Press Exaggerates Deaths in Iraq
Sun August 31st, 2003 12:44 MSTA few days ago I noticed the press trumpeting the “fact” that more Americans had been killed in Iraq since the end of major combat than during the war. The obvious implication was that things are going quite badly and that Bush lied about the state of the war. In fact, sometimes it was reported that he had announced “the end of combat” when in fact he said “the end of major combat.”
Having followed the situation fairly closely, I was rather surprised at reaching this macabre milestone, since I knew that over 100 had died in combat during the earlier period, and the later numbers had been well under 100.
It turns out that the press, almost as one, suddenly decided to add accidental deaths to the combat deaths. So of course the numbers went way up, and Americans were once again mislead.
Actual combat death numbers:
- Major Combat Period - 112
- Later Period - 63
Putting this into even more perspective - combat deaths per day:
- Vietnam War - 15
- Korean War - 30
- WW-II - 214
Thus the total number of combat deaths in Iraq - during both phases, is less than one day’s deaths in World War II.
Of course, every death is tragic, combat or accidental, wartime or peacetime.
See here for details.
Hmm, safer to be in combat in any of those wars than an elderly person in France during a heatwave.
You’ve got it all wrong. The number of causalties is being drastically UNDER reported. I know several people who have been over there since the beginning, and things are not at ALL as we are being told by the administration nor the press. Combat is much more frequent, more intense, and resulting in far more losses. There are so many causalties that the US Army has been forced to contract out with two private German hospitals near Ramstein Air Base. You cannot compare Iraq, thus far, with Korea and WWII, two far more protacted wars with direct convential confrontations of armies. As for Vietnam, over half the combat deaths occured after the beginning of 1969, when Nixon and Kissinger were engaging in their games with other peoples lives. The press is sound asleep, all information is being suppressed by the government. I’ll bet you that we have the 1000th combat death by May 1. Is that acceptable to you? It isn’t to me.
Michael,
You are conflating wounded with killed. This war is producing proportionately more wounded than dead because the body armor is much more effective than it was in the past. Thus people who would be dead are wounded. Hence there are lots of wounded (hence the extra hospitals if your sources are correct), but not extra dead. After all, you don’t rent hospitals for dead people, and in modern war almost all combat deaths occur before the casualty reaches medical care.
I would be very surprised if the Administration is lying about the number of deaths. The reason is that it is too easy to check, and there would be leaks followed by scandals. There are too may people who do not want the truth suppressed.
As far as 1000 combat deaths by May 1. If that is what is necessary, then it is a price we should pay. Would you rather we wait until a nuclear weapon kills 100,000 in Washington, DC along with decapitating our government?
What people seem to ignore is that we are in a major war with a world-wide movement of people who are happy to kill our citizens. Those people have already killed hearly 4,000 Americans in the last 20 years, and have no plan to stop until America is an Islamic theocratic dictatorship like Afghanistan under Iran.
This is the most serious threat we have faced since the cold war, and in some ways more serious, because the Russians could be deterred with nuclear weapons, and hence they only killed (through their proxy wars) about 90,000 Americans. The Islamofascists are impossible to deter, and hence we must deter their governments and prevent them from giving weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists.
Iraq is crucial to this battle for several reasons. One is that Saddam would have been likely to give biological or chemical weapons to terrorists (we now have absolute proof that he cooperated with Al Quaeda and had done so for many years, and furthermore funded other terrorist organizations). His own military thought he had those weapons, and the scientists have told investigators that he could quickly re-establish his chemical weapons facilities.
Another reason is that Iraq is so critical is that it is between two major terrorist states: Syria and Iran, and next to a source of terrorist ideology, Saudi Arabia. Establishing a secular democratic republic there would be a major blow to the terrorists. Likewise, having American forces there acts like a magnet for terrorists in Iraq allows us to capture and question a lot of these guys (and kill a bunch more of them), aiding our efforts.
What would be totally unacceptable would be to retreat from Iraq. This is what both the Islamofascists and the rump Baathists expect. It would validate the idea that America can be beat, and would lead not only to a WMD armed Iraqi dictatorship, but a loss of our ability to coerce other states that harbor terrorists into stopping the terrorism (I have in mind Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea).
A retreat from Iraq would be the worst geopolitical mistake since Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler and the US Congress’ abandoning of Vietnam. It would be a disaster.
Terrorism cannot be fought by defensive measures. It is impossible to maintain our liberties and our economy and at the same time stop WMD attacks in our cities. It is probably impossible to stop them even with totalitarian measures.
So if 1000 deaths isn’t acceptable to you, what is your proposal? How are you going to prevent it without losing the war on terrorism? It is easy to snipe at the government (heck, we conservatives do it too), but unless you have an alternative that will work, it is also a value of negative social value.
