Secret Casualties in Iraq, or, The First Casualty of War

[Mr Manifesto]

According to this (http://english.aljazeera.net/Articles/News/GlobalNews/Americas+secret+casualties.htm) article from al-Jazeera (which quotes an article from The Observer):


More than 6000 American servicemen and women have been evacuated for medical reasons since the war began, four times the number reported to have been wounded, the British newspaper The Observer reported on Sunday.
>snip<
Critics of the policy say it hides the true extent of the casualties. According to the website lunaville.org, that compiles its numbers from official reports, 1178 American soldiers have been wounded in combat operations since the war began on 20 March.


So how do we all feel about this? How many did you think were wounded in Iraq? Does it bother you that the policy is when to report injured usually only when a fatality is involved?

I'm tired of the media being complicit in covering up the full horror of combat. We never find out how much damage is done until about five years after the event. This is partly due to the Pentagon's information control policies, such as 'reporting pools' and booting out anyone who doesn't tow the line, but it's also largely the fault of the media who are too chickensh!t to take a stand and report the facts. How can the people of any country make informed decisions without access to the information?

[Cain]

There's no reason to believe Bush doesn't have everything perfectly under control.

There's no reason to believe Bush doesn't have everything perfectly under control.

There's no reason to believe Bush doesn't have everything perfectly under control.

If Bush doesn't have everything under control then I'm sure it's all Clinton's fault.

If Bush doesn't have everything under control then I'm sure it's all Clinton's fault.

If Bush doesn't have everything under control then I'm sure it's all Clinton's fault.

The liberal media has turned you into a droning buffoon.

The liberal media has turned you into a droning buffoon.

The liberal media has turned you into a droning buffoon.

Must resist free-thought.
Must... resist... free... thought...
Must... res-- MAnn Coulter is a fugly he-whore!

Sorry. To better understand JK I wanted to subject myself to the brutal process of self-imposed ignorance (SII).

On topic: Let me just say that Al-Jazeera despises America almost as much as Dan Rather. They're not to be trusted.

Hell, the fake news sites present better information:

www.theonion.com/
www.comedycentral.com/dailyshow
www.newsmax.com
www.worldnetdaily.com
www.foxnews.com

(the first two are worth reading)

[shemp]

Until you provide a link to the alleged original report in The Observer, I can't take this too seriously. Maybe it is ture, maybe not. Some hard evidence please.

[ssibal]

What is the big deal? Why should the military have to report every person that was wounded every day? I do not see it as hiding anything since you could probably obtain the official records as to who was woundend. The article says "have been evacuated for medical reasons." That could be anything from being shot in the arm to being bitten by a poisonous snake.

[Shinytop]

"Medical Reasons" can and is many more things than wounded. Disease, broken bones, accidents, heart attacks, what have you can cause an evac for medical reasons without having anything to do with wounded. Now that a moment of reason based on actually reading has taken place, please return to your rants.

[Mr Manifesto]

Here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1041722,00.html) is the Observer article. Though I would like to point out that al-Jazeera is like any other news agency. It has its biases, but so does everyone else.

ssbial, why would American troops be evacuated for a snake bite? Aren't there any facilities in Iraq for treating minor injuries?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by ssibal
What is the big deal? Why should the military have to report every person that was wounded every day? I do not see it as hiding anything since you could probably obtain the official records as to who was woundend. The article says "have been evacuated for medical reasons." That could be anything from being shot in the arm to being bitten by a poisonous snake.

Do the medical reasons really matter if one is trying to access the cost of occupation?

It does not matter if they all are evacuated because they get stung by bees, the bottom line is the exact same thing, people gettign injured and requiring medical attention. That is all a factor in the accessment of the human cost of the war and occupation.

The fact is thet if they were sitting at home in America the rate of injury would be less.

Now, I'm not saying that that's are argument for or against the occupation, but the information should be widely and openly disclosed to Americans because we live in a democratic society where people are supposed to have access to information which they make thier own decisions on.

[Shinytop]

In reporting the number of wounded they reported the number of wounded. They did not hide the other figures, they did not report them any more than they reported the number of broken bones at Hickham AFB or Ft Knox, KY. Show where the information was hidden. This is a non-story. The cost of soldiers sitting on their butts is little different in Iraq than in Ft Stewart. You want to make something of nothing in this matter, go ahead, but don't expect it to pass unnoticed. There is enough seriously wrong with the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq without this side show.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
ssbial, why would American troops be evacuated for a snake bite? Aren't there any facilities in Iraq for treating minor injuries?

