Nobody likes to be called a dummy by a dummy.

1,800 dead US troops in Iraq? Try 9,000.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1709.htm

"There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded (and a published total of 25,000 wounded overall,), this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,800+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources In addition to the evident falsification of the death rolls, at least 5,500 American military personnel have deserted, most in Ireland but more have escaped to Canada and other European countries, none of whom are inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities. (See TBR News of 18 February for full coverage on the mass desertions) This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 dead, over 16,000 seriously wounded (This figure is now over 24,000 Ed) and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers, rapes, courts martial and so on"
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
Just a warning: toward the end of the page there are some pretty disturbing images.
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
Do any of the involve you holding a light sabre?
Permalink MarkTAW 
August 9th, 2005
Each soldier who died has his name published. The families of the soldiers who died but WEREN'T reported would notice if the soldier's name wasn't published.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 9th, 2005
Sure Colm, but who goes around to each individual press release and adds 'em all up? Nobody in the press. They accept the published counts from the Pentagon, and the Pentagon says 1,800.

Things they don't count:

Soldiers who are mortally wounded in Iraq but die enroute to hospitals in Germany or elsewhere.

Soldiers who are mortally wounded in Iraq but die after being returned to the US.

Soldiers who die DURING TAKEOFF from Baghdad airport (hey, they're not ON Iraqi soil!)

Soldiers who die in training exercises intended to prepare them for the Iraq war.

Soldiers murdered by fellow soldiers who have lost their minds under the pressure.

...
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
Not if they are already deceased.
Permalink Crazy Old Guy 
August 9th, 2005
First of all, let me say that I'm going to keep an open mind about this and watch what develops. It'll be interesting if it happens to be true.

However, replying to muppet's explanations:

"Soldiers who are mortally wounded in Iraq but die enroute to hospitals in Germany or elsewhere."

Are counted - this kind of fatality will generally happen before the dispatch is released - you'll see it annotated as "wounded, died enroute to medical care"

"Soldiers who are mortally wounded in Iraq but die after being returned to the US."

This is a bit of a stretch. Combat fatalities, like most triage, either die right away or don't. Dying a few days later is generally an edge case. In addition, they don't get shipped home in critical condition.

"Soldiers who die in training exercises intended to prepare them for the Iraq war."

Those training exercises would be happening anyway. In fact, this is going to sound callous, but due to the manpower drain of Iraq, there are probably fewer troops being killed in training because there are fewer troops IN training.

"Soldiers murdered by fellow soldiers who have lost their minds under the pressure."

You've watched too many movies. This happens, just as it happens in offices and high schools, but it's an anomaly.

"Soldiers who die DURING TAKEOFF from Baghdad airport (hey, they're not ON Iraqi soil!)"

You think this has happened to 7,200 men?

While it's possible the Pentagon is playing a numbers game with "killed in combat in country", this story should explode or go away quickly - there are too many alternate ways of verfying the count. So many that I find it odd that nobody else would have done so to date, given the number of anti-Iraq and/or anti-Bush people who have access to the data.

So we'll watch the story and see.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 9th, 2005
There have also been more than 10,000 desertions, according to the article. I think I've heard of 3 (!!) actually reported in the media before now.
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
just speaking out of my ass, an 8 to 1 ratio of seriously wounded to dead sounds more realistic than 2 to 1. urban warfare lends itself to a higher wounded rate because clear shots are less likely. plus, the weapons used (small bombs and regular rounds) are not adept at implementing immediate kills...
Permalink Kenny 
August 9th, 2005
+++. urban warfare lends itself to a higher wounded rate because clear shots are less likely.+++

Source? This seems counterintuitive. I'd expect higher fatalities in closer quarters.
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
Muppet, about half that list would be counted and I would be VERY surprised if the other half added up to more than 500, LET ALONE 9,000.

C'mon. How many soldiers do you think die regularly taking off from Baghdad airport?
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 9th, 2005
Colm -

I dunno, let's see if these guys come up with more evidence. Maybe they'll just suddenly disappear, too. That'd be interesting as well.
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
<<Source? This seems counterintuitive. I'd expect higher fatalities in closer quarters.>>

what i said before: source = my ass.

did you see the movie "black hawk down"? mostly non-fatal wounds... few direct shots to the head (helmets help), and not so many to vital organs... i'm guessing that in iraq, they have the ability to get their soldiers to a med centre quite quickly...

open warfare = much more difficult to transport wounded, especially if a comrade is taken down in the midst of a heavy engagement. there just isn't as much cover. plus, the enemy is more likely to use artilery, high caliber ammunition, rpgs, etc...
Permalink Kenny 
August 9th, 2005
The actual invasion and a few large scale operations such as Fallujah excepted most US casualties appear to be as a result of car bombings and roadside mines. Those bombings are targetted to kill and maim the maximum number of soldiers possible, videos published by the terrorists/insurgents show Bradley vehicles and similar blown up.

