I'd No Idea The Grenada Invasion Was So Bloody

Ninme linked to some interesting stats a few days ago, which she got from lgf:

Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you will find quite a few surprises. First of all, let’s compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.
George W. Bush … . . 5187 (2001-2004)

Bill Clinton … … … 4302 (1993-1996)

George H.W. Bush … . 6223 (1989-1992)

Ronald Reagan … … 9163 (1981-1984)
Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton’s term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simultaneous war in two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people during his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)

That certainly puts the MSM's daily gloom reports in perspective. Ninmee wondered how 4000 men could have been lost under Clinton, but I wonder how Reagan lost 9000? Grenada? I know we always have training accidents. And the total force was larger then. But what am I forgetting?

UPDATE: Dudes, lay off the insulting emails! I was only kidding about Grenada. According to this (pdf), the 9000 fatalities reflect the normal rate of casualties --but a much larger force.