“As of May 1998, approximately 5,425 veterans (0.78%) out of 697,000 participants in the Gulf War had died. The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) obtained this number by comparing lists of all Gulf War veterans with files of deaths recorded by the Social Security Administration. A similar comparison disclosed that, of the 2,372,327 members of the active duty force and the selective reserve who did not deploy to the Gulf, 19,475 (0.82%) had died. No information on cause of death was available from this data search.”
Will the same thing happen in a new confrontation with Iraq?
Your excerpt is saying that there was a higher percantage of deaths in non-Gulf personel died then in Gulf War vets? Jibes with what I have read elsewhere.
Sad to say, but American servicesmen are statistically safer ‘in theater’ than back home, due to the lack of alcohol and good ole’ fashioned crime when deployed.
This “study” is meaningless. First of all, .78% and .82% are so close that they are essentially equal, given statistical variation. Note that if the death rate for the Gulf War vets had been .78%, only 279 fewer deaths would have occurred.
More importantly, without being certain that the two groups are equivalent in terms of age distribution, health, life style, etc., one cannot conclude that the difference in death rate is caused by Gulf War participation. Given that no effort was made to adjust for these co-factors, the death rates are remarkably close.
Incidentally, I have read that soldiers who have fought in wars do normally have higher rates of certain illnesses. So, the thesis that the vets from GW II will have a higher death rate is a reasonable one, but the statistics offered don’t do anything to prove it.
Some of the service members who go to Iraq will die after they come home. Some of the service members who do not go to Iraq will die after the confrontation. Some members of the general population will also die.
Perhaps the OP could define what the “same thing” is that would happen in a new confrontation with Iraq. Is the implication that partaking in a war with Iraq imparts longevity? As december points out, 0.78% and 0.82% are quite similar, particularly when other factors are not controlled for. So the statistics cited are extremely… unsurprising.
By David H. Hackworth
So far, according to an April 2002 Department of Veterans Affairs report, an additional 7,758 Desert Storm vets have died, while 198,716 vets have filed claims for medical and compensation benefits. Of the claims filed, 156,031 have been granted as service-connected, with more vets being designated casualties as each day passes. The 198,716 figure represents a staggering 28 percent of the vets – 696,579 – who fought in the Gulf War conflict!
For five years after the war, the Pentagon and the VA refused to admit that our troops had been exposed to chemical weapons, via the same sort of despicable delaying tactics our Vietnam vets were subjected to over their Agent Orange claims. For example, the Pentagon brass were unwilling to admit U.S. Army culpability in blowing up captured Iraqi chemical munitions that caused the biggest friendly-fire incident in the history of warfare. To date, not only has no one responsible been punished – instead, in typical fashion, all those who were in charge have been either promoted or knighted.
After scores of studies costing more than $150 million, a definitive cause for Gulf War Illness has yet to be announced. Investigators and researchers have targeted a number of things, including: the unproven vaccines and drugs our troops were forced to take; the U.S. depleted uranium munitions used against Iraqi armor that exposed our soldiers to radiation; pollution from the oil-well fires; local diseases; even the clouds that blew over our troops when captured Iraqi chemical-warfare weaponry was destroyed by Army engineers. Gulf War vet Michael Woods, president of The National Gulf War Resource Center Inc., says VA Secretary Anthony Principi is hiding the truth by not releasing the up-to-date “death and disability” statistics on Gulf War veterans as required by law. http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/CostofWar.htm
So 28% of vets who were in Gulf War have filed claims for medical and compensation benefits? What does that mean?
I know two guys personally who were in the Gulf and medically discharged soon after. Both are receiving benefits. One man has a bad knee and the other a bad shoulder. Neither of things are a result of pollution, chemical weapons or any “gulf war illness”.
I want to know how many of the 156,031 service connected claims for medical benefits are for “Gulf War Illness” type things and how many are for other explainable medical issues.
According to this site, the death rate in the United States in 2000 was (est) at 8.7 per 1000, which works out to .87% per year.
The figures you gave (assuming the deaths were evenly distributed across the 7(?) year period between the Gulf War and 1998 would give it a death rate of approx. .11% per yer year–well below that of the population at large.
Now, I don’t know what the age/demographics of the soldiers who fought in the Gulf War were–certainly not that of the population at large. After all, when’s the last time you saw an 80 year old with advanced cardivascular disease rushing across the desert in camis?
However, if we look at this site (which is a .pdf), we see that the death rate for ages 20-24 is .098% per year. However, this is for both males and females. If we look at males (who’d be the majority of the armed forces, no doubt), we get a mortality rate of 145.3 per 100,000 for the year 1997. That works to .1453%–more than that of the Gulf veterans. Similarly, according to this page, the average death rate for all genders ages 25-44 for the same year was 177.8 per 100,000 --or, in other words, also more than the veterans.
I don’t have any information on the disability stats. However–yes, Gulf Veterans are dying; and so are the rest of us.