Analysis of trends and cause of death for iraq occupation forces

This image is from the article by Paul de Rooij which is excerpted below, and can be found in full at this location:

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=14166&lang=en

...
The first evidence that the home-team body count is being whitewashed has to do with the “cause of death”. There are increasing reports that soldiers killed due to hostile action are listed by the Pentagon as killed in accidents <6>. A clear example is the killing of Sgt. Christopher Coffin – listed as “died <…> after his vehicle ran into a ditch on July 1st”, however other reports state: “his convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device”. There are far too many fatalities with the Humvee (the military SUV) – its record certainly suggests the need for the promotion of safety belt usage. There have been 19 traffic-related fatalities, most of them Humvee rollovers. However, this author suspects that its associated fatalities are likely to be from hostile action. Other causes like: “…responding to a civilian call when his vehicle rolled over,” are suspicious -- the US military responding to a “civilian call”? Hmmm… Soldiers stepped on a landmine near the airport, but then the landmine was supposedly planted before May 1st; presto, this was classed as an accident <7>.
...
Here is an emerging trend: Tracking the number of dead in Reuters, AP, or BBC already yields a higher number of casualties than those reported by the Pentagon – admittedly there is a small discrepancy at present <10>. July 28th is an interesting example; early in the day, the BBC reported two combat fatalities, but later on, the BBC Online altered its reports to show one fatality and one accidental death. Furthermore, the delay between the date of the death and the date of a confirmation also has increased – reporting may soon be offered on a weekly basis <11>. And finally, there is no accounting for the wounded soldiers and what has happened to them. All told, expect the war in Iraq to become like the wars in Orwell’s 1984; these were only used to stoke jingoism and rile the crowd, and would occasionally yield a glimpse of a captured enemy in a cage on display. Every other facet of those wars was not reported on. In Iraq, soon too reporting on the daily carnage will be a thing of the past – wars will be something occurring far away, and the plight of the mercenaries fighting them will not be something the home crowd will have to know anything about.
...
One factor that was instrumental in ending the Vietnam War was the home crowd hostility and questioning of their military. Nothing tarnished morale more than the hostile reception soldiers received during their home leave. Soldiers found that it was best not to wear their uniforms to avoid being spit at. During the US-Iraq war one of the most hideous and effective propaganda ploys has been to push the message: “support our troops”, and to downplay the alternative slogan “support the war”. The longer the occupation drags on and the larger the number of body bags the more this distinction will be emphasized. The military is an arm of government used to implement policy – it is odd to state that one is called to support one, but not the other.

AND heartbreaking.

Thanks.
And welcome to DU!

Eloriel

I have yet to meet a soldier that doesn't use seatbelts. A soldier that does not use seatbelts is subject to UCMJ action for not obeying an order. Also a soldier that dies as a result of not using their seatbelt nullifies their insurance.

Can you fix the link?

Doesn't seem to be working...gives me a 'syntax error'

On edit: Thank you!

Go to this page: http://www1.iraqwar.ru/

On the left, halfway down, click the "English" with the US flag.

The story is the second one down on the right hand column.

The problem with the link appears to be some non-standard representation of standard characters which sometimes happens with sites from Europe.

http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/

It breaks one's heart.