American casualties in Iraq skyrocket

[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]

 

[the iron horse]

"War is Hell."

~Sherman (circa 1860s)


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

 

[verte76]

"War is Hell". Indeed.

 

[STING2]

[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.

 

[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.

 

[STING2]

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#vietnam_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?

 

[AEON]

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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Victory isn't attained through prayer; it is done by strategy and adapting to a dynamic strategic environment.

 

[AEON]

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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Indeed, the problem is not the criticism rather that a lot of it is just politics and is not putting forward anything better.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[phanan]

What is even worse is the report that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the war began.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

 

[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.

 

[AEON]

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.

 

[STING2]

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.

The 153,000 for wounded in Vietnam only includes those that required hospitalization, it does not include those with wounds that did not require hospitalization and included things as minor as a cut from flying glass. When that group of wounded are included, the number wounded in Vietnam jumps to over 300,000.

Just the same with Iraq figures, if your including the total number of wounded to include the most minor injuries, the the total is 20,687, but if your only included those that did not return to duty within 72 hours and obviously required hospitalization on some level, then the total is 9,352, less than half of the total figure.

It is grossly inaccurate to claim that only about 50% of US wounded troops have returned to duty to date in the war when in fact 55% of them returned to duty WITHIN 72 HOURS of receiving their wound! There are all kinds of injuries that can take longer than 72 hours to heal, but once they do, these troops return to duty in the days, weeks and months following their wounds. Its not known exactly how many of the 45% of those that did not return to duty within 72 hours have still yet to return to duty, but whatever the number, it is a fraction of the total in that group unless you naively believe that anyone who did not return to duty within 72 hours never returned to duty.

There is nothing petty about it, and what is presented in the article is factually inaccurate and off by a substantial amount in the above example.

As far as rounding up the wounded to killed ratio from 7.5 to 8, that is something that is ok for a message board, NOT the WASHINGTON POST! Not a major error, but would it hurt the Washington Post if it accurately reported the figures instead of fudging them? Why round up instead of down?


The ratio of wounded to killed in Iraq is 7.5 to 1. In Vietnam the ratio was 5.2 to 1. If the article is only going to count those that received hospitalization in Vietnam, then it should do the same for its Iraq figure, but they don't which again makes for a totally inaccurate comparison.



Lets compare casualties in Vietnam to casualties in Iraq:

Iraq: 2,754(deaths) 20,687(wounded)

Vietnam: 58,202(deaths) 304,704(wounded)

Something everyone should remember before making outlandish comparisons to Vietnam.



My initial response did not talk about US deaths in Iraq, it was about the wounded in Iraq. So I doesn't make since for you to respond as if that is what I was talking about.

The numbers I posted have everything to do with the wounded and show that the Washington Post made several grossly inaccurate statements.

If you really thought my corrections were that unimportant, you could have mentioned that initially in your first post, but you didn't. Now seeing that my numbers are indeed accurate, you claim it does not matter. Awesome.

The fact of the matter is, the Washington Post made several inaccurate statements about the wounded in Iraq as well as how it compared to Vietnam. It does undercut the thesis of the article, but lets remember, this is the Washington Post, there is no excuse for such inaccurate information when it is so easy to obtain.

A classic example of how unreliable the civilian media often is when it comes to reporting about the military and war.

 

[U2Man]

apparently, iraqi casualties sky rocket too. recent reports put the number of killed iraqis since 2003 above 500,000

 

[Irvine511]

yes, yes, STING, the WaPo is rounding up because they're liberals and hate George Bush.

or, perhaps it's because, as we all learned in 4th grade in estimation, if you have a decimal of .4 or lower, one rounds down; if one has a decimal of .5 or greater, one rounds up. that's how we estimate, and your quibbling over something like that is the very definition of petty. the Post remains accurate on that point.

If you really thought my corrections were that unimportant, you could have mentioned that initially in your first post, but you didn't. Now seeing that my numbers are indeed accurate, you claim it does not matter. Awesome.

no, i initially asked you to source your numbers. you have, but you're using different, but no better, no worse, sources than the WaPo. they have an army of fact-checkers, and yes, i do trust a newspaper more than i trust you. you've already given an arbitrary metric by which you selected your numbers, and your dismissal of the 72 hours, though you want to include people who got paper cuts in Vietnam in the total casualty figures.

you've added in an arbitrary metric for the Iraq figures. you've said that the 150,000+ wounded in Vietnam are only those that required hospitalization, but if we include every single paper cut, the number doubles to 300,000+. well, that's wonderfully convenient, but the 20,000+ injured in Iraq are those that required hospitalizlation as well, not every paper cut, so the more accurate comparison is to the 150,000+ number from Vietnam. the Iraq number is a count of pretty much everyone who has been trhough a major military hospital. the DoD wounded in Action numbers do not include non-hospital wounded.

why would you impose a "return to duty in 72 hours" rule on the Iraq war figures, but not for the Vietnam figures?


[q]The fact of the matter is, the Washington Post made several inaccurate statements about the wounded in Iraq as well as how it compared to Vietnam. It does undercut the thesis of the article, but lets remember, this is the Washington Post, there is no excuse for such inaccurate information when it is so easy to obtain.[/q]

the fact of the matter is, it does not, in the slightest, undercut the thesis of the article -- the ground level ferocity of the war in Iraq is best measured by the number of those who are injured. as the article states, those wounded is a better measure of the intensity of the operations than those who are killed, and the Vietnam comparison is thrown in as a simple historical counterpoint and a means of illustrating how far in-the-field medical care has incrased sinc ethe late 1960s. the comparison to Vietnam isn't critical to the author's thesis, as it is mentioned exactly once in the article. and besides, an 8 to 1 (oh, sorry, 7.5 to 1) ratio of wounded to killed is still a great improvement over either a 5 to 1 or a 3 to 1 ratio of wounded to killed. the Vietnam comparison, no matter which metric, reinforces one of the points in the article -- medical care has improved greatly -- that then buttresses the overall point of the article: american casualties have gone up recently, and it is the number of casualties, not deaths, that is most illustrative of the level of violence on the ground in Iraq.

but continue to harp on it.

A classic example of how unreliable the civilian media often is when it comes to reporting about the military and war.

i'll file this one under "classic STING posts" where he misses the forest for the trees and is dismissive of "civilians."

 

[STING2]

yes, yes, STING, the WaPo is rounding up because they're liberals and hate George Bush.

or, perhaps it's because, as we all learned in 4th grade in estimation, if you have a decimal of .4 or lower, one rounds down; if one has a decimal of .5 or greater, one rounds up. that's how we estimate, and your quibbling over something like that is the very definition of petty. the Post remains accurate on that point.






no, i initially asked you to source your numbers. you have, but you're using different, but no better, no worse, sources than the WaPo. they have an army of fact-checkers, and yes, i do trust a newspaper more than i trust you. you've already given an arbitrary metric by which you selected your numbers, and your dismissal of the 72 hours, though you want to include people who got paper cuts in Vietnam in the total casualty figures.

you've added in an arbitrary metric for the Iraq figures. you've said that the 150,000+ wounded in Vietnam are only those that required hospitalization, but if we include every single paper cut, the number doubles to 300,000+. well, that's wonderfully convenient, but the 20,000+ injured in Iraq are those that required hospitalizlation as well, not every paper cut, so the more accurate comparison is to the 150,000+ number from Vietnam. the Iraq number is a count of pretty much everyone who has been trhough a major military hospital. the DoD wounded in Action numbers do not include non-hospital wounded.

why would you impose a "return to duty in 72 hours" rule on the Iraq war figures, but not for the Vietnam figures?


[q]The fact of the matter is, the Washington Post made several inaccurate statements about the wounded in Iraq as well as how it compared to Vietnam. It does undercut the thesis of the article, but lets remember, this is the Washington Post, there is no excuse for such inaccurate information when it is so easy to obtain.[/q]

the fact of the matter is, it does not, in the slightest, undercut the thesis of the article -- the ground level ferocity of the war in Iraq is best measured by the number of those who are injured. as the article states, those wounded is a better measure of the intensity of the operations than those who are killed, and the Vietnam comparison is thrown in as a simple historical counterpoint and a means of illustrating how far in-the-field medical care has incrased sinc ethe late 1960s. the comparison to Vietnam isn't critical to the author's thesis, as it is mentioned exactly once in the article. and besides, an 8 to 1 (oh, sorry, 7.5 to 1) ratio of wounded to killed is still a great improvement over either a 5 to 1 or a 3 to 1 ratio of wounded to killed. the Vietnam comparison, no matter which metric, reinforces one of the points in the article -- medical care has improved greatly -- that then buttresses the overall point of the article: american casualties have gone up recently, and it is the number of casualties, not deaths, that is most illustrative of the level of violence on the ground in Iraq.

