does it really matter how one dies?

[kobayashi]

why is the distinction between a hostile and a non-hostile death being made?
was this done in past wars?
based on this document from the Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, Washington Headquarters Services the distinction in casualties was made in the 1st gulf war. keep in mind this document is a far cry from being on CNN.

it seems to me the hostile deaths figure is much more often than not keyed on rather than the non-hostile. are those lives lost in non-hostile deaths worth less than those who were lost in a hostile manner?
to focus on one and not the other seems disrespectful to all troops, but especially those who have perished or injured.

edited to add this article.

 

[kobayashi]

this probably wouldve been better in 'War'.

i always forget that forum exists.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Just off the top of my head, kobe, I would say that if one of my family members or friends died, I wouldn't care if it was considered a "hostile" or "non-hostile" death. They'd still be gone and I would be upset. It seems to me that by separating out the two, a subtle distinction is being made that the former are "important" while the latter are almost "collateral damage". However, if you're a soldier that's in Iraq and is killed in a Humvee accident, the fact remains that you would not have been involved in said accident were you not there because of the war. Thus, I would count all casualities as total results of the conflict.

 

[nbcrusader]

This is not a matter of "valuing" lives.

The two numbers tell you two different things, and as a result, can guide policy differently. If the deaths were listed as hostile, then you change your tactics as the enemy has adapted to whatever tactics you are currently using. If the deaths were listed as non-hostile, you change your procedures to eliminate the safety issues creating the non-hostile fatalities.

The forgotten fact is that there are always non-hostile fatalities in the military (training accidents, equipment failure, etc.).

 

[kobayashi]

OK then. its a policy issue. but in my observation and based on some of the evidence presented in the article link above, the media are misusing the statistics.

though cnn might be representing the non-hostile deaths on their wee graph im not seeing much actual coverage of the events. the reason is obvious: hostile deaths are more 'exciting' for lack of a better term than non-hostile ones.

still however, focus on one over the other, portrays an inaccurate image of the war. just as over reporting non hostile deaths would portray the U.S. as clumsy and inept, a focus on hostile deaths presents the Iraqi resistance as more lethal than it actually is.

 

[nbcrusader]

The news media's mantra is: "If it bleeds, it leads."

 

[brettig]

Footage helps too.

 

[zonelistener]

The news media's mantra is: "If it bleeds, it leads."

you forgot the other one....

Follow the money, follow the politics!

 

[sue4u2]

Someone I work with brought up the way David Bloom died of an aneruism(sp?) The way she talked she thought it was a shame he died the way he did, implying if he had been shot it would have been eaiser, better more heroic in some way? My first impulse was to slap her. Dead is dead you Moron. I ask her if it was one of her son's would she feel better that he died under the gun, but she didn't mean it that way. Didn't answer when I ask just how did she mean it.