What *is* being ignored by the press is that most of Iraq is pacified, that most Iraqi’s do not want us to leave (although they would prefer that we stay and protect them but give them their own government),
Why you bring in Vietnam and only mention Nixon and Kissinger is beyond me, but since you did, lets have a few FACTS.
When I was serving, there were 500,000 troops in Vietnam and Nixon had not yet been elected. Nixon *inherited* that war from Johnson, and followed through on his campaign pledge to remove American troops. That he didn’t do so immediately is because doing so would have been abandoning an ally to its enemy (note that by the time Nixon took over, there was no effective insurgent force - the VC was wiped out in the Tet Offensive of 1968 - we were fighting only the North Vietnamese). Nixon and Kissinger proceeded to win that war (Christmas bombing of 1972), and South Vietnam could be as free and prosperous as South Korea today if we had not betrayed them later.
It was only subsequently lost when that great enemy of America, Democrat Senator Frank Church, sponsored the law that forced the US to cut off ALL AID to our ally (His other act which led directly to 9-11 was to destroy the CIA’s humint operations). South Vietnam went down to an *invasion* of 20 armored divisions (that twice as many divisions as the ENTIRE US ARMY has today), equipped by the Soviet Union, at the same time that the US was refusing to even ship ammunition for the weapons the South already had!
Wait, are you claiming that the accidental deaths in Iraq are insignificant?
Accidental deaths, suicides, and illness cause deaths.. Yes, they are in fact significant. In the US Civil War, fewer than 1/3 of the deaths of Union soldiers were combat related.
Today we have better medical care, which decreases radically the percent of deaths to illness, in combination with better body armor, decreases significantly the percent of deaths due to hostile fire, and in combination with better body armor, increases significantly the percent of wounded.
As of today, in Iraq, the US has had 298 deaths due to hostile action, 136 non-hostile. Since May 1, there have been 184 hostile and 112 non-hostile.
Wounded: 2094 hostile, non-hostile 350
Afghanistan:
Hostile: 29
Non-Hostile: 63
MIA: 5
Of the non-hostile, I don’t know the breakdown, but just one factor, non-combat related helicopter crashes, have caused 45 deaths.
Hello,
Do you have any data on the number of Iraqi’s killed by other Iraqi’s?
I’ve seen press reports about bombings of Shi’ite mosques by Sunni’s, and bombings of Sunni mosques by Shi’ites. I guess I’m wondering how many Iraqi’s are killing other Iraqi’s, versus how many Iraqi’s are killing Westerners.
In reality we could call them all accidents. If we didn’t have this accidental president and his idiotic neo-con advisors we wouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place. So, you are right, the press is wrong, they are all accidents, brought about by an accidental president. Also, before you call the press the useful idiots perhaps a mirror is in order.
The initial post (from August) indicated a feeling that the press was inflating the numbers of casualties (actually deaths). The July 18, 2003, Stars & Stripes … “Landstuhl Regional Medical Center is receiving more than twice the number of patients from Operation Iraqi Freedom that it did during the major combat phase of the war.”
The press did change the way that it reported deaths, in that it included “non-hostile” deaths around this time. There does appear to be an inordinate amount of “non-hostile” deaths. Truth be told, though, does it really matter what killed them or who was responsible?
The best site I have seen thusfar that is tracking casualties in Iraq is here. This site utilizes official press releases originating from the military.
There are some arguments going back and forth about the true casualty reports and figures being released from both the war theaters. The most recent on casualties from The Wounded Who Never Die, printed in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 3, 2003; Measuring the Cost of War from NPR on January 7, 2004; Pentagon Cooking Casualty Counts? from February 10, 2004; and This page posted on February 11, 2004.
I am also still skeptical of the reports that the military is not fully reporting the number of service members that are dying in these operations… but only slightly. The credibility of this administration leaves much to be desired. You are right to point out that, if this is indeed the case, it will be leaked out.
As for the debate on the “war on terror,” please read The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq written by Jeffrey Record for the US Army War College Quarterly, who describes the war on terror as a strategic error and says it is unsustainable in its current form.
I am of the opinion that you display an irrational fear when you make statements like:
“(people) …who have no plan to stop until America is an Islamic theocratic dictatorship like Afghanistan under Iran”
“It is impossible to maintain our liberties and our economy and at the same time stop WMD attacks in our cities. It is probably impossible to stop them even with totalitarian measures.”
The Oath of Enlistment clearly states the support and defense of the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You appear to be more than ready to forfeit what every service member prior has shed their blood for. Wake up, already!