but continue to harp on it.




i'll file this one under "classic STING posts" where he misses the forest for the trees and is dismissive of "civilians."

The 20,687 military personal wounded in Iraq, include all personal that were wounded in any way shape or form by hostile fire. It is not a list of only those who went to the hospital! Yes, it includes those who may have only been cut by flying glass as a result of hostile action. 55% of those wounded returned to duty in under 72 hours. Some of them returned to duty within 10 minutes of being wounded!

The Vietnam figures that break down at roughly 150,000 plus for hospitalization and another 150,000 for non hospitalization are roughly the same as the return to duty in 72 hours and not return to duty in 72 hours for the Iraq figures.

The total wounded in Iraq by hostile fire regardless of the seriousness of the injury is 20,687, and the figure for Vietnam is 304,704.

I've never disputed that the there has been an increase in medical care for wounded.

Once again, the Washington Post claims that only about 50% of US wounded have returned to duty. THIS IS FALSE! 55% returned to duty WITHIN 72 HOURS of being wounded. A certain percentage of the remaining wounded also returned to duty within the following weeks and months of being wounded, unless you really believe that all those who never returned to duty within 72 hours, have not returned to duty to date.

The difference between a ratio of 5.2 to one and 3 to one is a big difference and an error for the paper in regards to the ratio of Vietnam dead to total wounded by hostile fire.

In addition, you can go into the number of wounded and you will still find that it still correlates well with the death rate. The number of wounded in the year to date is lower than it was the year before. The peak for wounded as well as wounded that did not return to duty within 72 hours was in 2004!

The article made two gross error's in reporting and if they really have and army of "fact checkers" why do they have the facts so clearly wrong in these two places?

Would it kill you to admit the Washington Post got its facts wrong in this particular article?

 

[Irvine511]

ugh, you know what? i wrote something out, but i'm just going to keep it simple, in order to keep my life simple:



[q]I've never disputed that the there has been an increase in medical care for wounded.[/q]

but you're not acknolwedging how critical this is to the thesis of the article, which remains 100% accurate, all the rest of your disputes with the WaPo's numbers is little more than smokescreen and sideshow.

the fact doesn't change that whether it's 5 to 1 or 3 to 1, medical care has improved, so fewer soldiers die today from wounds that would have killed them in the late-1960s, thus bolstering the thesis that violence in Iraq against US troops is better measured by the total number of casualties than by the total number of deaths. it doesn't matter if a car bomb gives you a paper cut or takes off your leg below the knee -- the point is whether or not you were attacked, not the injury suffered.

Would it kill you to admit the Washington Post got its facts wrong in this particular article? [/B]

would it kill you to admit that, by either metric, the thesis of the article remains correct and that the situation on the ground in Iraq is steadily worsening?

 

[STING2]

ugh, you know what? i wrote something out, but i'm just going to keep it simple, in order to keep my life simple:



[q]I've never disputed that the there has been an increase in medical care for wounded.[/q]

but you're not acknolwedging how critical this is to the thesis of the article, which remains 100% accurate, all the rest of your disputes with the WaPo's numbers is little more than smokescreen and sideshow.

the fact doesn't change that whether it's 5 to 1 or 3 to 1, medical care has improved, so fewer soldiers die today from wounds that would have killed them in the late-1960s, thus bolstering the thesis that violence in Iraq against US troops is better measured by the total number of casualties than by the total number of deaths. it doesn't matter if a car bomb gives you a paper cut or takes off your leg below the knee -- the point is whether or not you were attacked, not the injury suffered.



would it kill you to admit that, by either metric, the thesis of the article remains correct and that the situation on the ground in Iraq is steadily worsening?

