July 19th, 2009
The last two decades have witnessed noted increases in violence across the globe. Think of the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, the genocide in Rwanda, the Intifida in the Israeli Occupied territories, the terrorist attacks from Nairobi to New York to Madrid and Bali, and the subsequent global War on Terror. With Russia invading territory in the republic of Georgia and North Korea firing missiles into the Sea of Japan, we see how this violence involves traditional state actors, as well as unconventional non-state groups. We live in a time of prevalent brutality.
The violence of our time is not unprecedented. What is unique is the very low death rate among soldiers. Despite the prevalent violence, American, European, Chinese, Japanese, and many Latin American military forces are suffering fewer battle casualties than ever before. For many countries with large military forces, especially in Europe, more soldiers die in training each year than in combat.
Take Great Britain, for example. Last week the newspapers in London published headlines pointing to recent British deaths in Afghanistan, where more of Her Majesty’s citizens-in-arms have now died than in Iraq or any conflict since the 74-day Falklands War of 1982. The 180+ British soldiers who have died in Afghanistan are a tragedy, but the fact that the nation has lost so few soldiers over the last 27 years is striking. Although Great Britain remains a global financial, political, cultural, and yes military force, it sheds less blood to maintain its wealth and status than ever before. Even in the golden years of the Victorian Pax Britannica, the Empire expended more lives to maintain its power. Now a weaker Great Britain gets more for much less!
The same is true for the United States. After more than seven years of intensive combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other countries, a little more than 5,000 American soldiers have died. These deaths are a true tragedy, but the numbers are again remarkably low. During a decade of combat in Vietnam more than 10 times that number of U.S. servicemen and women died. Say what you will about the comparative U.S. military deficiencies from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, but the latter campaigns have been far less bloody for Americans.
What do we make of this? How has the world become more violent, the big powers more involved, and yet the combat less deadly for soldiers? This is a question historians will puzzle over for many years to come. Here are three interrelated hypotheses:
1. Force protection: For reasons of domestic politics and military strategy, professional militaries emphasize force protection more than ever before. They do everything they can to minimize combat deaths, even if that requires an alteration in basic mission. More than ever before, “winning” in war means losing fewer of your own, rather than killing more of the enemy. Force protection is humane, but it also hamstrings the military at times, especially in counter-insurgency operations.
2. Air Power: The most powerful militaries make heavy use of air power. Bombing with some precision from the air allows forces to kill the enemy with minimal risk. The distance between the bomber crew and the population on the ground protects those shooting through the sky; it also reinforces the distrust and animosities that fuel conflict in the first place. Air power kills enemies but it does not build new nations.
3. Proxies: For a variety of reasons, the most powerful militaries in the world rely on local proxies to do much of the heaviest fighting for them. Think of the roles played by warlords in Afghanistan and the Pakistani military around the Northwest Frontier. This is, in part, an old and wise strategy: use forces with local knowledge and legitimacy to make the tactical decisions necessary to destroy the enemy and win the hearts and minds – or at least the quiescence — of the local population. In another light, however, this strategy leaves the most powerful militaries beholden to corrupt, venal, self-serving, untrustworthy, and often widely hated figures. Hiring private military contractors composed of retired thugs from South Africa and elsewhere only compoounds this problem. No military can fight alone, but no military can win if it sub-contracts the most essential tasks. As historians write about Osama bin Laden’s escape from the caves of Tora Bora, this will be their verdict, I fear.
Please do not misinterpret my argument. I am very happy that fewer Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, and Latin Americans are dying in combat than ever before. May that trend continue. I am, however, struck by the continued spread of violence and the deficiencies in military operations to date aimed at reversing that other uglier trend. What we need are fewer combat deaths AND less global violence overall. That outcome might require more military operations, it might require less. It will surely require smarter military strategy.
I would love to read your thoughts. How can the world become more violent, our military become more globally involved, and yet combat deaths remain so low? How should we think about this paradox?