As far as I can tell, the United States male mortality rate for people between the ages of 25 and 35 is about 110 per 100,000 people for year. We have about 300,000 men in Iraq. If they were home, on average there would be 330 deaths among them. If in the course of the year there are about the same number in Iraq, the soldiers have just about the same chance of dying at home or in Iraq or in civilian or military jobs.
The homicide rate in Chicago last year was 599.
The homicide rate in Los Angeles, 499.
The homicide rate in New York, 596.
Total number of US troops dead in combat and non-combat operations in Iraq at one year anniversary, 568.
Given the environment in Iraq, our country’s large cities do not seem very safe.
Well, it’s been almost a year since John Moore’s original post.
Now with over 800 dead and no end in sight, doesn’t John’s point seem rather trite?
Your point?
Dig up an old post and apply it today? Silly.
I have been serving in Iraq for over five months now as a soldier in the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, otherwise known as the “ROCK.”
We entered the country at midnight on the 26th of March; one thousand of my fellow soldiers and I parachuted from 10 jumbo jets (known as C-17s) onto a cold, muddy field in Bashur, Northern Iraq. This parachute operation was the U.S. Army’s only combat jump of the war and opened up the northern front.
Things have changed tremendously for our battalion since those first cold, wet weeks spent in the mountain city of Bashur. On April 10 our battalion conducted an attack south into the oil-rich town of Kirkuk, the city that has since become our home away from home and the focus of our security and development efforts.
Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms. After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes, in the 110-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city. Children smile and run up to shake hands, in their broken English shouting “Thank you, mister.”
The people of Kirkuk are all trying to find their way in this new democratic environment. Some major steps have been made in these last three months. A big reason for our steady progress is that our soldiers are living among the people of the city and getting to know their neighbors and the needs of their neighborhoods.
We also have been instrumental in building a new police force. Kirkuk now has 1,700 police officers. The police are now, ethnically, a fair representation of the community as a whole. So far, we have spent more than $500,000 from the former Iraqi regime to repair each of the stations’ electricity and plumbing, to paint each station and make it a functional place for the police to work.
The battalion also has assisted in re-establishing Kirkuk’s fire department, which is now even more effective than before the war. New water treatment and sewage plants are being constructed and the distribution of oil and gas are steadily improving.
All of these functions were started by our soldiers here in this northern city and are now slowly being turned over to the newly elected city government. Laws are being rewritten to reflect democratic principles and a functioning judicial system was recently established to bridge the gap between law enforcement and the rule of law.
The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored and we are a large part of why that has happened.
The fruits of all our soldiers’ efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today. There is very little trash in the streets, there are many more people in the markets and shops and children have returned to school.
This is all evidence that the work we are doing as a battalion and as American soldiers is bettering the lives of Kirkuk’s citizens. I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well.
Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo
“Die dulci fruimini!”
I also served a year in Iraq as a military advisor to the New Iraqi Army (July 2003~June 2004). Our C130 was shot at flying into Baghdad International, and the Camp Anaconda airstrip was rocketed on my way out. Can’t say much for the security in Iraq.
Having said that, I find that I must agree with LTC Caraccillo’s assessment of the situation on the ground. The changes in Iraq have been amazing in just one year! The effort of the Coalition Forces are absolutely admirable. I’m very proud of my service with the Coalition and NIA.
I lost three American friends while serving in Iraq, and had two more friends badly shot up. Each and every loss of life is tragic. Even the Iraqi losses. I have too many Iraqi friends still serving their nation and have invested too much of myself to turn a blind eye to their suffering.
Nonetheless, I feel that I should point out that since we’ve just past the two-year mark for combat operations in Iraq, John Moore’s estimates regarding casualties seem all the more poignant. It is possible to look at the casualty rates through the lens of the ‘big picture’.
Calculating ALL US military deaths in Iraq, the average is coming out to just over 2 per day. That is significantly less than past wars. Of course, we have no information regarding the deaths of US contractors and the like, but it’s safe to say that their deaths have little impact on the larger military numbers. (Again, this is not to belittle their honorable contributions.)
More importantly, let’s remember that AFTER combat operations ended in Germany and Japan in 1945, US military deaths still topped 3,000. The last US military death from militant forces loyal to the Nazis and PM Tojo came in 1952!
My point? Stability and Support Operations are long term, dangerous missions. But just one look at Germany, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, and Bosnia, and you can see what is possible. One look at Rwanda, and you can see what is at stake!
Whether you supported the war in Iraq or not, certainly we can see the necessity of continuing our committment now. Even the UN and EU agree on this point.
The cost in terms of human life has been tragically high. To walk away from the effort now seems more than tragic…it would feel more like a criminal act.
My two cents.
Christopher Larsen