Official Iraq Casualty Figures

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-29 06:44pm

A while back I was asking about the casualty figures in Iraq. For those others who may have been curious, the Wall Street Journal had a front-page article today on casualties. As of 7 PM on October 27, 2003, the US military has suffered 1,737 non-lethal casualties in Iraq, including 1,186 since May 1 (the end of "major combat operations"). Since May 1 there have been 115 deaths, meaning a total in under six months of 1,301 casualties (combined lethal and non-lethal).

This averages out to over 7 casualties per day for six months. Both fatalities and non-lethal casualties already exceed the totals for Gulf War I, the Balkan campaign of 1999, and Afghanistan combined. According to the commander of the 21st Combat Support Hospital, the rate at which casualties arrive is increasing. It appears the war has only just begun.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-10-29 06:50pm

Its also lasted a lot LONGER than either of those conflicts.

This is military action, its going to hurt. Six months into the Pacific war with Japan we'd already taken over 10,000 casualties.

Keep some perspective and don't let "media casualties" skew your perspective. Here's a little tip: If there's so few casualties that they can be reported INDIVIDUALLY, then things aren't doomed to failiure.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-29 07:21pm

It has not lasted longer than Afghanistan. We're still there.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-30 12:13am

Howedar wrote:It has not lasted longer than Afghanistan. We're still there.

Two CIA guys were killed there the other day I heard.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-30 09:37am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Its also lasted a lot LONGER than either of those conflicts.

I did say combined. That means GWI plus Kosovo plus Afghanistan. And it's been shorter than those three combined

This is military action, its going to hurt. Six months into the Pacific war with Japan we'd already taken over 10,000 casualties.

True, but Japan was a nation that was militarily roughly equivalent to the United States. This has been six months that were not "major combat operations." Six months after Nagasaki, we hadn't taken an additional 10,000 casualties.

Keep some perspective and don't let "media casualties" skew your perspective.

Perhaps you missed the "official" in the thread title. These numbers came from the DoD. They are the military casualty figures, not something made up by the media.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-30 11:10am

Are there any estimates at the number of civilian deaths?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-31 12:42am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Are there any estimates at the number of civilian deaths?

A few. I'm just posting some, I have no idea which (if any) are accurate.

Iraq Body Count (which uses multiple news reports): 7784-9596 deaths

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Perhaps 9,000-10,000

Baghdad hospital records show at least 1,101 civilian casualties, with another 1,255 "probable" civilian casualties. Civilian injuries in the city were over 6,800.

The Bush government has said it will not investigate Iraqi civilian or military casualties, and will not release information on such casualties.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-31 12:50am

I think it would be correct to say that the rate is increasing recently as a trend since the end of major combat operations--we still saw a far greater concentration of casualties during the combat operations. At any rate, we have suffered as many casualties in the whole of operations since 9/11, now, as the British did during the first thirty minutes of the Somme, if that.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-31 01:30am

Vympel wrote: Two CIA guys were killed there the other day I heard.

Which brings the total to about 50 or so.

I think it would be correct to say that the rate is increasing recently as a trend since the end of major combat operations--we still saw a far greater concentration of casualties during the combat operations. At any rate, we have suffered as many casualties in the whole of operations since 9/11, now, as the British did during the first thirty minutes of the Somme, if that.

The British suffered 30,000 casualties in the first hour of the attack, over eight men per second, and by the time the end of the day was out they had lost two men for every yard of front attacked, over 57,000 in all. In a more recent example, during the Vietnam war in one battle a single errant bomb killed more then 90 men. And on the worst day during the recent invasion of Iraq casualties where around 75. The intensity may be rising, but it doesn't begin to approach what has gone on before it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-10-31 01:51am

I'd kind of a weird analogy to compare the Somme to what is going on now. It's not like we are launching human waves consisting of many tens of thousands of men over open field toward waiting machine guns and other nastiness.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-31 02:15am

Gil Hamilton wrote:I'd kind of a weird analogy to compare the Somme to what is going on now. It's not like we are launching human waves consisting of many tens of thousands of men over open field toward waiting machine guns and other nastiness.

Yes, isn't it great that our technology and tactics are sufficiently developed that we didn't have to imitate the Iranians and begin our attack out of Kuwait with a massive artillery barrage followed by men getting out of their trenches and charging towards the Iraqi lines with fixed bayonets? This has definitely reduced our casualties.

What I'm saying is that the situation would in fact be much worse were it not for things inherent in American strategy and American technology, and yet in such situations, nations have regularly persisted and won. There are only two ways for the Iraqi resistance to win:

1. Incite a mass uprising against us.

2. Defeat the moral strength of our populace.

The first isn't happening because of target choice repeatedly killing any chance they have of gaining sympathy with people; and a general association of the individuals involved with either radical Sunni Islam (considering where the radical Muslims in Iraq come from that's a non-factor) or the old B'athist regime. The second could happen, and that's why the news reports and the general sniping and whining on the part of the populace is so annoying. Losing a war when there's no military cause to lose it is truly despicable, and yet it seems to be what certain fanatics on the far left are aiming to make the USA do.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-10-31 02:19am

My point is that the analogy you used is suspect for exactly what you said above. We aren't in a mass war like World War 1 was and with our technology we never have to. That means that comparing the two is kind of silly.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-31 02:28am

Gil Hamilton wrote:My point is that the analogy you used is suspect for exactly what you said above. We aren't in a mass war like World War 1 was and with our technology we never have to. That means that comparing the two is kind of silly.

No, the comparison was made for this purpose, and this purpose only: casualty counts are not indicative of a country's ability to sustain combat, and are an irrelevant consideration in that regard. Other factors determine a country's ability to fight by a vastly greater margin; not until you have suffered casualties like France in WWI or Russia in WWII do you start to have manpower problems, and both countries were still able to engage in offensive action at the end of those conflicts and were on the winning side of each respectively.

Our casualties we have suffered are individual human tragedies, but beyond that, are totally irrelevant. The war will not be won in bodies. The question is if we can maintain control over Iraq long enough for a sufficient level of reform and (our) government control to take hold. Our soldiers can keep on dying right up to take point and if that happens the casualties become a sideshow--we've won.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-31 02:29am

"that point" not "take point", and (our) government refers to the chosen Iraqi government.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-31 04:27am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The second could happen, and that's why the news reports and the general sniping and whining on the part of the populace is so annoying. Losing a war when there's no military cause to lose it is truly despicable, and yet it seems to be what certain fanatics on the far left are aiming to make the USA do.

It is the not the responsibility of the press to act as the bullhorn for official administration views just in case the US loses a war. If the war is lost, so be it- the people have a right to decide on such issues as whether they'll support a war or not based on the facts as they are- and quite frankly, we all know that people don't give two shits about a new school opening in Iraq when three American soldiers got blown up in their HMMWV. It's also fascinating that the Administration whines about the Iraqi news 'filter' when but scant months ago they were the most craven bunch of cheerleading cocksuckers in the history of journalism. About fucking time for negative reports, I would say.