74,713 Total casualties now ???

[FriendlyFire]

Military Releases High Casualty Figures
Department Of Defense's Latest Numbers: 31,590 Troops Wounded On Battle Field

The Department of Defense has released its latest American military casualty numbers for those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the figures reveal non-fatal casualties that go well beyond the more than 4,000 U.S. troops who have died so far.

As of April 5, a total of 36,082 members of the U.S. military have been wounded in action and killed in Iraq, since the beginning of the war in March 2003, and in Afghanistan, where the war there began in October 2001. The 36,082 number breaks down to 4,492 deaths and 31,590 wounded. According to the same DoD "casualty" counts, an additional 38,631 U.S. military personnel have also been removed from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan for "non-hostile-related medical air transports."

"That's a tremendous number," said Paul Sullivan, the executive director of the advocate group Veterans for Common Sense, who believes these latest figures paint a more realistic picture of the true cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars. He is concerned troop casualties, including those who have been wounded, killed and medically transported, is now nearing 75,000.

Defense Department spokesperson Cynthia Smith, however, told CBS News the numbers must be carefully interpreted. Smith said the 38,631 "non-hostile-related medical air transports" are not casualties of war even though they are listed in the DoD's "casualty" documents because, she says, they were for "injuries not related to service, they were unrelated to combat."

Smith described the "non-hostile-related" injuries as the types that "could happen to any civilian on the street."

"Our main focus is severe trauma care in the theater," she said. For example, "if a woman needs her annual check up, we don't have the capability of doing that [on the ground in Iraq] so we would air transport her out." According to Smith, the 36,082 tally is a more "accurate" reflection how many military service men and women have been fatal and non-fatal casualties in connection to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as of April 5.

Sullivan points out that the military's casualty reports also exclude the "enormous number [of new veterans] flooding the VA," often with medical problems developed due to the war. A January report by the Department of Veterans Affairs showed 299,585 veterans who recently served in the Middle East had been treated by the VA since 2002. Forty percent (120,049) of the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who sought care from the VA did so for mental health disorders.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008...main4012249.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4012249

Christ are we cooking the books again ? If you are injured in theatre and require medical evacuation it dosnt count as wounded now. While I supose that say you done your back in (a comon Infantry injury) and it not being included as a casualties figure is extremely strange given Gen Pattons world war 2 experience of talling casualties this injury would have been counted.
On the other hand thou these were not recieved in actual combat. But then again noncombat related deaths are included in the casualtie counts for those killed.

Dose anyone know during Vietnam the figures released were also under the same system ?

SNAFU.

 

[LightFang]

Does anyone care? Nobody cares about the war in Iraq, sadly. Such apathy on American parts!

 

[MobBoss]

No. It means that we are losing more men to non-battle events than to actual fighting.

In other words, we are losing more poeople to illness/accidents than to direct enemy action.

Essentially, we classify someone differently who is wounded by an IED for example, and someone who needs to be medvac'd because his hemmroids need to be removed. A guy with a routine health problem that didnt occur due to combat isnt a casualty of war anymore than a pencil pusher like me back in the rear needing a root canal.

Now please confirm to me you comprehend what I just said.

 

[BasketCase]

Christ are we cooking the books again ? If you are injured in theatre and require medical evacuation it dosnt count as wounded now.

If you trip over a curbstone and break your leg in Baghdad--yes, you were injured in Baghdad, but NO, that is not a combat injury, and it definitely should not be included in the count of combat-related casualties.

U.S. servicemen get killed every now and then even when we're not at war. Training accidents that get pilots killed, for example--you read about those in the news almost every time they happen.

 

[FriendlyFire]

No. It means that we are losing more men to non-battle events than to actual fighting.

In other words, we are losing more poeople to illness/accidents than to direct enemy action.

Essentially, we classify someone differently who is wounded by an IED for example, and someone who needs to be medvac'd because his hemmroids need to be removed. A guy with a routine health problem that didnt occur due to combat isnt a casualty of war anymore than a pencil pusher like me back in the rear needing a root canal.

Now please confirm to me you comprehend what I just said.

Damm what are we feeding the troops over there ? If all those MRE's are causing 35,000 hemmroids I think were on the tip of the iceberg here .... oh wait thats not what you meant

I just read the comments from the article and ex-US army serviceman were fighting over whether the figure was in fact "cooked". While Iam still skeptical over the numbers it dose make sense to have a seperate causalty list for non-combat related injuries. (Hey this is the Bush administration were talking about here.)

Theres also the worrying number of Vets turning up at the VA for mental disorders. Some will be PTSD other thou will be minor or moderate brain damage.

Who do they think they''re fooling with all these spooled up numbers. In Viet Nam, I would look at daily casualty reports and nowhere in the news, which was limited, would I see anything like the kia, mia, or wia figures that I had transmitted back to headquarters

I already knew that their are many troops coming home messed up physically,and or mentally.I go to the VA hospital myself for treatment,and I see many of our military from this war.They show the figures of the dead coalition forces,but not the other casualties of this war.One dead soldier( I say soldier because I was in the Army)this means any branch,is too many.We do have a purpose other than oil for being in Iraq,and I understand this.We wouldn''t need to suffer their,or the families here, if we lived in a perfect world,but we don''t.

 

[FriendlyFire]

If you trip over a curbstone and break your leg in Baghdad--yes, you were injured in Baghdad, but NO, that is not a combat injury, and it definitely should not be included in the count of combat-related casualties.

U.S. servicemen get killed every now and then even when we're not at war. Training accidents that get pilots killed, for example--you read about those in the news almost every time they happen.