Posted in 
Well most of the main points have been touched upon among these posts. Force protection, better training, advanced medical equipment and evac, advanced weapons and defense, nature of combat (conventional wars vs. guerilla tactics), proxies, etc. I also think another factor among all of these is the intelligence of the modern soldier. Many soldiers now pursue higher education (TC or 4-year), so to say that our soldiers are more intelligent then 10 years ago is an understatement. Couple this with a push by the military to pursue higher education and the soldiers of today are better able to outfight our combatants. The need for smarter soldiers is imperative because the enemy is constantly becoming more intelligent as well. The soldiers of tomorrow will most likely be even more intelligent then the soldiers of today.
First one cut out:
I believe that the following key points have led to a significant reduction in combat losses over the past few decades:
1. Increased weapons technology: With continued investment in more lethal and precise munitions, these governments have allowed their troops to engage enemy targets, in some cases, without even risking friendly lives. Predator drone planes, global positioning guided munitions, increased range weaponry, and improved lethality of specialized armaments have allowed troops to engage their enemies from safe distances and risk very few civilian and friendly lives. These technologies are continually being advanced and specialized to improve the survivability of friendly troops and reduce collateral damage when necessary.
Better training: Specialized military training schools have drastically improved since the Vietnam era. Troops are now able to train for specific operations prior to engaging within that particular environment. Shared us of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) has allowed Soldiers on the front lines to pass along vital training needs for troops preparing for battle. Often times the enemy that the American, British, etc troops are facing have experienced very little training and have to rely upon their knowledge of the environment and combat experiences when making adjustments on the battlefield. This is often not the most advantageous means of preparing for war since their lessons are often learned upon their death and they usually have the disadvantage of outdated weaponry. The Iraqi Soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom for example told of their inability to train on their weapon and most only were able to fire 2-3 rounds per year. Unlike their U.S. counterparts who often fired several thousand rounds with their weapon prior to any engagement. Becoming familiar with your fellow Soldiers by training and developing a comfort level with the weapons is integral in molding a cohesive fighting group. By training hard, often, and with realistic battle field scenarios, the U.S. and other countries have been able to reduce potential casualties.
Coordination with local militias and training: The ability to work with police, military, and other friendly militant groups, the U.S. has been able to gain a strategic advantage over their enemy. The “home field” advantage is often lost for the enemy when their fellow civilians choose to side against them and share intelligence with U.S. troops. Over the past several years the U.S. has been molding Iraqi and Afghani Soldiers in an effort to develop their military and police organizations. These groups understand their enemy with much greater detail and their knowledge of the terrain is a combat multiplier when it comes to saving friendly lives. By allowing Iraqi and Afghani troops to conduct operations allows more U.S. and other allied troops to remove themselves from the battlefield and ultimately from becoming casualties.
Combined Arms Operations: As discussed earlier, air power and military technologies have come a long way since Vietnam. However, this is only one of several improvements to the military arsenal. Improved artillery, naval gunfire, satellite links, ground vehicles, and many other assets have allowed the Soldiers on the battlefield to call upon a plethora of options to destroy the enemy and save lives. A prime example of this is the use of up armored vehicles to prevent enemy explosive devices from injuring Soldiers. In the past most of these vehicles have been “soft skinned” and were vulnerable to almost every form of weaponry. Now the added armor allows units to move closer to the enemy, engage them decisively with several different types of arms, and reduces casualties.
Forward Operating Bases (FOB) and Improved Medical Operations: Probably the most instrumental improvement to the reduction of combat casualties is the ability to move medical assistance closer to where the engagements are being held. Many FOBs have been developed throughout the current theaters of war and have allowed Soldiers to establish extremely technical medical treatment facilities. These facilities are able to coordinate with helicopter assets to fly injured troops directly to their front door within minutes of being wounded. This was developed in Korea, advanced in Vietnam, and almost perfected in the current theaters of operation. Soldiers who would have bled out and died on the battlefield due to their injuries are now able to be quickly moved to state of the art facilities for care and treatment. Unfortunately these Soldiers will have the scars of war, but will most likely be able to survive their injuries.
These are just several of my opinions as to the decreased level of combat casualties during the past few decades. I told my wife the other day that it was amazing that there have been less than 10 Wisconsin Army National Guard Soldiers killed in all combat related matters since 2001. This is amazing since over 10k have been sent to combat operations during that time and severed over a year in harms way.
with several different types of arms, and reduces casualties.
