September 14, 2003
Casualty Cover-Up
The Observer has an article covering the true extent of casualties in Iraq: America’s hidden battlefield toll. The finding exposes a Pentagon policy of under-reporting casualties and only releasing figures for fatalities involved in combat or accidents. The discovery has unearthed 1,178 wounded in combat since the war began on March 20th. These are part of over 6,000 that have been evacuated from Iraq for medical reasons. The Observer notes on this figure:
It is believed many of the American casualties evacuated from Iraq are seriously injured. Modern body armour, worn by almost all American troops, means wounds that would normally kill a man are avoided. However vulnerable arms and legs are affected badly. This has boosted the proportion of maimed among the injured.There is an obvious descrepancy that 19% of injuries are reported as combat-related; Is this a hidden implication of friendly fire, dangerous equipment, clumsiness or something more offbeat? Hopefully The Observer will release it’s full report on the matter. Posted by Stephen VanDyke at September 14, 2003 04:28 PM
This is wrong, wrong, not the facts and figures, or your article, Stephen, but the situation in which we (the United States) finds itself in. How many lives will be ruined in the final analysis after this War predicated on lies, is finally finished? This is wrong, all wrong…pity us if we in our ignorance and mounting stupidity re-elect this simple-minded (mediocre, marginal, average) man our President once again.
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at September 14, 2003 09:35 PM“It is believed many of the American casualties evacuated from Iraq are seriously injured. Modern body armour, worn by almost all American troops, means wounds that would normally kill a man are avoided. However vulnerable arms and legs are affected badly. This has boosted the proportion of maimed among the injured.”
Am I the only one to notice what a stupid quote this is? So is this author saying that “interceptor” body armor is bad? Should we stop wearing it? I don’t get it.
Vincent Martin-
How does your statement relate to the topic? I mean if this is all you can say about the matter then it is pretty lame.
“simple-minded (mediocre, marginal, average)”
Nice rhetoric but hardly significant. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Posted by: pete at September 15, 2003 05:33 PMMore conspiracy theories is why you leftys are losing the battle of politics. Keep it up folks. it is working for you no?
Posted by: pete at September 16, 2003 01:22 AMpete,
First of all you spell lefty in its plural form lefties (I know this not because I’m from the left, but because a.) I write left handed and b.) I took spelling in grammar school).
Also, it should be noted that this isn’t a conspiracy theory, but a valid question: Why are there so many injured in non-combat situations? What are the reasons for those injured? I don’t think Stephen was implying any conspiracy, but rather voicing concern.
—Joe
well I was picking on the quote from the article that Steven referenced, not Stevens concern. As toy your spelling and grammar, congratulations on that. I guess you must have gone to a private school because you sure as hell couldn’t have learned it in a public school.
Posted by: Pete at September 16, 2003 03:19 PMAlso, I don’y KarE abOut my Punctationion when i coMent anymore….becuz I just have to due this quickly as I am vrrry buzy and wuz raisd by wolves. Aren’t all Republicans?
Posted by: Pete at September 16, 2003 03:21 PMpete, I think the quote in question acknowledges the good why explaining why there would be more extremity injuries than in other wars. Also, I wanted to bring up another hypothesis on why the “combat injuries” number may be low… landmines and triggered bombs (where there are no attackers after the explosion). These could plausibly fall into an injuries category that does not count towards “combat injuries”.
If that’s true, then that is a scandal worthy of note, because combat injuries merit more pay to veterans and this could be the military;s way of defraying future medical costs from VA hospitals.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 16, 2003 06:41 PMWhat makes the killed/injured ratio interesting to me is that it give us some insight into the nature of the resistance our troops are fighting. How can we gauge (especially those of us under 40 for whom war is essentially a new experience) how resolute the Iraqi resistance is, say, compared to other wars we’ve read about (for example, the resistance America faced in Vietnam, our last huge extended foreign military operation in hostile territory)?
I mean, 150 American soldiers dead in combat doesn’t seem like a lot to Americans who have spent the last two decades seeing Schwarzeneggar kill that many people in a single movie. It’s not a scary number at all. It almost makes it seem like the war is going smooth as silk. But when you consider the number of injured, when you consider that for every one of those killed there are two or three others coming home armless or legless, then maybe we might see things differently.
If 2 marines are killed and 6 injured today in Iraq, then perhaps this is roughly the equivalent of five or six american soldiers killed in one day in a conflict of yesteryear.
This is important to know because a phrase like “2 killed 6 injured” usually gets abbreviated by the American media to simply “2 killed”, which makes the Iraq occupation seem less dangerous than it actually is. Perhaps things are worse than they seem.
In fact, the article says “It is military police policy to announce that a soldier has been wounded only if they were involved in an incident that involved a death.” It seems to me that if 6 soldiers are coming home today with crippling injuries, then it’s something we should know about, not sweep under the rug.
Perhaps the enemy is stronger than we thought. Perhaps this war is going to be tough, perhaps it will cost more money. Is it wrong of us to try to plan our country’s future by trying to base our plans on the reality on the ground, or should we plan our future based on an abbreviated cartoon synopsis provided by the scared-to-deliver-bad-news media, who in turn are given edited reports by the administration? Must all news from Iraq have a happy face sticker on it? Is that good for us?
Anyway, nobody is arguing that our troops shouldn’t wear body armor. And I doubt that the number of injuries from non-combat-related accidents, friendly fire, etc, belies any kind of conspiracy or anything devious at all. Military life is dangerous, military vehicles simply aren’t as safe as regular cars and trucks, they train with live ammo, soldiers tend to be young and impulsive (i.e., prone to accidents), etc. Horrible accidents are normal for any military operation, and it ever shall be. As my WWII-vet grandpa told me during the Persian Gulf war, if you put a thousand GIs *anywhere* you should expect a couple of them to kill themselves every week, whether there’s an enemy or not.
I suspect it’s a bit of lefty conspiracy hyperbole to look for signs of the Administration’s incompetance in this ratio of injured-to-killed. Their incompetance is plenty visible in other arenas. I question the need to drag the military’s on-the-ground tactics into the political fray when the military’s civilian commanders in the Administration are the ones really screwing things up.
I hope the left wises up and realizes that berating an incompetant administration need not involve a conspiratorial critique of the military, unless of course the military is being asked by their civilian bosses to do something they think is dumb (which, according to some Pentagon insider reports, is exactly the case with this whole war in the first place).
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 24, 2003 03:18 PMConsider this:
Numbers of Americans KIA in wars
WWI (1914-1918): 116,516
WWII (1940-1945): 291,557
Vietnam (1964-1973): 47,410
Gulf War (~30 days; 1990-1991): 147
Gulf War 2 (20030320-~20030430): 114
(20030501-present): 117+
“Non-combat” deaths and injuries have always been high, as well. All I’m hearing is “wah! Three hundres lives is too much to pay for our way of life!”
American Revolutionary War: 4,435 KIA, 6,188 wounded, ~20,000 non-combat deaths, ~200,000 total soldier. Of course, that was a guerilla war with the Americans being the sneaky bastards.
