American casualties in Iraq skyrocket - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-08-2006, 08:00 PM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 03:47 PM
American casualties in Iraq skyrocket

[q]U.S. Casualties in Iraq Rise Sharply
Growing American Role in Staving Off Civil War Leads to Most Wounded Since 2004

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 8, 2006; Page A01

The number of U.S troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years as American GIs fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that U.S. commanders warn could lead to civil war.

Last month, 776 U.S. troops were wounded in action in Iraq, the highest number since the military assault to retake the insurgent-held city of Fallujah in November 2004, according to Defense Department data. It was the fourth-highest monthly total since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The sharp increase in American wounded -- with nearly 300 more in the first week of October -- is a grim measure of the degree to which the U.S. military has been thrust into the lead of the effort to stave off full-scale civil war in Iraq, military officials and experts say. Beyond Baghdad, Marines battling Sunni insurgents in Iraq's western province of Anbar last month also suffered their highest number of wounded in action since late 2004.

More than 20,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat in the Iraq war, and about half have returned to duty. While much media reporting has focused on the more than 2,700 killed, military experts say the number of wounded is a more accurate gauge of the fierceness of fighting because advances in armor and medical care today allow many service members to survive who would have perished in past wars. The ratio of wounded to killed among U.S. forces in Iraq is about 8 to 1, compared with 3 to 1 in Vietnam.

"These days, wounded are a much better measure of the intensity of the operations than killed," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.


The surge in wounded comes as U.S. commanders issue increasingly dire warnings about the threat of civil war in Iraq, all but ruling out cuts in the current contingent of more than 140,000 U.S. troops before the spring of 2007. Last month Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, said "sectarian tensions, if left unchecked, could be fatal to Iraq," making it imperative that the U.S. military now focus its "main effort" squarely on Baghdad.

Thousands of additional U.S. troops have been ordered to Baghdad since July to reinforce Iraqi soldiers and police who failed to halt -- or were in some cases complicit in -- a wave of hundreds of killings of Iraqi civilians by rival Sunni and Shiite groups.
[/q]
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-09-2006, 09:19 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 03:47 PM
"War is Hell."

~Sherman (circa 1860s)


Get it over with as quickly as you can or get out of it now.
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:12 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:47 PM
"War is Hell". Indeed.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:20 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:47 PM
Re: American casualties in Iraq skyrocket

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]U.S. Casualties in Iraq Rise Sharply
Growing American Role in Staving Off Civil War Leads to Most Wounded Since 2004

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 8, 2006; Page A01

The number of U.S troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years as American GIs fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that U.S. commanders warn could lead to civil war.

Last month, 776 U.S. troops were wounded in action in Iraq, the highest number since the military assault to retake the insurgent-held city of Fallujah in November 2004, according to Defense Department data. It was the fourth-highest monthly total since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The sharp increase in American wounded -- with nearly 300 more in the first week of October -- is a grim measure of the degree to which the U.S. military has been thrust into the lead of the effort to stave off full-scale civil war in Iraq, military officials and experts say. Beyond Baghdad, Marines battling Sunni insurgents in Iraq's western province of Anbar last month also suffered their highest number of wounded in action since late 2004.

More than 20,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat in the Iraq war, and about half have returned to duty. While much media reporting has focused on the more than 2,700 killed, military experts say the number of wounded is a more accurate gauge of the fierceness of fighting because advances in armor and medical care today allow many service members to survive who would have perished in past wars. The ratio of wounded to killed among U.S. forces in Iraq is about 8 to 1, compared with 3 to 1 in Vietnam.

"These days, wounded are a much better measure of the intensity of the operations than killed," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.


The surge in wounded comes as U.S. commanders issue increasingly dire warnings about the threat of civil war in Iraq, all but ruling out cuts in the current contingent of more than 140,000 U.S. troops before the spring of 2007. Last month Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, said "sectarian tensions, if left unchecked, could be fatal to Iraq," making it imperative that the U.S. military now focus its "main effort" squarely on Baghdad.

Thousands of additional U.S. troops have been ordered to Baghdad since July to reinforce Iraqi soldiers and police who failed to halt -- or were in some cases complicit in -- a wave of hundreds of killings of Iraqi civilians by rival Sunni and Shiite groups.
[/q]
How ignorant can the media be? Here it is, the Washington Post and they can't even get simple facts right.

Well, here are the corrections:

A total of 20,687 US military personal have been wounded in the war as of October 4, 2006.

Of this total, 11,335 returned to duty WITHIN 72 HOURS of being wounded. That is about 55% of all wounded in Iraq returning to duty in less than 72 hours. The Washington Post claims that only "about half have returned to duty" to date which is grossly false. The other 9,352 wounded are wounded that DID NOT return to duty within 72 hours, BUT, a certain fraction of this group has returned to duty, whether it was one week, two weeks, a month, 6 months etc.

Whether its ignorance or bias, the Washington Post once again, like the rest of the media gets it wrong and produces and inaccurate picture of the situation in Iraq.

Next, the ratio of wounded to killed in Iraq is 7.5 to one. 20,687 wounded compared to 2,748 killed.

In Vietnam, 304,704 military personal were wounded. 58,202 were killed. This produces a ratio of wounded to killed in Vietnam of 5.2 to one, NOT 3 to 1 as the Washington Post claims!

A fact the article neglects to mention is that 60% of the wounded returned to duty in under 72 hours in September 2006, which is higher than the average for the war to date which is 55%. The number of those NOT returning to duty after 72 hours is now smaller than the the average for the war to date, but that does not get mentioned probably because it just does not fit the theme of the article.




Here in a nutshell, you see either the bias or ignorance of the media in regards to the war in Iraq. This is where America gets most of its news and it is having a definite impact on public opinion. One of the goals of the Iraqi insurgency is to kill and wound as many American troops in order to increase negative public opinion in the United States on the war, so a premature withdrawal can occur. The insurgency can never defeat the United States military and their only hope is to create negative public opinion about the war in the USA to force a withdrawal. Thanks to either the bias or ignorance of the US media, the insurgents job in this task is a little easier.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-10-2006, 04:04 PM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 03:47 PM
but the WaPo cites their sources.

you do not.

but continue to believe it's all a conspiracy and that blind obedience on the part of the population is patriotism.

this will give you an easy excuse when history places Iraq next to Vietnam as another massive failure -- no, it wasn't the mission that was flawed, or the execution, or the planning, or the leadership, it was those elite media-types, those "effete liberal snobs" or "nattering nabobs of negativism" that sucked out our will to fight.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-10-2006, 11:22 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
but the WaPo cites their sources.

you do not.

but continue to believe it's all a conspiracy and that blind obedience on the part of the population is patriotism.

this will give you an easy excuse when history places Iraq next to Vietnam as another massive failure -- no, it wasn't the mission that was flawed, or the execution, or the planning, or the leadership, it was those elite media-types, those "effete liberal snobs" or "nattering nabobs of negativism" that sucked out our will to fight.
Here you go:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

You'll find all the latest casualties results in Iraq right there. The Washington Post got its first casualty number correct, but from there it took a nose dive. You can check all my results and math and once you do, you'll find that my post at FYM is correct, and the Washington Post is wrong!


For Vietnam casualty totals go here:

http://25thaviation.org/id275.htm#vi...war_casualties

You may need to scroll down a bit to get all the killed and wounded data.

So, is the Washington Post guilty of bias, or inaccurate and sloppy reporting?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 02:34 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



So, is the Washington Post guilty of bias, or inaccurate and sloppy reporting?
Remember the song "Invisible Sun" by the Police? That is what the political left in this country reminds me of - that they simply live in some strange different reality.

It almost seems that some of the papers (and posters in this forum) salivate at any bad news from Iraq (even the made up news). Don't they understand that what is good for our enemy - can't be good for us?

We are at war. War is hell. Pick a side and pray for victory.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 04:31 AM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Victory isn't attained through prayer; it is done by strategy and adapting to a dynamic strategic environment.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 09:02 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Victory isn't attained through prayer; it is done by strategy and adapting to a dynamic strategic environment.
I was being rhetorical.

I actually believe it requires both. Otherwise, I wouldn't be an Infantry officer - I'd be a monk.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 09:30 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Indeed, the problem is not the criticism rather that a lot of it is just politics and is not putting forward anything better.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 10:00 AM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,675
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


That is what the political left in this country reminds me of - that they simply live in some strange different reality.

This is quite funny coming from you.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-11-2006, 10:30 AM   #12
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
So, is the Washington Post guilty of bias, or inaccurate and sloppy reporting?


since the media is conspiring against you, why don't you write a letter and complain?

or could it be that you're missing the point, because all of your quibbling has nothing to do with what the article is about, and the statistics you're pointing to -- are you really going to throw a tantrum over 55% vs. 50%? is that how petty you're going to be to lable something as "grossly false," or that they're wrong because they rounded 7.5 up to 8? and you refer to some sort of shadowy "percentage" of the other 50% that do return to duty at some point, but at what point and how many? because i see the wounded every day, coming up from Walter Reed and or Bethesda shopping at Starbucks and Borders -- because you seem to think that the "return to duty in 72 hours" is somehow not a real casualty, or shouldn't be counted in the articles overall point -- that casualties are rising, sharply. the other main point of the article is that battlefield medicine is vastly improved from the late 1960s so that an injury incurred today can be remedied quickly whereas in Vietnam, it would have put someone out of commission for far longer or resulted in death.

the point is not the overall deaths of American troops but the ferocity of the fighting that results in injury to the troops as indicative of the level of violence in Iraq, not the total number of American deaths.

so your numbers have little to do with anything, not least of which they do not dispute the level of violence on the ground. so all your bru-ha-ha is much ado about nothing -- the numbers you dispute have little impact upon the overall thesis of the article.

as for Vietnam, wikipedia lists 58,209 dead and 153,303 wounded, which is indeed closer to a 3:1 ratio.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-11-2006, 10:41 AM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,061
Local Time: 03:47 PM
What is even worse is the report that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the war began.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ths/index.html
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 02:38 PM   #14
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 03:47 PM
There are also reports from several medics that soldiers are being airlifted out of Iraq as soon as they are determined to be lost and then are not technically war casualties.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 02:43 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
There are also reports from several medics that soldiers are being airlifted out of Iraq as soon as they are determined to be lost and then are not technically war casualties.
Being removed from the battlefield would not impact the casualty numbers. This accusation is ridiculous.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com