Forward Operating Bases (FOB) and Improved Medical Operations: Probably the most instrumental improvement to the reduction of combat casualties is the ability to move medical assistance closer to where the engagements are being held. Many FOBs have been developed throughout the current theaters of war and have allowed Soldiers to establish extremely technical medical treatment facilities. These facilities are able to coordinate with helicopter assets to fly injured troops directly to their front door within minutes of being wounded. This was developed in Korea, advanced in Vietnam, and almost perfected in the current theaters of operation. Soldiers who would have bled out and died on the battlefield due to their injuries are now able to be quickly moved to state of the art facilities for care and treatment. Unfortunately these Soldiers will have the scars of war, but will most likely be able to survive their injuries.
These are just several of my opinions as to the decreased level of combat casualties during the past few decades. I told my wife the other day that it was amazing that there have been less than 10 Wisconsin Army National Guard Soldiers killed in all combat related matters since 2001. This is amazing since over 10k have been sent to combat operations during that time and severed over a year in harms way.
I agree with elements of the forces protection / air power argument, but I think it goes far beyond MRAPs and precision munitions to a larger point about the relative differences in capabilities between combatants. Post Cold war, no large technically sophisticated industrial powers really oppose each other.
Taking out the differences in terrain and general nature of the conflict, the US/Iraqi and US/Vietnam conflicts illustrate the relative differences in capabilities. In Vietnam the NVA/Vietcong had a relative safe home base of operations, heavier weapons, the ability to shoot down our airplanes, and significant external military and other types of aid from technically sophisticated industrial powers.
Thirty years after Vietnam in Iraq the insurgents (shia/suni/other) have significantly fewer military capabilities and no support from a large technologically sophisticated industrial power. Meanwhile US capabilities improved dramatically. To put it simply the NVA/Vietcong could probably kick the snot out of the insurgents in Iraq on the battlefield, but the US military of 2009 against the US military of 1973 would be no contest.
I also question the premise of the question a little, although military causalities are no doubt down in ‘90s and 00’s compared to 70’s and 80’s is the world really more violent? I would argue combatant and non-combat casualties are the measure of “overall violence”. Without putting too much thought into this, I think what we see today due to the pervasiveness of all types of media leads us to believe we live in more violent times.
Matthew raises excellent points. Perhaps global media exaggerate the violence of our world, but one must be struck by the reality of ethnic cleansing, massive brutality toward citizens, insurgency, and unrestrained gang behavior from Darfur to North Korea to Afghanistan/Pakistan, to Northern Mexico. Not far from various islands of stability, the world is a very violent place — at least as violent as anytime since World War II, it seems to me.
The perpetrators of much of the violence, and the locations of the violence, probably account for some (most?) of the decline in combat deaths. The violence does not occur on traditional battlefields. Matthew is surely correct that people do not want to challenge the US or other strong state militaries. Perhaps, however, this observation indicates that we need new kinds of capabilities, doctrines, and strategies for the violence of the contemporary world. Perhaps the military as traditionally constituted and trained, is not the correct instrument for the challenges of our era. We should take strategic re-invention seriously and question the future of all institutions, including the Pentagon. I say this as someone who deeply respects and values the role of our military forces in the future security and prosperity of our society, and the world as a whole.
This question about violence reminds me of some of our most recent lectures on the Cold War. After the invention of thermonuclear weapons America’s traditional wars of anahalation were very undesireable and unwanted… could it be that states are avoiding traditional combat wars because new technologies in weapons make them totally impractical?
More importantly, I want to share my thoughts on the issue of increased violence. President Wilson’s theory about democratic peace could be true for peace between nations…but could it actually increase violence towards civilians? I am wondering if perhaps the rise of terrorism has been linked in any way to the rise of democracy. Democracy means a nations policies are highly influenced by the will of common civilians. Terrorism is the use of violence against the common civilian in order to scare them into giving them what they want. Terrorism would not work so well in a monarchy or dictatorship as the person that can give the terrorist group what they want is not as directly threatened by acts of terror against the civilians, where as in a democracy the civilians are the decision makers so their fear has a direct influence on the descsion making of the nation. What I am trying to get at is that maybe in today’s world of increased democracy it is more effective for individuals/groups/nations to get what they want not through traditional combat but rather through violence against civilians and this is why violence has increased but combat deaths have decreased.
I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this.
