Do you agree with relative casualty counts?

Specifically, the practice of comparing casualties in one country to “equivalent” casualties in the US based on population size.
In this article:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0813-26.htm

The author discusses the 800 men lost during Israels 1980’s occupation and calls it “the equivalent in the U.S. of 48,000 dead.” This being based on the us having 60 times the population of Israel.

There was a discussion in Slate magazine a week or so back about this. Sorry no link. I’m really not sure what to make of it. In some regards, it makes sense, but personally, I never think, when hearing about, say, 5 Marines killed in Falujah, "Oh, that was .00XXXXX% of our population. 5 people losing their lives is 5 people losing their lives.

What say you guys?

For an outside observer, yes, but I think those numbers still give an idea of the impact on the population. If there are 800 US casualties, that’s of course horrible for their families and friends, but most people are neither. For most of the population it is completely remote and anonymous. With 48000 casualties it’s still unlikely that it’s one of your immediate friends, but there might be one in your small town or two blocks from your home, a parent of a classmate of your children, family of a coworker or whatever. With one casualty per six thousand something people probably everyone has a not-too-distant connection to one of them.