Looking through the list of American deaths in Iraq, it’s striking how many are non-combat vehicle accidents.
The answer may be as obvious as “the roads suck and driving in hostile territory is tricky and vehicle accidents are a leading cause of death among young people everywhere.” Any other reason there are such a seemingly high proportion of deaths coming from wrecks?
I guess this phenomenon has always existed in modern war (didn’t Patton die from a jeep crash?), but is even more prominent-seeming in this particular war, where the combat deaths are (relatively) low . . . .
This isn’t definitive by any means, and is almost certainly not the whole story, but keep in mind that 18-25 year old males have disproportionately high vehicular accident rates in civilian life, and comprise the vast majority of military drivers. It would be interesting to compare the vehicular fatality rate in Iraq to the rate in the equivalent civvy demographic.
One key factor is that because of the security situation, troops are speeding around a heck of a lot more than folks do here in the nice, safe USA. Higher speeds are one defense against roadside bombs.
I’m not sure the number is that striking given the circumstances. Over the entire war, the number is about a dozen deaths per month and it’s been very common two or more individuals have died from a single accident.
Almost everything that is consumed must be transported, including water, in difficult dangerous conditions.
I will preface my statement by saying I have heard of absolutely no evidence to support this conjecture, but traffic accidents might be one statistic in which to hide combat deaths, should that be the intention of the powers that be. For instance, although “…Private Johnson died in a vehicle pile up in Mosul.”, perhaps Private Johnson’s HUMV was hit by an RPG immiately before the “accident”. Or maybe Private Johnson dodged an RPG but unfortuately ran over Colonel Sanders.
Again I will repeat that I have heard of no such accusations IRL Iraq. Nevertheless I would hope that the press would keep an eye on “non-combat” deaths of US soldiers. The military certainly has an interest in keeping “combat deaths” to a minimum, preferably by skillful training and operational execution, but they have some past history of doctoring casualty figures if the “skill” part falls short.
Nothing real useful to add except I seem to remember this was also the case when Kuwait was liberated…that the numbers of deaths from traffic accidents rivalled or even exceeded the number of deaths in combat.
My guess is that these deaths, although tragic, are not unusual for these conditions and that due to there being little active combat now (and combat being relatively less dangerous now than previously), these deaths are now apparent. We should compare the rate of vehicle accidents to previous combat and non-combat situations.
But as long as we’re speculating, it could be that they’re reporting these deaths because there are no other deaths to report. Or another speculation: the media is actively trying to undermine support for the action in Iraq and is emphasizing these deaths to accomplish that.
You might remember that in the first phase of the war against Iraq (I hesitate to consider it 2 seperate wars as the sanctions and bombing continued for more than a decade unabated) a decade ago, the US lost over 100 people to accidents before a single shot between the US and Iraq occurred.
I realize I’m probably going to catch hell for this, but I think objectively we have to chalk these things up to an incredible amount of carelessness and incompetence on the part of the military, coupled with purchases of what should be considered unacceptably dangerous transportation equipment and systems. The private sector seems to be able to move comparable amounts of people and equipment without killing off employees and customers at the same rate. The callousness the services display toward even their own members is appalling.
(I’m the son of a vet myself, in a multiple geneation military family, so please save the “America - Fuck Yeah!” guttersniping for the Pit if you feel so moved.)
The link didn’t work for me. Wondering out lod if ‘vehicular accidents’ include those in which the person(s) killed were victims of an IED while riding in a vehicle. That sort of accounting will skew results.
The military in that area often can ride along unimproved roads, a pseudonym for a pair of tire tracks through the desert. Desert sand kicks up beautifully after a vehicle goes over it, obscuring the vision of any vehicles behind. Someone used to taking a turn at a “safe” speed for pavement may easily flip their HMMWV making the same turn at the same speed in a sandy environment. Couple these environmental factors with fear of ambush or roadside bomb, and the driver is likely watching MANY things other than what is in front of him/her.
In the first Gulf War, my battery lost a Stinger HMMWV due to rolling and flipping on a turn in the sand, and the driver broke his back (not paralyzed). We also had numerous rear-enders (without injury) while operating in a column over sand (dirt roads).
I would not assume these deaths are disguised “combat related” deaths, especially with no facts, data, or any other personal experiences to support that un-supported premise.
Perhaps the Mod and Admins would open a forum called “General Hypothoses”, or “General Wild Guesses”?
Add to Uncle Bill’s list of contributing factors also physical/mental exhaustion (even “low-intensity conflics” are a 24/7 business) on the part of the operators (not just of vehicles, of everything; we have had people killed unloading freight).