You raise some excellent points, Brenna. The thermonuclear revolution in the late 1940s made total war between the superpowers unthinkable. Throughout the Cold War they relied on regional proxies, limited warfare doctrines, and covert operations to deploy violence for political purposes. As began in the Second World War, civilians became prime targets for military action by diverse state and non-state actors. Mass killing continued, but far from traditional battlefields.
The connection to democracy is interesting. Democratic states were less likely to fight one another, but they remained belligerent when confronting non-democratic adversaries. Democratic states also committed major atrocities against civilians — e.g. the Battle fo Algiers, My Lai, etc. Popular sentiment in the U.S. often made it difficult for American leaders to pursue political negotiations rather than military force in moments of international crisis.
Terrorism has long existed as a mechanism for the weak to spread fear among the strong. The prominent political assassinations in late 19th and early 20th century Russia are an example of terrorism within an authoritarian/monarchical system. Terrorists always seek to unhinge public opinion and undermine leaders. In a democratic setting, however, they also play to popular media images. Often, however, fear of terrorism inspires a reaffirmation of national power, rather than the disarray and demoralization that terrorists appear to seek. The popular American reaction to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 is a case in point.
All of this brings us back to the original question. If we are fighting terrorists with mroe soldiers than ever before, why are the battle deaths so low? Our War on Terror includes battlefields throughout the treacherous terrain of Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan, Iraq, and many other venues.
Prof Suri,
I agree that the push for Force Protection has something to do with it. I’m too young to remember Veitnam, but I believe that senior commanders of this era have recognized that we need some public support to sustain and win a war. I realize that no General wants to lose troops – but on top of the human cost; climbing death rates don’t strengthen the public’s resolve. Technology of bullet proof materials and armor have really improved but it’s the philosophy of the commander to make Force Protection a priority on the battlefield thats made a difference. Look at the MRAP Program!
I think you’ve hit a lot of good points on the reasons why military casualties have been low over the last few decades despite widespread violence. One major point however that also bears considering is the nature of armed conflict of the last twenty years. Prior wars have been more traditional instances of open conflict, of wars with sides, armies, and nations mobilized, if not in whole, in part against other states. While I don’t mean to give the impression that I think that total war is no longer a threat and something that we don’t have to worry about anymore, states rarely engage in conflict in the ways that we were accustomed to seeing in the two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. In the instances where they do (Persian Gulf and OIF as examples, the three points you bring up are definitely reasons why casualties have been low. More importantly, I think, is the point you mention about non-state actors being involved in violence. Increasingly, the belligerents in today’s global society are sub-state actors, terrorist groups, and so forth who make waging the kind of sustained open conflict that typically results in large loss of life, difficult. We rarely lines or massed armies anymore. Instead, small groups engage in violent acts in smaller, guerrilla style conflict. Take for example the current U.S. presence in Iraq. We have not been fighting the nation of Iraq, not since the fall of Bagdad really. We have been fighting insurgents, sub-state actors who use non-conventional tactics and have a different objective than total annhiliation in mind. Furthermore, these groups increasingly target civilians. Terror, not absolute loss of life or wars of annihilation, serves as the instrument of global policy persuasion. Additionally, conflict often stays within state borders. This presents the difficult foreign policy position where states are often compelled to pay service to the principle of state sovereignty. Do we go into Rwanda or do we treat it as a domestic issue? All in all, the impression one gets is that countries have have by and large developed norms of conduct and open war is no longer acceptable. States, it seems, have matured beyond using war against each other and great pains are taken to keep any large state involved conflicts from spilling over in to hostilities with neighbors. Sub-state actors however are not bound by these same codes of conduct, these same norms. Until that changes we will continue to see outbreaks of violence like those you mention in your first paragraph. Civilian casualties will continue to mount, but military casualties will remain low. Perhaps because of this low loss of life among our troops, and because the ones doing the dying are not our own, there is a lack of sufficient incentive to engage militarily in a way that would produce situations where large numbers of casualties can occur. I apologize that this has been a bit rambly, but by and large I think you get the idea.
Professor Suri,
There are a multiple factors that have decreased the number of combat deaths over time. Strategy of war fighting has changed. I have often thought about the poorly conceived strategy of opposing forces during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, lining up against each other in formation, without cover, and firing until someone falls. It is easy to comprehend the lethality of this strategy. Today, there are smaller Special Forces Units, body armor, Predator drones and robotics to limit combat deaths.