The main reason I responded was because of the factual inaccuracies I saw in the article, something that one should not see if the Washington Post is the credible source so many claim it to be.

It does not matter what the thesis of the article is, several pieces of information in the article are simply inaccurate. Its sloppy and poor reporting to use factually inaccurate information especially for a paper like the Washington Post.


Well, how about we look at dead and wounded for each year the United States has been in Iraq on this whole subject matter of the situation getting "steadily worse".


2003 486(deaths) 2,408(wounded)
2004 848(deaths) 7,998(wounded)
2005 846(deaths) 5,943(wounded)
2006 574(deaths) 4,338(wounded)


Now, in terms of total US casualties, does that appear to be a steadily worsening situation? As I have said before, the insurgency in Iraq peaked in 2004. There are certainly months where casualties jump higher, but the over all trend above shows that casualties have been decreasing since 2004. In addition the number of troops wounded who did not return to duty in 72 hours has been cut in half from the figures in 2004.

Of course, one is unlikely to find these facts in the Washington Post or New York Times.

 

[Irvine511]

The main reason I responded was because of the factual inaccuracies I saw in the article, something that one should not see if the Washington Post is the credible source so many claim it to be.

It does not matter what the thesis of the article is, several pieces of information in the article are simply inaccurate. Its sloppy and poor reporting to use factually inaccurate information especially for a paper like the Washington Post.

i, and the WaPo, dispute your numbers -- i reiterate, the most accurate comparison is between the 20,000 casualties in Iraq and the 150,000 casualties in Vietnam. if you're so aghast at such numbers, then write a letter to the Post and complain.

and, yes, it completely matters what the thesis of the article is for it remains thoroughly accurate and a correct representation of the reality on the ground, no matter how much you might try to obfuscate the reality.

[q]2003 486(deaths) 2,408(wounded)
2004 848(deaths) 7,998(wounded)
2005 846(deaths) 5,943(wounded)
2006 574(deaths) 4,338(wounded)


Now, in terms of total US casualties, does that appear to be a steadily worsening situation? As I have said before, the insurgency in Iraq peaked in 2004. There are certainly months where casualties jump higher, but the over all trend above shows that casualties have been decreasing since 2004. In addition the number of troops wounded who did not return to duty in 72 hours has been cut in half from the figures in 2004.[/q]

the situation is getting "steadily worse" throughout 2006, and 2006 is far from over, and the American death and casualty rate is only a single piece of the realtiy of Iraq where the number of sectarian killings has tripled throughout 2006:

[q]All-time high' in Baghdad violence

By Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — The number of sectarian killings each month in Baghdad has more than tripled since February, and the violence has not slowed despite a major offensive in the capital.

Death squads killed 1,450 people in September, up from 450 in February, according to U.S. military statistics. In the first 10 days of October, death squads have killed about 770 Iraqis.

The increase in death squad killings reflects the level of religious warfare that is now the largest threat to security in Iraq.

Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a military spokesman, acknowledged violence in Baghdad is at an "all-time high" and said U.S. commanders, in coordination with their Iraqi counterparts, are continuing to adjust the security plan to try to reduce the violence. "We've been working to keep it peaceful, and we've been frustrated that the extremists keep perpetuating the number of attacks," Garver said.

U.S. forces are also caught in the violence. At least 37 American troops have been killed in combat this month, about half of them in or around Baghdad, where Iraqi and U.S. forces are attempting to loosen the grip of armed militias. The weekly average of U.S. deaths since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in May 2003 has been about 14.

Sectarian violence grew after the February bombing of a sacred Shiite mosque in Samarra. Gen. George Casey, the top-ranking U.S. officer in Iraq, said the conflict was changing from an insurgency against U.S. forces to a struggle among Iraqis.

The civil unrest has placed U.S. troops in a difficult position. In a seven-day period last week, troops from the Army's 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment in northwest Baghdad investigated 40 sectarian killings and collected 57 bodies, many of them mutilated or bearing signs of torture, said Sgt. Jeff Nelson, an intelligence analyst with the unit. "We're finding bodies everywhere out here," he said. The troops haven't caught any suspects in the deaths, Nelson said.

The U.S. military this summer established an extrajudicial killings task force to share evidence and leads with Iraqi investigators.

The violence, which has pitted Sunni and Shiite Muslims against each other and spawned neighborhood gangs, has escalated despite the presence of more than 60,000 U.S. and Iraqi forces in the capital.

In the worst months this year, sectarian killings averaged about 47 a day, according to the military statistics. So far this month, sectarian assassinations have claimed an average of 77 lives a day. The monthly numbers were rounded before being released and include assassinations and revenge killings but not victims of car bombs or suicide bomb attacks.

In Washington, Bush said, "The violence is being caused by a combination of terrorists, elements of former regime criminals and sectarian militias."

Bush also dismissed a study released this week that indicated that more than 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died in all types of violence since 2003. "I don't consider it a credible report," he said.[/q]

also, one of the reasons why American casualties are so high in 2004 was due to the seige of Fallujah, and American troops haven't had a comparable military operation of that size since. so the 2004 numbers, while the highest, aren't as good an indication of the overall level of violence on the ground in Iraq, and especially in Baghdad, where violence against US troops and especially against Iraqi civilians is most assuredly getting "steadily worse."

Of course, one is unlikely to find these facts in the Washington Post or New York Times.

of course, one is likely to find relevant facts and relevant analysis in the NYT or the WaPo, as opposed to your posts which are little more than smokescreen and harping over small numbers and making meaningless distinctions that are quite unhelpful to assessing the situation in Iraq, unless that is the point.

 

[STING2]

i, and the WaPo, dispute your numbers -- i reiterate, the most accurate comparison is between the 20,000 casualties in Iraq and the 150,000 casualties in Vietnam. if you're so aghast at such numbers, then write a letter to the Post and complain.

the situation is getting "steadily worse" throughout 2006, and 2006 is far from over, and the American death and casualty rate is only a single piece of the realtiy of Iraq where the number of sectarian killings has tripled throughout 2006:


also, one of the reasons why American casualties are so high in 2004 was due to the seige of Fallujah, and American troops haven't had a comparable military operation of that size since. so the 2004 numbers, while the highest, aren't as good an indication of the overall level of violence on the ground in Iraq, and especially in Baghdad, where violence against US troops and especially against Iraqi civilians is most assuredly getting "steadily worse."

of course, one is likely to find relevant facts and relevant analysis in the NYT or the WaPo, as opposed to your posts which are little more than smokescreen and harping over small numbers and making meaningless distinctions that are quite unhelpful to assessing the situation in Iraq, unless that is the point.

How could comparing only around 50% of those that were wounded in action in Vietnam to 100% of everyone wounded in action in Iraq be an accurate comparsion?

The total number of wounded in action in Vietnam is 304,704.
The total number of wounded in action in Iraq is 20,895.

Those are the total numbers regardless of the severity of wounds, when they returned to duty, or if they were hospitalized.

If the Iraq figure were only a fraction of the number representing those who were hospitialized, there would be another figure recording the full total of wounded in action, but the fact is there is not, because that is in fact the total number of wounded in action in Iraq regardless of how severe the wounds were, when they returned to duty, or if they were hospitalized or not.

It would not be accurate to discount over 150,000 US service members in Vietnam who were wounded but not hospitalized like Senator John Kerry, especially after Democrats went at great lengths to point out that he was wounded in Vietnam. Such wounded are counted in the Iraq figure so it is a gross misrepresentation not to count them in the Vietnam figures.

The ratio of wounded to killed in Vietnam was 5.2 to 1, not 3 to 1 as the Washington Post claims. The other gross inaccuracy in the article is stating that to date only 50% of those wounded in Iraq had returned to duty, when in fact 55% of them had returned to duty within 72 hours of recieving their wounds! A significant number of the other 45% of the wounded have returned to duty in the weeks and months since recieving their wounds, so the total number who have been wounded and returned to duty is much higher than the Washington Post states.

These gross inaccuracies are a perfect example of the type of reporting often found in the Washington Post and the New York Times when it comes to the military and war. Whether its because of sloppy journalism and or bias is not clear, but what the Washington Post put in that article is factually inaccurate!