Direct fatalities in such events will be common but not the majority, the majority will be shrapnel and blast wounds which can be fatal after some time or permanently disabling.

I'd have thought that whichever sub committee of Congress had oversight on such things would be auditing the dead and wounded figures. It seems unlikely that there could be anything other than a short term cover up of larger figures.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 9th, 2005
The cover up of soldier deaths would be nigh-on impossible due to the disproportionately large amount of media coverage and due to the fact that every dead soldier has a family who will talk to the media if they suspect that their son was not counted when he should have been.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 9th, 2005
Of course, the cover up of Iraqi deaths isn't difficult at all and has been going on since the start of the war. It's helped by the fact that the Republican spin machine is intent on destroying the credibility of any organization, individual or study that attempts to count the number of dead Iraqis.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 9th, 2005
I have hard time believing that desertion figure as well. US deserters have been a hot topic in Canada and if they were coming here in droves then I think our media would be picking up on it far more then the couple of cases reported so far. I am happy that so far that Canada has refused to provide amnesty to deserters.

BTW, why would the bulk of deserters go to Ireland?
Permalink Gerald 
August 9th, 2005
Ireland was a popular destination during the Vietnam war, it may not have a extradition treaty with the US the Irish tend to disfavour such things.

There's also an awful lot of Americans that can claim Irish descent and Eire is positive in welcoming back its diaspora.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 9th, 2005
+++The cover up of soldier deaths would be nigh-on impossible due to the disproportionately large amount of media coverage and due to the fact that every dead soldier has a family who will talk to the media if they suspect that their son was not counted when he should have been.+++

This is basically a ridiculous argument. Each of those families have no idea of the total count. How would they know whether Junior was included in that 1,800 or not? Do they personally know the other 1,799 families? I don't know that anyone is poring over local news stories or press releases regarding soldier funerals and counting them up.
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
Muppet, every so often I start to think you have more than two brain cells to rub together but just have a horrible personality that hides it. Then you post something like this. You are a moron!

P.S. I take it back. You are a bright individual. I have some investment opportunities for just such a bright, talented, motivated person.  Please contact me.
Permalink Need a bridge? 
August 9th, 2005
>This is basically a ridiculous argument. Each of those
>families have no idea of the total count. How would they
>know whether Junior was included in that 1,800 or not?

Because the 1,800 count is more than just a number, it's a list of names.

Duh.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 9th, 2005
Colm,

What list do the families get? The list that has the names of all the soldiers killed since the war started, or the list of those soldiers are are counted as "official" KIAs *in* Iraq? Is there a total? Is it presented in a neat balance sheet?
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
This has nothing to do with the families. There will be muster counts, replacement troop orders, widows pensions, disability provisions and so on and on.

The Military is a very large bureaucracy with oversight by a number of committees and sub-committees, precisely where are all the missing dead going to be?
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 9th, 2005
++Each soldier who died has his name published. The families of the soldiers who died but WEREN'T reported would notice if the soldier's name wasn't published.

Rational enough for me... I'll throw a crazy conspiracy theory out there for you guys though.

What if we're shipping bodies that are not "ours"?
Permalink I am Jack's infinite id 
August 9th, 2005
This list is supposed to be comprehensive:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties

Surely any family of a soldier killed in Iraq would make a lot of noise if their loved one wasn't on the list?
Permalink Mick 
August 9th, 2005
I'm not arguing that the dead are not being accounted for the purposes of funeral benefits, widows benefits, pensions, etc etc

I'm wondering whether the label "Killed in Action in Iraq" is being applied appropriately. The proposition in the article is that it is not. There seem to be a number of qualifications, a number of hoops to jump through, in order to be considered a casualty of the war even if you were killed by it.
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
I think you should start wearing your tinfoil hats shiny side out.

10k desertions? Maybe 10k AWOLs.

But then we've got about 5k middle eastern men locked up in jails here in the USA on material witness warrants, so that even their family isn't allowed to know where they are.
Permalink Peter 
August 9th, 2005
"Surely any family of a soldier killed in Iraq would make a lot of noise if their loved one wasn't on the list?"

