the soldier experiences.

When my wife was in Afghanistan, she got to do some extraordinary things.


She became the first doctor that some people ever saw - young or old. Afghani villagers who had never really had reason to think about women doing anything other than having and raising children saw first hand that women are really capable of more.


I don't know how much of an impact seeing that sort of thing might have on the older folks, but they weren't the only ones watching what was going on there.


She also got to experience some things that were still extraordinary, but weren't exactly all flowers and chocolates. Not everyone came home from that deployment.


The officer in the middle of the picture was the unit commander, someone my wife greatly respected and admired. He died a few months after the picture was taken, a victim of Blackwater's disregard for rules, regulations, and rational behavior. There were other incidents while she was there that I still don't know all the details of, but which had their own effects on her.

And there were the experiences that she missed while she was gone. She wasn't away for long in terms of time as we understand it, but even a few months can be a very, very long time in the lives of children. Some of the moments that she was away from were as ordinary as a day in the backyard, or an afternoon spent helping clean up a garden.


Others were special - things like the first school bus ride.


She was home, briefly, for Christmas, then gone again for a few more months. By the time she came back, she'd missed several inches of growth between the two of them and a year of their education. The kids had changed. I'd changed. She'd changed. Fitting everything back together was not easy, and it often wasn't pretty. But we managed. And a little more than a year later, we got to do it all again.

The second time, when she deployed to Iraq, was harder. She'd changed more by the time she got back, we'd changed more, and we had to start dealing with the whole process of putting the family back together again. The whole process wasn't helped by our inability to comprehend why the whole Iraq thing was even necessary to begin with. At least with Afghanistan, we could fall back on the necessity of someone doing something. Even that limited comfort was gone when we dealt with Iraq.

I've just dragged you through some of my family's personal pain that's come from this war, but I didn't do that to make the point that you should feel sorry for us. The message I'd like you to take away is very different: as bad as all of that is, we're among the luckiest of those who have had to deal firsthand with this war. We've managed to fit ourselves back together fairly well. We'll never recover the things that we've missed in each others lives, but we're still a family. We've escaped with just about as little harm as we could expect.

Many other families don't get off the hook so easily. PTSD and undiagnosed brain injuries take their toll on some troops, and some troops take that out on their families. Some families simply can't manage to fit things back together comfortably more than a couple of times, and fall apart after the first, or second, or third, or fourth deployment. Some wounds force massive changes to future plans. Alcoholism, drug abuse, stress, the increased training needed to prepare for the virtually-inevitable next deployment, all of these things take a toll on soldiers and on families. All of this has a cost.

Iraq's destroyed marriages, it's wrecked families, it's keeping people in the service dangling above the abyss by their fingertips, and the band plays merrily on. Bush keeps demanding more and more from fewer and fewer people, and does everything in his considerable power to make sure that the strain and sacrifice is shared by as few Americans as possible, because that keeps the great mass of apathetic people from getting any unhappier with him than they already are.

That's the part, I think, that hurts the most. He's not just demanding more from the military and their families; he's doing his absolute best to make sure that he's not demanding anything from anyone else. The Fortunate Son cares about his war enough to ask us to give more, more, more, but he doesn't care enough about it - or us - to ask anyone else to pick up some of the load. It's one thing to be asked to sacrifice in the service of something that's necessary if unpleasant. But it's something altogether different to have your sacrifices used for nothing more noble than the desire to avoid admitting a mistake.

More than 4,000 soldiers have died, but that's a meaningless statistic. Every single one of those deaths was a very personal tragedy for any number of people, and all of that still just scratches the surface of the pain. Every soldier who has deployed has been affected by this. Every one of their families has been affected by this. The number of families in Iraq who have been hurt by this can't even begin to be calculated. This entire thing has been an enormous source of distress in an enormous number of lives, but the President can't seem to clearly state a reason that all of this pain continues to be necessary. He simply assures us that he knows that it all won't be in vain.

I doubt I'm the only person not comforted by those assurances.


More like this

It is rare that I find myself at a loss for words. Anyone who knows me can tell you that. Right now, though, I'm having a very, very hard time coming up with family-friendly language that covers the way I feel about President Bush right now. Why? Because I just saw that half-witted, sneering little…
I picked up my copy of this book when it came out last year. My wife read it - and loved it - immediately. It matched what she saw whenever she went to the CASH on her base in Afghanistan. I've picked up the book any number of times since then, but I could never quite bring myself to read it. I…
It isn't possible to adequately describe what a long military deployment is like for those left behind, but I'm going to try anyway. I'm going to try, even though I know that my own experience and my own views aren't necessarily going to reflect what others in similar situations are going through.…
Most of yesterday's news about Iraq focused - to the extent that today's media can be said to "focus" on anything - on our President's latest inept attempt to explain why we need to keep troops in Iraq, and on the inapt historical comparisons he drew during this predictably incoherent and…

Mike, I am unable to say how much I admire your wife and the other service personnel in their pursuit of such ignoble goals. In Afghanistan, your country and mine are doing essential work. In Iraq we are lining Dick Cheney's pocket and those of his cronies.

Thank you for this excellent post opening the window into your life. It is important for those not in the military to stop and think about this. And that is why arbitrary milestones, bizarre and morbid as they may be, are important. Any excuses to focus on the real human costs of war are welcome.

Mike, thanks for your up-close-and-personal perspective. Most of us never experience all the ways our service people bring the war home, not only for themselves but for their loved ones.

By themadlolscientist (not verified) on 25 Mar 2008 #permalink

Thanks for this post.