The total number of US Casualties do to Fallujah operations was 104 killed and 1,101 wounded in 2004. When you subtract those numbers from the total killed and wounded in 2004, you get: 744(deaths) 6,897(wounded)

So, even if one adjust for the Fallujah operations, it does not change the fact that 2004 had the wars highest casualties to this point and was the year the insurgency peaked.

The United States military is constantly mounting operations all across the Sunni majority provinces and as my friends can attest to who were involved in the Fallujah operations, Fallujah was just one of them.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]5 Americans Killed in Iraq, Bringing Month’s Toll to 53

By KIRK SEMPLE
BAGHDAD, Oct. 15 — Two marines were killed by insurgents in Anbar Province on Sunday, the American military command said, and three American soldiers died a day earlier in a bombing in southern Baghdad, bringing the total of American troop deaths in Iraq this month to at least 53, an extraordinarily high midmonth tally.

At the current rate of American troop deaths, almost four a day, October is on track to be the third-deadliest month of the entire conflict for the military, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that tracks war-related casualties. The two most deadly months coincided with major American offensives against entrenched guerrilla fighters.

The rise now, in spite of improvements in body and vehicle armor, followed a decision by commanders to increase the number of American troops patrolling Baghdad in an effort to quell the sectarian violence that has engulfed the city.

Attacks continued against government and civilian targets as well on Sunday. A series of seven bombings within a few hours struck in the northern city of Kirkuk, killing at least 17 people and wounding at least 73, according to police officials.

Just last year, commanders began cutting back on American patrols in Baghdad in an effort to give Iraqi forces more responsibility. But the escalating violence forced them to reverse the strategy in late July, and thousands of American troops were shifted to Baghdad. Plans for a major troop withdrawal from the country by the end of the year were canceled.[/q]

 

[Irvine511]

How could comparing only around 50% of those that were wounded in action in Vietnam to 100% of everyone wounded in action in Iraq be an accurate comparsion?

The total number of wounded in action in Vietnam is 304,704.
The total number of wounded in action in Iraq is 20,895.

i'm sorry but you're not correct about this.

there were a total of 304,704 wounded, total, in Vietnam, but only about 150,000+ of those required hospitalization, regardless of your 72 hour rule. in Iraq, 20,895 have been wounded in action that required hospitalization. and of those 20,000+ well more than 9,000 of them have not been able to return to duty due to the severity of their wounds.

the numbers compared are accurate.

and this is also important to note:

[q]The American people also need to know that combat medicine has vastly improved in the past 30 years. Ninety-four percent of those who make it to the 10th Combat Support Hospital leave alive, a number significantly higher than previous conflicts. But the increased survival rate also means that soldiers are going home with wounds and injuries that will require long-term care.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/15/wounded.perry.btsc/index.html?section=cnn_health

[/q]

 

[STING2]

i'm sorry but you're not correct about this.

there were a total of 304,704 wounded, total, in Vietnam, but only about 150,000+ of those required hospitalization, regardless of your 72 hour rule. in Iraq, 20,895 have been wounded in action that required hospitalization. and of those 20,000+ well more than 9,000 of them have not been able to return to duty due to the severity of their wounds.

the numbers compared are accurate.

and this is also important to note:

[q]The American people also need to know that combat medicine has vastly improved in the past 30 years. Ninety-four percent of those who make it to the 10th Combat Support Hospital leave alive, a number significantly higher than previous conflicts. But the increased survival rate also means that soldiers are going home with wounds and injuries that will require long-term care.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/15/wounded.perry.btsc/index.html?section=cnn_health

[/q]

www.icasualties.org has all the DOD figures on wounded, including those that were not wounded in action or sick. In regards to wounded in action, the only distinction is between those that returned to duty within 72 hours and those that did not return to duty within 72 hours of receiving their wounds. It does not state that this group of wounded represents only those that needed to be hospitalized. If that were the case, it would say that and then there would be a second list listing all of those who were wounded in action regardless of whether hospitalization was required.

The total number of "wounded in action" in Vietnam and Iraq regardless of hospitalization or when they returned to duty is as follows:

Vietnam - 304,704
Iraq - 20,895

If the number of "wounded in action" were higher in Iraq than 20,895 , it would be listed in the charts and would be sited by many people since it would be a higher figure. But the fact of the matter is, all of the wounded in action regardless of whether they were hospitalized or not are included in the 20,895 total. The only distinction made is when they returned to duty.

