More active members of the military died during two years of peacetime in the early 1980s than died during a two-year period of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a government report.
The Congressional Research Service, which compiled war casualty statistics from the Revolutionary War to present day conflicts, reported that 4,699 members of the U.S. military died in 1981 and '82 -- a period when the U.S. had only limited troop deployments to conflicts in the Mideast. That number of deaths is nearly 900 more than the 3,800 deaths during 2005 and '06, when the U.S. was fully committed to large-scale military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CRS, which is the public policy research arm of Congress, issued its findings in the June report "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics." FOXNews.com, in re-examining the findings, found that -- surprising as it may be -- there were more active duty deaths in some years of peacetime than there were in some years of wartime. Military analysts say the current decrease in military casualties, even during a time of war, is due to a campaign by the Armed Forces to reduce accidents and improve medical care on the battlefield. "It's safer to be in the military because your accidental death rate has gone down; it's safer to be in the military because if you get wounded, you'll probably survive," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. "Getting killed on the battlefield is one way that people in the military wind up dying, but it's not the main way." According to the raw figures, of the 2,380 members of the military who died during active duty in 1981, 1,524 were killed in accidents, 145 by homicide, 457 by illness and 241 from self-inflicted wounds. That compares with the 1,942 killed in 2005; of that number, 632 died from accidents, 739 from dui charges first offense hostile action, 49 from homicide, 281 from illness, 150 from self-inflicted wounds and 72 whose causes of death were still pending. Eleven deaths in '81 and 19 deaths in '05 were classified as "undetermined." Click here to read the report. "Let's not somehow pretend or try to convey the false impression that being at war is being safer than being at peace, of course not," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. "If we stopped these wars we would cut back our annual military fatalities by close to a thousand people, and that's just simple arithmetic." The numbers, which outline active-duty deaths from 1980 to 2006, show a steady decline in accidents. Experts attribute that decline to campaigns to curb off-duty partying and drunk driving, as well as offering better training before putting troops in hazardous situations. There also are fewer active military members today; the total number of active servicemen and women decreased from a 1986 high of 2.18 million troops to the 2006 level of 1.38 million. Doug Johnson, a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., said that initial treatment and airlifts during the so-called "golden hour" after a soldier is wounded have significantly how to find a good dui lawyer increased troop survival rates. "You don't hear the classic war movie cry for 'Medics, medics,' because everybody's a medic to a certain extent," he said. The death-to-wounded ratio has also improved, the study found. Nearly 8 people are wounded for every one who dies in Operation Iraqi Freedom versus the 1 death to 1.7 wound ratio found during World War II. And the combined totals for illness, homicide, accident and suicide trump troop casualty numbers, Pike said. "Previously in a war, if you were wounded, you were in big trouble," Pike said. "And now if you're wounded, you're probably going to make it." But Johnson said it's important to look beyond the raw data. "The thing that distresses me about it, is it's raw numbers. And while that's interesting, it doesn't reflect percentages, which might be more instructive," he said.
1 Comment
Mexico City - The longstanding restrictions on foreigners buying property along Mexico's coast and borders were loosened on Tuesday after Congress' lower house voted on a proposal that drew stiff criticism from some quarters.
The measure, which passed 356-119 in the Chamber of Deputies, still needs approval from the Senate and a majority of the country's 32 state legislatures to become law. For decades, foreigners have had to use real-estate trusts or Mexican front companies to buy beachfront properties, because Article 27 of the constitution prohibits non-Mexicans from directly owning land within 31 miles (50 kilometers) of the coast and 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the nation's borders. The trusts and front companies have provided a lucrative income for banks, lawyers and notaries who are required to operate them, and the extensive paperwork has discouraged many foreigners from buying. This is about eliminating the middlemen who, through trusts, corporations and front men, have made a living off the constitutional ban. - Manlio Fabio Beltrones, Mexican Congressman Kevin Graham, a Texan who runs the Costa Maya Living real estate firm in the Caribbean beach town of Mahahual, said some potential buyers are put off by the prospect of not being able to hold direct title to beach properties. "I feel, with all the doubts they have, it's slowed the market down for foreign investment here," he said. The change, sponsored by Congressman Manlio Fabio Beltrones of the governing Institutional Revolutionary Party, would allow foreigners to directly buy oceanfront property for residential use, but not for commercial projects. Hoi An Such proposals have been made before, but not by figures as influential as Beltrones, the PRI's congressional leader. "This is about eliminating the middlemen who, through trusts, corporations and front men, have made a living off the constitutional ban," Beltrones' office said when he submitted the bill earlier this month. "It is a question of encouraging tourism investment and creating local jobs." The Union of Indians and the Farmers' Force, a farmworkers group, criticized the proposal Tuesday, saying it would "give free rein to foreigners to legally buy up the best land, and encourage robbery and financial and real estate speculation." "This would result in the foreign colonization of the country," the groups said in a statement. Those are strong sentiments in a country frequently invaded by foreign powers in the 19th Get the facts and early 20th century. Mexico set up the restrictions to ensure national security and avoid the creation of foreign enclaves like the one that grew up in a former Mexican province known as Texas, where the foreigners eventually rebelled and split from Mexico. "For historical reasons, it was considered risky to allow foreigners to establish themselves permanently on the coast and the borders," according to Beltrones' proposal, but it says "the conditions that led the Constitution to limit such purchases have been overcome." Arguing for the change Tuesday, Beltrones said that "this would financially benefit the coastal town government, given that it would make tax payments, like property taxes, easier to collect." Federico Estevez, a political science professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico, also cited the benefits to foreign investment by why not find out more simplifying ownership for foreigners. "This is to bring the law up to date, because basically it's going on anyway, but with all these foul distortions of having to pay people off," he said. Noting that Mexico has been seeking more find this foreign investors, Estevez added: "You want their money, keep them here." Based on reporting by The Associated Press. Follow us on twitter.com/foxnewslatino Like us at facebook.com/foxnewslatino |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2017
Categories |