I personally don't know anyone in the military. Every now and then, I think to myself, "hey, we're at war!" But it doesn't feel like it. The war is only on TV, just like WWII, or Vietnam (I'm too young for Vietnam).

So, thanks for giving me an insight in how the war is affecting your and your family's life.

This is the first post I read on your blog and it caught me. When I was about 12 years old, my parents signed up for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherland, for which they flew in still living veterans. A veteran and his wife lived with us for a week. Being able to speak english quite well I had been talking to this Veteran about his experiences on the battlefield of Normandy, on which he fought in the second landing wave. I couldn't grasp what he told me, and I don't think I can now.
But what I got from it, thinking back, is that man isn't fit for battle. There is no glory in battle. There is only death. Even if you survive. The absolute absurdity of war and the battlefield is something that can really stupify me.
I think we as a people are absolutely unaware of this (as I see it) fact and tend to speak very easily about war and accepted the Clausewitz model to easily.
But then again, my generation in my country never faced actual war. (except for a few, of which I know one, that got send to Afghanistan and Bosnia)
Your post touches the nerves that got struck when I was 12.
Thanks for that. Sorta.

The issue of "round-numbered" deaths came up on Wikipedia when the 2000th American soldier died in Iraq (all the way back in October 2005). An article was promptly created about the man, Staff Sergeant George T. Alexander Jr.. And it was promptly nominated for deletion, for much the same reason you outline above -- that 2000 is no more notable than 1978 or 2004. Over time the article has been kept, redirected to another article and at the moment appears to be once again existent.

Hi Michael David (or Mike):

This is your cousin Megan. Mom passed the address of your blog onto me. What an incredible writer you are. I don't really know what to say here (or how much I should say--I don't want to get too personal on the Internet) but you, the kids, and Nicole and Ben are in my prayers.

You've expressed exactly how I feel about this.

The President does offer a "reason", however - that we're fighting terrorism over there so we don't have to fight it here(!). I've never seen anyone take him to task on this.

I've never seen anyone ask him exactly how that's supposed to work, or why it wouldn't have been a far better use of resources to direct those billions of dollars into properly securing our ports and airports, educating the public to threats, securing our food and water, laying down a basis for intelligent and productive public relations in the Middle East, improving our intelligence services, and adequately supplying and equipping our own emergency response services (as well as our troops, for that matter!).

Well, the 4000th death might not be significant, but the 5000th, now, that number will mean something!

michael,thank you for letting the people know that going into a combat zone isn't like a long business's a major disruption for everyone both in the being away and in readjusting with the return.coming back is hard for the soldier,because they want it to be like before but that never can's hard for the families because they'd like you to be like you were before you left and that can never happen.besides nicole, your brother ben was in the sandbox and will be returning there in the next 2 weeks. this will give us another opportunity for whiplash as we hear the news say",today in iraq us troops were killed ..."it should be more than a family affair.good work dad

an update to clarify michael is very aware of his brother ben's deployments.we've all been dealing with these realities since 2004.he was writing about his household but has also been dealing with his brother's deployments and his brother-in-law's have all the rest of us in this family.give a call to your representative or senator in congress and ask them how many troops have served in oif and oef [ if you don't know the initials i'll tell you the answer] and then ask how many have done more that 1 deployment. then ask how many troops are there in the military. since you're on a computer, hit the calculator icon to do the math.

Hi Mike,

A few days ago, I came across that conservative blog on which the 4,000 dead 'milestone' was essentially labelled liberal propaganda and the fellow went on to claim that it was no big deal because lots more people have been killed in other wars (and the bad guys were all 'leftists', of course). I sent a link to that to an email group that I am in, which consists of my fellow veterans who all served together in the 1980s. I was taken aback when one of them replied that he basically agreed with the guy, that arguing about why we are there is a distraction, that 'liberals' want to send troops to other places like Darfur but didn't care that Hussein had gassed his own people, and that he didn't want to receive 'political' emails anymore.

This was only a week after someone on the same list had sent out a message listing all the dozens of people that Bill Clinton had murdered, so why should we trust Hillary.

Short of it - it seems that, sickeningly, one's political views can often overshadow one's common sense, and sense of decency.

I was shocked, saddened, and frankly, a little pissed off that one of my fellow former paratroopers would actually side with a guy claiming that 4000 dead Americans is no big deal.

The losses are real, and far reaching. And unfortunatley, many in our country just don't seem to care.

Thanks to Mike and his wife and all those serving.

Just popping by, nearly a month late. Wanted to say thanks for a great reminder of the undisclosed costs of this war of choice.

I'd like to point out that I'm Canadian. We're not in Iraq, but struggling to keep the civillian population motivated about our mission in Afghanistan. Part of the reason is simple--no buy-in was ever required. The United States is suffering, in part, from the same problem.

I always wondered why, at the outset of The War Against Terror in 2001, no move was made to put the United States on a genuine war footing. No rationing, no recycling effort for war materials, no asking civillians to invest in the war (though I suppose Erik Prince of Darkness is technically a civillian) or scacrifice their spare time toward the war effort.

Like his own Viet Nam experience, this war was going to be fought by other people for him. Sacrifice was for others.

Life could go on as normal, and people should just splurge at the mall instead of, say, investing in war bonds.

As he did at the UN, he implied that the US Army and its soldiers would have to go it alone.

I hope that'll change. Because if war is political action, then a democratic nation should require some sacrifice from all its citizens so that all are symbolically invested.

I was never a very good soldier, and my uniform has long been retired, but I salute your family, and all military families. Good luck and a swift homecoming.