They also have the number of wounded in non-hostile events as well as those who got sick.

But if you think that the number of "wounded in action" in Iraq is higher than 20,895, I challenge you to find the figure. There is simply no one out there on either side of the debate arguing that when it comes to "wounded in action" that the number is higher than 20,895.

So, the ratio of Vietnam wounded to killed is 5.2 to 1 and the ratio of Iraq wounded to killed is 7.5 to 1.


The CNN article you sited is like the first article in the Washington Post, factually wrong about what it is stating.

Once again, go to www.icasualties.org and go to the bottom and look at the wounded list. You will find that 20,895 have been wounded in Iraq. Of those, 11,463 or 55% of the total returned to duty within 72 hours of receiving their wounds. The other 9,432 did not return to duty within the first 72 hours of receiving their wounds, but a significant number of them have returned to duty since that time in the weeks and months that went by after receiving their wounds. You would have to be the most naive person on the planet to believe that of the 9,432 people who did not return to duty within 72 hours have all not returned to duty at all in the weeks, months, and years since receiving their wounds.

So now we have the Washington Post, and CNN getting facts wrong that are rather easy to obtain. Is it sloppy journalism or bias on the part of these media organizations? Whatever it is, its only more confirmation of the lack of quality that comes with the civilian media and reporting on the military and war.

 

[Infinity]

The total number of "wounded in action" in Vietnam and Iraq regardless of hospitalization or when they returned to duty is as follows:

Vietnam - 304,704
Iraq - 20,895

So, the ratio of Vietnam wounded to killed is 5.2 to 1 and the ratio of Iraq wounded to killed is 7.5 to 1.

Ohhh I understand now. So until we get 300,000 wounded in Iraq, everything is okay huh?

 

[Jeannieco]

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.

Well said.

 

[Irvine511]

oh this, thread. forgot about it.

well, globalsecurity.org -- a site i know you like -- lists the Vietnam casualties at 153,303.

this seems to be the number most cited, so i think it stands to reason that this is the only comparable number to the 20,000+ who have been wounded in Iraq.

so the discussion ends. the WaPo and CNN are correct in their reporting.

 

[STING2]

oh this, thread. forgot about it.

well, globalsecurity.org -- a site i know you like -- lists the Vietnam casualties at 153,303.

this seems to be the number most cited, so i think it stands to reason that this is the only comparable number to the 20,000+ who have been wounded in Iraq.

so the discussion ends. the WaPo and CNN are correct in their reporting.

Once again, look at www.icasualties.org which has all the latest numbers from the DOD on the Iraq war.

Both the articles you site claim that only 50% of the wounded have returned to duty which is totally false. 55% of the wounded returned to duty WITHIN 72 HOURS of being wounded. An unknown number of the other 45% who did not return to duty within 72 hours, returned to duty within the weeks, months and years since they were wounded.

The following website has the most extensive list of statistics on Vietnam found anywhere on the net:

http://25thaviation.org/id275.htm#vietnam_war_casualties

The total number of wounded in Vietnam to include those who suffered wounds like John Kerry is 304,704. Of those, 153,329 required hospitalization which of course does not include John Kerry.

In the other direction, even something as general as the World Book Encyclopedia reports that over 300,000 US military personal were wounded in Vietnam.

So from a detailed and extensive look into Vietnam War Statistics to sources more general in nature, they list the fact that over 300,000 were wounded in Vietnam. Other sources that understate the figure get it wrong because they do not count wounded like John Kerry who were not hospitalized.

I'm still waiting for you to come up with a source that shows that the 20,895 wounded in action in Iraq represent only those that were hospitilized as well as the "real" total number of wounded in action in Iraq. As anyone can see from www.icasaulties.org which even reports those not wounded in action as well as those that got sick, the total number of wounded in action in Iraq is 20,895. If that only represented those that were hospitalized, it would be noted, and there would be another higher figure listing all wounded in action regardless of hospitilization or when they return to duty. But there isn't, because the 20,895 figure is in fact the total number of wounded in action.

Washington Post, and CNN get it wrong, which of course is not surprising. Is it sloppy reporting, or bias?