Anthony Westell, who fancies himself as bringing perspective to all things war-and-media related, offers some thoughts on casualties in Afghanistan in a globeandmail.com commentary.

Take this, for example:

You may accuse me of underestimating the effect of the loss of life among our troops. After all, as I write, 67 have been killed. Every death is a tragedy for family and friends, but we must keep things in perspective: Fifty people are killed in Toronto alone every year, many by gunfire, and many more in across the country. Three months ago, we celebrated the victory at Vimy Ridge. About 3,500 Canadians died there in the span of a few days, among 60,000 who perished during the First World War. Another 42,000 died in the Second World War -- and several hundred in the Korean War.

I'm not suggesting the news media should not report it when Canadians are killed, only that the stories not be treated as big, shocking news. And that reporters who lay on the blood, sweat and tears with big brush strokes consider the impact.

First of all, we're in a counter-insurgency war, not an all-out bloodbath like in the First or Second World Wars. The world wars were the two biggest conflicts in world history. The casualty rate in WWI was more than 10 per cent for the nearly 620,000 Canadians who served. About 1.1 million Canadians served in WWII, with 45,300 dying, creating a casualty rate of four per cent.

Yes, we lost 3,500 at Vimy, but there were 30,000 soldiers there (a death rate of 11.6 per cent). Want a bloodier example? Try the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel. On July 1, 1916, at least 780 soldiers of the 1st Newfoundland Regiment went over the tops of the trenches. The next morning, only 68 answered roll call. At least 310 were killed outright. About 40 per cent of the regiment died in one day. Actually, they died in just over half an hour.

As an fyi, the Wikipedia page on Beaumont-Hamel has this jaw-dropping quote:

"It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valour, and its assault only failed of success because dead men can advance no further." — Major-General Sir Beauvoir de Lisle, Commander of the British 29th Division on the 1st Newfoundland Regiment at Beaumont-Hamel

Now, we'll never see such devastating losses in a single day in Afghanistan unless the Taliban or al Qaeda get their hands on a WMD and figure out a way to deliver it to the Kandahar airfield.

As it stands now, Canada is fighting a technological inferior, not an equal or superior opponent like we fought in the two world wars. This country has an enormous firepower advantage over the Taliban. NATO forces have total control of the air. Canada has tanks and artillery that the Taliban can only dream of. Nor do the Taliban have dug-in defences the way our opponents did in the world wars, although they are fighting on their home turf. In straight combat, we win.

What the Taliban do have are assault rifles, RPGs, some hand-me-down rockets, perhaps some heavy machine guns and mortars -- and IEDs, or improvised explosive devices. The latter is now the deadliest weapon in the insurgents' arsenal.

According to a July 5 G&M article, only one Canadian soldier has died as a result of direct enemy fire so far in 2007, while 19 have died from IEDs. Total 2007 casualties to July 4 are 22.

Let's say 40 Canadian soldiers die this year (37 died last year). Remember, there are only about 1,000 soldiers in actual combat roles in Afghanistan at any one time. By my calculation, that gives us a death rate of about four per cent per year for combat soldiers, and 1.6 per cent for the force as a whole.*

* These numbers probably aren't precise. I'm writing this late at night and at the end of my day. However, with that proviso, I think they are close enough to support my general point on this issue.

Since Mr. Westell brought up the example of Toronto, let's keep in mind that when he mentions 50 gun deaths per year, that's for a city of 2.5 million.

If Toronto lost citizens to gun violence the way that we lose combat soldiers in this low-intensity war, we'd have 100,000 people dead in this city every year, not 50. Still think we have a puny casualty rate in Afghanistan, Mr. Westell?*

* Rethink: I'm trying to find a way to make that number look less worse. Now, soldiers serve six-month rotations in Afghanistan, so let's say there were 2,000 in combat operations in a given year and 40 would die -- a fatality rate of two per cent. That would mean only 50,000 would die in Toronto in that period if the same proportion applied. Feel better?

Actually, let's say that one million Torontonians are in combat in a given year (the same proportion of the 2,500-person Canadian contingent in Afghanistan) and that two per cent of those will be killed. Then we could cut the deaths down to 20,000 -- still 400 times higher than this city's current loss of life due to firearms. That as much downward spin as I can logically apply, but it still seems that the 'Stan is a much worse place to be than even Rexdale.

To mirror the horror of Beaumont-Hamel, Toronto would have to lose about one million people to gun violence in less than an hour.

But just because Beaumont-Hamel is almost unimaginably horrible doesn't make the current mission in Afghanistan a picnic. For one thing, while 66 soldiers and one diplomat have died since 2002, the death rate has really climbed since the Kandahar mission began in early 2006.

Only eight military personnel died between 2002 and 2005, and four of them were killed in one infamous friendly fire incident. Fifty-eight of those deaths have come in the last 18 months.

If Canadians were getting killed at the same numbers in 2002-2005 as they did in 2006-07, we'd have more than 200 dead to grieve right now.

In an interview with CTV Newsnet, Maj.-Gen (ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie said that to a certain extent, casualties are irrelevant -- either you believe in the mission and accept the casualties, or you don't.

That's true, so long as the public is clear on the purpose and in support of the objectives. Discussing the objectives is beyond the scope of this post.

In terms of reporting on deaths in Afghanistan, perspective is important, but as I think I've (however imprecisely) shown, Mr. Westell is lacking some perspective himself.

Hopefully, we've moved on past the attitudes of nearly a century ago where having 40 per cent of a regiment die in one day considered a success because they kept moving forward until they took a bullet or were blown apart by artillery. While it's still a pretty cruel world, I like to think we've evolved somewhat.

For that reason, comparing casualty counts from today to more archaic times really doesn't help, although some war-loving historians seem to think today's generation doesn't have the right stuff because it isn't prepared to accept large numbers of deaths.

Similarly, comparing the absolute toll of urban gun violence in a major city to combat deaths in Afghanistan without considering the relative scale of losses involved is also unhelpful.

Addendum

Here's some Afghanistan casualty-related stories from CTV.ca:

April 12, 2007: Atlantic Canada pays bloody price for mission

Oct. 7, 2006: 40th Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan

Oct. 5, 2006: Harper defends Afghan mission despite death toll

Sept. 18, 2006: Mission's toughness explains casualties: Harper

Sept. 18, 2006: Cdns bearing brunt of Afghan coalition casualties:

A Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar is six times more likely to be killed by a hostile attack than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq, a report released Monday suggests.

The study, published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, says Canadian soldiers are incurring a "disproportionately heavy burden of casualties" among coalition troops in Afghanistan.

Canadians have accounted for 43 per cent of all coalition military deaths in Afghanistan since February, the report, entitled 'Canada's Fallen,' says.

It finds that, after the United States, Canada has suffered more casualties from hostile action in Afghanistan than any other U.S. ally -- 27 of 71 casualties, or two in five of non-U.S. deaths.

The study says when that figure is adjusted to take into account the relative size of each country's troop commitments, a Canadian soldier in Kandahar is nearly three times more likely to be killed in hostile action than a British soldier, and more than four times more likely than an American soldier in Afghanistan.

Defence researchers Bill Robinson and Steven Staples, who wrote the report, say a Canadian soldier in Kandahar is six times more likely to die than a U.S. soldier fighting in Iraq.

Icasualties.org has more info on casualties in Afghanistan.