I guess it would depend on the patient. Do they have an allergic reaction, is it something that can be treated in Iraq....etc. I do not know what facilities are in Iraq so I cannot answer your question. I was trying to say that being evacuated for a medical reason does not mean that they were wounded in combat.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Shinytop
In reporting the number of wounded they reported the number of wounded. They did not hide the other figures, they did not report them any more than they reported the number of broken bones at Hickham AFB or Ft Knox, KY. Show where the information was hidden. This is a non-story. The cost of soldiers sitting on their butts is little different in Iraq than in Ft Stewart. You want to make something of nothing in this matter, go ahead, but don't expect it to pass unnoticed. There is enough seriously wrong with the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq without this side show.

Hey shiny, are you prior-service?

JK

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Do the medical reasons really matter if one is trying to access the cost of occupation?

Depends on which cost.

It does not matter if they all are evacuated because they get stung by bees, the bottom line is the exact same thing, people gettign injured and requiring medical attention. That is all a factor in the accessment of the human cost of the war and occupation.

Well, most people see the human cost as people who are killed or severely wounded.

The fact is thet if they were sitting at home in America the rate of injury would be less.

But you know that all those soldiers would not simply be sitting at home in the U.S..


Now, I'm not saying that that's are argument for or against the occupation, but the information should be widely and openly disclosed to Americans because we live in a democratic society where people are supposed to have access to information which they make thier own decisions on.

The information is probably available if you dig for it. But, I see no reason for the Pentagon to provide to the media a daily report as to how many people recieved medical attention and for what reasons.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by ssibal

I was trying to say that being evacuated for a medical reason does not mean that they were wounded in combat.

There's more to it than just whether or not they were injured in combat, of course. For a jot of injuries like, say, a broken leg (whether they got it in a shootout or an ordinary car accident), they're going to be out of action for a while. Even if they can be treated in Iraq, why keep them there for the weeks (or longer) it would take to recover? If they aren't of use in Iraq while recuperating, you might as well ship them out.

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey shiny, are you prior-service?

JK

6 Years active and 20 years between the Guard and Reserves. Army all the way. Reserve retired in 1994.

[Luke T.]

The true scale of American casualties in Iraq is revealed today by new figures obtained by The Observer, which show that more than 6,000 American servicemen have been evacuated for medical reasons since the beginning of the war, including more than 1,500 American soldiers who have been wounded, many seriously.


The new figures reveal that 1,178 American soldiers have been wounded in combat operations since the war began on 20 March.

So 1178 out of 6000 are combat related.

[Luke T.]

Rumsfeld said Wednesday that security is "the one thing that's central to success" and the United States has a plan to provide it. But he said the 142,000 U.S. troops inside Iraq, plus more than 15,000 additional troops to arrive soon, could not restore order instantly.

There are 49,000 U.S. troops in and around Baghdad, and they plan to make sure those disrupting the city "are stopped and either captured or killed," Rumsfeld said.

From here. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1911307)

142,000 troops inside Iraq right now. 49,000 around Baghdad.

Anyone know the casualty numbers for the six months following cessation of hostilities in Germany post VE-Day?

[Pyrian]

Any large grouping of humanity is going to have injuries in the course of their day to day life. In the military, this is highly inflated even in base - or leave. In fact, soldiers on leave from stressful situations are notorious for getting themselves into trouble... Accident rates for military personnel who've returned from Iraq are appallingly high, or so I've heard reported.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Pyrian
Any large grouping of humanity is going to have injuries in the course of their day to day life. In the military, this is highly inflated even in base - or leave. In fact, soldiers on leave from stressful situations are notorious for getting themselves into trouble... Accident rates for military personnel who've returned from Iraq are appallingly high, or so I've heard reported.

Hmmm... peacetime fatality rates for the British Army have been 1700 over the past 10 years. Thats one every other day.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Here (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1041722,00.html) is the Observer article. Though I would like to point out that al-Jazeera is like any other news agency. It has its biases, but so does everyone else.

ssbial, why would American troops be evacuated for a snake bite? Aren't there any facilities in Iraq for treating minor injuries?

Thank you for providing the link.