Smaller, more mobile Foward Surgical Teams, fully contained and equipped with blood products, anesthetics, medications, monitors, laboratory capability are positioned closer to the battle, enabling rapid treatment, triage and evacuation to full hospitals in relatively close proximity.
I would like to make three additional points: 1.The suicides of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and those discharged have increased significantly; For 2009, suicide may actually surpass combat deaths. 2. In WW II, 30% of Americans injured in combat died while in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is down to 10% due to these Forward Surgical Teams and rapid evacuation. As an oral and maxillofacial surgeon and an ex-USAF officer, I can appreciate this. 3. Batlefield deaths are only one metric of violence. If you count genocide, famine, death camps,disease, etc, the numbers will be staggering.
Dear Jeremi:
I, too, am concerned about the continued spread of violence around the globe, but I am hesitant about embracing the position that the world has become more violent. In comparison with the Cold War and the number of interstate and intrastate conflicts that occurred then, the world today looks largely peaceful. It will be interesting to see, however, if the current global economic crisis changes all that.
Nevertheless, I am fascinated by your central question: “How can the world become more violent, our military more globablly involved, and yet combat deaths remain so low?” For one thing, the nature of war has changed. This is to say that the conflicts and “hot wars” the United States is engaged in today are regional in scope. Today’s wars (like Afghanistan and Iraq) are limited wars, not hegemonic wars involving numerous state and non-state actors around the globe. Aside from Afghanistan and Iraq, today’s most serious conflicts consist of skirmishes rather than full-blown battles. Thus, combat deaths remain so low because our troops are not engaged in all-out confrontations as was the case in World War I, World War II, and Vietnam.
Second, advances in military technology have played a significant role in reducing the number of combat deaths. The drone aircraft is a case in point. Rather than send in American troops to take out Taliban/Qaeda operatives in remote and dangerous areas along the Pakistan/Afghan border, U.S. authorities can use these remotely piloted aerial vehicles to do the job.
I’ve been thinking at length for a while now, and this post furthers those thoughts, of “the prince”. A striking piece that I remember from the book is the notion of “hiring mercenaries to fight for you,” and the ensuing consequences (inefficiences, trust, etc.). A little off topic, but I’ve been increasingly intrigued (after reading “the Post-American World”, “Hot, Flat and Crowded” and other related articles), by soft vs. hard power. It seems over the past 8 years we increasingly relied on hard power. I’d like to see a little more soft power, although with us relying so much on oil it’s going to be difficult to do anything successful in the middle east.
Excellent points about medical technology, Paul. I wish I knew more about these advances and their real-time applications. Can anyone suggest specific readings? I would also love to learn about personal experiences from those working with these new medical technologies on a daily basis.
Thanks for your insights, Paul. Once again, I am learning from my students. I love this job!
Jeremi
Professor–
I believe that one of the key reasons that combat deaths has remained so low is because of the advances in battlefield medicine, combined with far more effective and portable medical technology, in the past fifty years. Today’s Combat Support Hospitals are climate-controlled with equipment like medical laboritories and even CT scanners, and Battalion Aid Stations and Forward Surgical Teams make it far easier for the wounded to receive care, or be stabilized to be moved to the CSH. The advances in medical technology, especially in terms of drugs, sterilization, and hemostatics (bandages and agents that encourage clotting and stop bloodloss). Current military medical doctrine also tends to send all wounded back to the States if they cannot return to operational status in a short time.
This leads to what I believe is the second reason why battlefield deaths are down: increased transportation. Where WWII medical evacuation was limited to Jeeps, ambulances, and hospital ships, Korea and Vietnam added helicopters. Today, high-speed armored transports and helicopters, combined with jet aircraft, can move a wounded soldier from the front to the United States in 24 hours, if necessary. Aircraft constantly land to drop off supplies, but rarely bring anything back, which means that there is plenty of room to send the wounded home.
As long as medical technology continues to advance and transportation remains easily accessible, combat deaths will continue to drop. I think we need to examine this paradox with more than a bit of gratitude that our soldiers are not dying, but we must also remember that as casualties decrease, so does the cost of war in the public’s mind.