I though we are (were?) counting those who are killed in Iraq from non-combat instances ? (car accidents, falling off the roof, tripping on curbstones in baghdad)

For some reason this reminds me of the American Civil war where for every one killed on the battlefield two died from santiation and dieses.

 

[Theige]

I though we are (were?) counting those who are killed in Iraq from non-combat instances ? (car accidents, falling off the roof, tripping on curbstones in baghdad)

For some reason this reminds me of the American Civil war where for every one killed on the battlefield two died from santiation and dieses.

The differences being the "wounded" (non-combat related) not being counted in Iraq as combat wounded don't die, and receive first class medical treatment.

Reminds me, I just went to my brother's graduation from basic training, a kid broke his leg the day before graduation during rehearsal, and wasn't able to graduate. Just shows that injuries can happen anywhere at anytime.

 

[holy king]

The differences being the "wounded" (non-combat related) not being counted in Iraq as combat wounded don't die, and receive first class medical treatment.

Reminds me, I just went to my brother's graduation from basic training, a kid broke his leg the day before during graduation during rehearsal, and wasn't able to graduate. Just shows that injuries can happen anywhere at anytime.

but seriously: those numbers!
american soldiers must be really stupid, irak occupation probably looks like a slapstick movie all the time...

 

[Theige]

but seriously: those numbers!
american soldiers must be really stupid, irak occupation probably looks like a slapstick movie all the time...

7,000 injuries per year, among 125k+ ?

Its not exactly a stress free environment...

 

[holy king]

7,000 injuries per year, among 125k+ ?

Its not exactly a stress free environment...

that's almost 5% injured by accident...

 

[homeyg]

I like the attempt at the misleading thread title designed to trick people into thinking that the war is going worse than it really is.

Only around 4000 soldiers have actually been killed.

 

[Patroklos]

People get sick in the military just like in the real world. And I am not sure what this special emphasis on air transport is. If you get sent back to the states because of an ingrown toenail of for a bullet to the head, EVERYONE goes home via air, there are not troop ships for non amphibious troops anymore.

7,000 injuries per year, among 125k+ ?

It is more like out of 300K+ given constant rotations.

 

[woody60707]

"if a woman needs her annual check up, we don't have the capability of doing that [on the ground in Iraq] so we would air transport her out."

I'm thinking they are mixing up wounded and needing medical care. And this is going to get mudded up quick. When I was in the marines, every Monday I would ear about all the marines that got injured and sometimes killed during the weekend off duty. It was mostly do to alcohol, DUI's and such. But other accidents too.

Now all those marines are overseas having accidents. How do you count the accidents that would of happen due to blind luck vs the accident that happen due to being in a new country with a high level of stress and everything else that goes with being deployed.

It doesn't take a genus to figure out the accident rate is going to go up. but really, trying to get hard numbers on something like this, it's going to get muddy.

 

[MobBoss]

I just read the comments from the article and ex-US army serviceman were fighting over whether the figure was in fact "cooked". While Iam still skeptical over the numbers it dose make sense to have a seperate causalty list for non-combat related injuries. (Hey this is the Bush administration were talking about here.)

Dude...we have been keeping a seperate casualty list for DNBI (disease/non-battle injury) for a very, very long time.

Theres also the worrying number of Vets turning up at the VA for mental disorders. Some will be PTSD other thou will be minor or moderate brain damage.

Uhm...FF...its been found that PTSD can often result from minor brain trauma (TBI), and in fact today pretty much everyone that suffers from a IED blast or other shockwave type explosion are carefully screened and monitored for PTSD type symptoms.

 

[Theige]

that's almost 5% injured by accident...

What % of the civilian population goes to a doctor for something other than a routine check-up or minor illness every year?

 

[MobBoss]

that's almost 5% injured by accident...

Do you really comprehend how dangerous such a job is? What do you think the accident rate is for other dangerous jobs? Logger? Construction? Fireman? What the US military does is far more dangerous and stressful than those jobs for the simple reason is that we engage in the same type of dangerous work...plus have to worry about someone shooting your ass.

When the first Strykers were deployed into Iraq the very first casualties they had was from one rolling over into a irrigation ditch due to a weak roadbed. The TC got crushed, and the guys inside drowned.

And such roll-over accidents are not uncommon, even with the huge emphasis on safety that we have in the military. Its simply part of a dangerous job.

 

[Princeps]

that's almost 5% injured by accident...

Warfare mobility and traffic doesn't probably have the same level of security as peace time civilian traffic, so they're still, imo, victims of war.

 

[FriendlyFire]

We are still counting non-combat deaths in Iraq.
(Coff Basketcase Coff)

Spc. Jacob J. Fairbanks
1st Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division
Died of injuries in a non-combat related incident in Baghdad, Iraq, on April 9, 2008

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2008.04.html

 

[holy king]

Do you really comprehend how dangerous such a job is? What do you think the accident rate is for other dangerous jobs? Logger? Construction? Fireman? What the US military does is far more dangerous and stressful than those jobs for the simple reason is that we engage in the same type of dangerous work...plus have to worry about someone shooting your ass.

When the first Strykers were deployed into Iraq the very first casualties they had was from one rolling over into a irrigation ditch due to a weak roadbed. The TC got crushed, and the guys inside drowned.

And such roll-over accidents are not uncommon, even with the huge emphasis on safety that we have in the military. Its simply part of a dangerous job.

of course being a soldier in irak is a dangerous job. but accidents by "tripping on curbstones" should not be related to that danger...

if on the other hand those accidents are related to the enhanced danger a soldier is experiencing, they happen due to the war and should be called casualties.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

38000 non battle injuries is suspeciousy much. I mean these people must be really clumsy.