Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Disturbing Observation Concerning US Casualties In Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-24-07 06:52 AM
Original message
A Disturbing Observation Concerning US Casualties In Iraq
Edited on Sat Mar-24-07 07:12 AM by ThomWV
Three thousand two hundred and thirty four (3,234) of our troops have been killed in Iraq as of this morning. It is a horrible, if unsurprising, number. However there is another number, one concerning non-mortal casualties that seems more striking in that it goes without explanation.

Bear with me for a moment. 16, 412 troops have been wounded but not so seriously as to require air transport. About half that number (7,005) have been (presumably) more seriously wounded, their injuries requiring air transport. Almost as many (6,835)of our troops have been injured by non-hostile action - a sure sign of poor supervision and training. Those numbers provide the background for the number which makes little sense.

The number that seems so out of place is the number of troops afflicted with diseases of such severity as to require "Medical Air Transport". 18,704 troops fit into that category This number of our troops who were so sick as to require air medical transportation exceeds the number who have been wounded and requiring the same by more than two times.

Setting aside what seems to be an under-reporting of wounded (one presumes under-reporting of casualties extends through each category) it is still very difficult to understand why more than twice as many of our troops are being evacuated for medical treatment from illness as from hostile action. The surprisingly large number of ill troops forces questions. What is making so many of them sick, so sick as to require emergency evacuation from their posts, and what becomes of them after treatment? How many die? Are deaths from illness reported along with other fatalities?

In summary:

16,412 minor wounds (not requiring medical air transport)
7,005 major wounds (require medical air transport)
18,704 diseases (require medical air transport)

http://icasualties.org/oif/

On Edit: Corrected typo noted below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-24-07 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. One typo, it appears there was an extra zero in the major wounds group
16,412 minor wounds (not requiring medical air transport)
7,005 major wounds (require medical air transport)
18,704 diseases (require medical air transport)

42,121 total wounded and disabling deseases

3,234 killed

45,355 grand total
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sanskritwarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-24-07 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. You gotta understand something
that disease number is the way the Army catalogues things.......

I was a medevac in 2005 for gum disease on my teeth. I was on patrol so much I wasn't taking care of myself. I went to Germany got some dental treatment and then went back 5 days later. Women are medevac's for pregnancy tests, I had one of my troops that elected to have laser eye surgery and he got the company commander to approve it while we were in theater. Now I know all these things are reported as casualties because we send up a daily report of combat effectivness and that is how they keep track of who is a casualty and for what reason.......IMHO I would say 75% of those who are a medevac return within one week.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-24-07 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. You might find this interesting. It is the latest Brookings Institute
report on casualities - Look at page 8. They do not explain what "non-hostile" means.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-24-07 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. Is KIA a false number? How many later died of their wounds?
3234 is "killed in Iraq only"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC