First off this post isnt so much presenting a debate as it is an informational post for the interested, but I’ve put it here given the contentious nature of the whole Iraq situation. This is a ‘just the facts’ post.
This site here tracks coalition military casualties (in considerable detail).
US military fatalities from hostile action since the outbreak of the war have been:
March - 58
April - 57
(Bush announces major combat is over)
May - 7
June - 18
July - 28
August - 16
September - 18
October - 30
Total 232 deaths from hostile causes, and there are another 123 deaths from non-hostile causes for a total of 355 US military deaths.
Some observations:
117 hostile deaths have occurred in the post-1 May period. Over the last day or so, total deaths from hostile action in this period have now passed the hostile deaths from the period of major combat.
October has been the worst month of the post-war period for hostile deaths.
Another 1,737 soldiers have been wounded in action (and 339 in non-hostile incidents)
Figures for american military wounded (hostile action) for the last few days were:
27 October - 40
26 October - 22
25 October - 18
24 October - 37
23 October - 11
Thank you Eolbo for your factual imformation. The resolve of the American people to rid the world of cowering terrorists is reaffirmed and doubled with each injury to, or death of, these brave American men and women who are in Iraq only to help the Iraqi’s build a new future free of tyrants.
It might if the people fighting against us were at all liked in Iraq. The Baath party was rather unpopular; they were into the Stalinist methods of ensuring national unity. In a sense, they were really a minor regional party; they were just one that managed to control a military apparatus fully capable of killing all dissenters.
However, in all honesty, 117 deaths, while surely unfortunate for the individuals in question, is not really a terrible price to pay. But perhaps I have a different perspective from most people. I’m a history student. Once you take a look at what real war looks like, you just cannot even take this one seriously.
I have read that a high proportion of the wounded are amputees due to the nature of the attacks, which is largely explosive devices rather then small arms. Also US body armour helps with restricting injury to the limbs and head which are more exposed. Brain injury is also common for the same reason.
The problem is not history but politics… are americans willing to stay in Iraq to clean up their mess ? History will judge later… and the consequences of the invasion itself too.
Also 117 in 6 months means 1170 dead in 5 years of occupation if things don’t get worse or better. Thats 17370 maimed and wounded americans. ( I would say 5 years is a minimum to stabilize Iraq…) Death Rates for Iraqis naturally will be even worse… especially if a Civil War ensues.
Your self-described resolve and assumption of personal opinion to be fact – while cosily sat in front of a computer screen - tells us all we need to know about you.
I pity the poor bastards being used, and thousands of lives being wasting, to further a very particular ideological, non-elected agenda.
I wouldn’t call the men that are killing your soldiers terrorists. They very well may be but the actions against your troops are not the proof I’d need. You went to war with these people for good or bad. They are fighting back.
They may be the most despicable son of bitches in the world but you invaded their country. IMO they have every right to kill US soldiers on their soil. War is hell as I’ve heard lots of your countrymen say.
I also feel sorry for the soldiers at being put in that position but there you go. They are there now and they’re gonna get killed
Them durned pesky suiciders!
Or as Daschle said the other day [paraphrased] “If this is a sign of progress, I’m not sure how much more progress we can stand.”
US military deaths are only some of the deaths that have occurred. For a fuller picture, This independent group has estimated Iraqi deaths, both military and civilian, which are obviously likely to affect Iraqi attitudes far more than American deaths do. Their total comes to 13,000 so far, including 4,300 civilians, prior to the famous May 1 declaration. The civilian total exceeds that of the Gulf War.
For those who’d like to insist on actual counts or even estimates right from the Administration itself, sorry, they’re not issuing any.
Gentlemen. This is not Viet Nam. The hippies are gone and so is their license to unduly influence the course of political events. We left Viet Nam on the brink of complete victory, and afterwards 2,000,000 Cambodians died as a consequence of our withdrawal.
Maybe some of you think that the life of an asian or a african or a european is not equal to the life of an American. But I do, and so does the American people. Forget the polls. Forget the body counts. We listened to the simple minded chants and slogans of the street protesters in the sixties and left Viet Nam, and as a result we delayed the collapse of the totalitarian Soviet Union for tens of years. This time the will of the people will not be denied, even by the people. The brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces will not desert the good people of Iraqi until our mission is done.
Oh, you think not, do you? Well think back. Remember? You were against the beginning of the Bush war for the liberation of Iqaq and the American people were 75% in favor of it.
So take heart doom-criers, most always a free citizenry knows best, and not knowing any better, your children and grandchildren will thank you for it.
I agree. Attacks on soldiers, whether guerilla or not, really can’t be called terrorism. But, as you said in your addendum, attacks against the Red Cross are terrorism. I’d add the same about attacks on the UN.
The US is not going to exit Iraq. That would be an absolute disaster, as even most people who were against the war would agree.
It’s a long way from over yet, Saen. The counts go up almost every day. I’d also like your explanation of what casualties are “acceptable” - surely that can only be assessed in comparison to the goals and strategy.
I’d also take issue with those wanting to separate terrorist attacks from war casualties. It is not at all clear that these attacks are not by military or quasi-military guerrillas, or even that the distinction is useful in this context. Not every Vietnamese who carried a rifle also held a rank, either, but they doubtless pretty much all thought they were defending their country from invaders and were thought of that way by their countrymen, weren’t they?
Each of these deaths, regardless of nationality or military status (the distinction perhaps a Western nicety), represents a shattered, grieving family, with a number of members with a heightened interest in seeking retribution those who they believe caused it. We may not have heard much from the families of the killed Americans, and we are being prevented by new DOD policy from seeing pictures of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover AFB, but that’s only so far. We may be “hearing” from the families of the dead Iraqis already, and we can expect to do so even more as the count rises. And many of us predicted exactly that, seemingly so long ago, before being dismissed by our top-ranking employee as “like focus groups”.
So, Milum, when are you reporting for duty? What? Why not?
Saen you may have been high on the American casualty side, but you were way under on the civilian casualties on the Iraqi side - through April approximately 3000 Iraqi civilians died - though no numbers since then. This number comes from this article http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7704217%5E401,00.html which cites a think tank named Project on Defence Alternatives (located in Cambridge, Massachusetts). URL here: http://www.comw.org/pda/ I haven’t had a chance to peruse most of their stuff so I cannot comment on their analysis (not that my layman’s opinion would matter much), although most of the synopses of their papers seem less than friendly to the current administration.
With respect to whether casulaties are high or low it will all depend on the outcome of the conflict. If Iraq comes out of this mess peaceful, stable, prosperous and democratic then yes, casualties are low. If the conflict grinds on with little progress for several years and the entirety of the $87 billion slush fund is spent on military action and we end up bugging out anyways then 2000 casualties is way too high. A Mogadishu or Beiruit is expensive at any price. A Mogadishu or Beiruit in which in addition to squandering our soldiers we squander our credibility and diplomatic relations is way too expensive.