Unless they were given a good reason they weren't on that list, though looking over that list stuff like "Died of non-combat related injuries at Forward Operating Base St. Mere, Iraq, on October 28, 2003" makes you think they left very little out.
Permalink MarkTAW 
August 9th, 2005
I was thinking about a way to say this nicely, or back up all my points, but it just isn't worth it. Basically Muppet, you're full of shit. That article is totally ridiculous. Most of my family members are in the military, and one flies transport from Iraq to Germany (many times carrying wounded). So I think I know more than you on the topic. Whenever someone dies from combat related wounds (including car accidents or tripping off of a curb) it is considered a combat fatality and counted in the total. There are many car accident deaths in the Gulf, and all have been counted. Muppet, in this case you are a total retard and you are believing some no-name news source to feed you facts. I hate the republican party (and not to fond of the dems either), but I can see past this bullshit. Why can't you?

For an otherwise smart guy, you sure bit the bait this time.
Permalink  
August 9th, 2005
I'm not arguing that it's true, I'm just arguing that it's plausible.
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
>What list do the families get? The list that has the names
>of all the soldiers killed since the war started, or the
>list of those soldiers are are counted as "official" KIAs
>*in* Iraq? Is there a total? Is it presented in a neat
>balance sheet?

Click on the CNN link above kindly posted by Mick. Yes it IS presented in a neat balance sheet.

Now go put on that tinfoil hat and join Tom Cruise in the hunt for aliens or something.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 9th, 2005
>I'm not arguing that it's true, I'm just arguing that
>it's plausible.

It's not even plausible. All of the information about troop deaths are publicly available, and could be corroborated by the families, fellow soldiers, etc. If there were any discrepancy or cover up the media would find out in no time and scream blue fucking murder.

As far as the military is concerned, it just wouldn't be worth the huge risk for the relatively minor political gain.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 9th, 2005
But I'm not arguing that they're covering up deaths. I'm arguing that they might be clever about the categorization. They can report each and every one of say, 10,000 deaths. They can pay benefits on those deaths, etc. But they might claim in a press release that only 2,000 of those deaths were due to combat in Iraq, through a bit of logical gymnastics.
Permalink muppet 
August 9th, 2005
Here's a suggestion then.

Ask you congressman (or woman) to table a question to the Secretary of State for Defence (ok Defense), as to the total number of military personnel, both regular and guard, that have died and received wounds since the date of the Invasion of Iraq that did not receive those wounds, fatal or otherwise within the Continental US nor received them in training outside of any theatre of war.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
August 9th, 2005
They count all deaths in Iraq. Take the one below:

Sgt. Glenn R. Allison - "Died during physical training in Baghdad, Iraq, on December 18, 2003"

Not a combat related death.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
August 9th, 2005
Uhm, the first work I did for my current job was 'live' work and no different than what I do now, except I was 'training' then.
Permalink I am Jack's infinite id 
August 9th, 2005
These figures are not plausible.
The one thing that the military takes very seriously is casualties. It goes back to the philosophy of no soldier left behind. If someone gets killed, the chain of command definitely knows about it.

Also note that "casualty" includes those wounded, as well as those killed. If you get some road rash from hitting the pavement to get some cover and need a bandage from the medic, congratulations, you're now a casualty. The good news is you'll probably get a medal for it.

The people who published this article have a serious case of cause-effect reversal. Just because they want to believe in a high death-rate (which would support their own agenda, whatever it is), they start counting every number as a KIA. Sometimes two or three times, looks like.
Permalink example 
August 9th, 2005
muppet, I shared your post with a number of former active duty officers today. We all had a good laugh over it.

I know - what would the military know about counting military casualties, but I wanted to share.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 9th, 2005
The Soviets had over 80,000 soliders killed in training between 1960 and 1980.

Nobody even knew about it, because the news would only publish individual tragedy.

The same thing is happening here now. If you think that it isn't a coincidence the the Fox and CNN news tickers aren't tallying the dead, you're naieve.
Permalink Duff 
August 9th, 2005
Look, it's really, really easy to check.

Just file a FOIA request for the budget counts benefits paid to military members who died while on duty for the past ten years.

A little bit of math and analysis should show what the net increase over the annual average has been for the past three years.

Should be close enough to go one way or the other.

muppet, you rant and rave all the time - let's see you put your money where your mouth is...

DOD FOIA:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/

VA FOIA:
http://www.va.gov/OIT/CIO/FOIA/default.asp

Let us know what you find out.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 10th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: August, 2005 Other topics: August, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics