Bush using cooked numbers? never!
And are we going to see further 'jumps' in the count every so often when nobody's supposedly lookin'?
The conspiracy theories of Pentagon under-counts seem little less looney now, don't they?
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 28, 2005 12:27 PMTake note of the DOD and MSM rhetoric used when reporting casualty numbers of those "killed in Iraq." Does that include those who are wounded, evacuated, and die later either state-side, in EU military hospitals or in transit. If the fallen die later someplace else from their wounds, are they still counted as "killed in Iraq." I've always wondered... (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at November 28, 2005 12:46 PMWell, there are a couple of theories. First, the sinister: the count was kept low until it crossed 2000. At that point, there was no reason to withhold additional data. Second, surely, there is a "missing" category somewhere--they might be better now at tracking bodies, but people may still be classified as missing. The 135 may well be the "missing" reclassified as "dead"/KIA. The third possibility is quite remote--is it possible that some of the contractors were doing double duty for the Pentagon? Just a thought...
Another plausible explanation is that the sudden inclusion of 135 death are deaths of covert operations personnel that had not yet been reported. We get daily reports of those killed by suicide bombers and IEFs, but never reports on the SpecOps guys. This is how those deaths are "slipped" into the official tally. icasualties.org gets its data from media and other official reports. They wouldn't have the data on teh SpecOps deaths.
Posted by soldier of misfortune at November 28, 2005 01:06 PMIEDs...not IEFs
Posted by soldier of misfortune at November 28, 2005 01:07 PMicasualties.org now reports that the DOD has fixed their butcher bill, and the official tally now stands at 2106.
Still, I wonder how 2,245 got onto the official DOD count in "error". It's not like it's a typo -- there are THREE DIGITS that are different.
Are there two sets of books?
Posted by Kman at November 28, 2005 01:29 PMThey added the number 139 twice...
Posted by michaelw at November 28, 2005 03:03 PMUnfortunately, it will be too soon before the death toll is 2245, then 2500 and then more. All for Commander Empty Flight Suit's ego. Oh, and of course his legacy.
Posted by Red_Neck_Repub at November 28, 2005 04:27 PMI find it very interesting that the web site icasualties.org does not catagorize the number of injuries and deaths by reason: combat, sickness, accident.
Also, please do note that the DOD reports casualties in the "area of operatons," which in the case of this war may include locales as distant as Diego Garcia (an island in the middle of the Indian Ocean) if the death or injury was related to operations in the Persian Gulf -- not necessarily Iraq, but in support of operations in Iraq. (The *.pdf file specifically mentions Afghanistan and te Gulf region.)
To consider only the total number of casualties, without consderation to the type of casualty and the location where the (service) member was injured / killed, is to overstate the extent of the carnage. UNDERSTAND lefties: not to understate the loss.
It just seems to me that to quote the "gross numbers" without attribution to the circumstances under which the (service) member was injured / killed is to pursue sensationalism at the cost of intellectual honesty.
Posted by Bagley at November 28, 2005 04:27 PM…to quote the "gross numbers" without attribution to the circumstances under which the (service) member was injured / killed is to pursue sensationalism…Posted by BagleyIntellectual honesty demands a listing of all causalities: 2093 named dead, 15,468 wounded, total evacuated: 19,801 as of Nov. 28, 2005 The total number of Iraqi dead is unknown, but between 27,000 – 31,000 is one estimate.
If Bush didn't invade the country, people would not be dying there because of it.
To quote a Bush ally, the former transitional Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who asserts that governmental abuse of human rights in Iraq today is even worse than in the time of Saddam.
How about that, Bush is better than Saddam.
Does the "category" a particular soldier's death falls into make a lot of difference to the soldier?
"Intellectual honesty demands a listing of all causalities..."
Yes it does, but so does acknowledging the nature of the casualty: being killed in combat is qualitatively different from being killed in a car accident.
"How about that, Bush is better than Saddam."
Outside of the absolute depravity of the comparison....
...the effort is to minimize the number of casualties, not to maximize the number of casualties.
"If Bush didn't invade the country, people would not be dying there because of it."
No, yes, you are correct, but they would be dying in mass graves for other reasons.
Posted by Bagley at November 28, 2005 05:40 PM"Does the "category" a particular soldier's death falls into make a lot of difference to the soldier?"
No, but as I first posted...
UNDERSTAND lefties: not to understate the loss.
Not to "understate the loss", but why care if a soldier's death or injury is "sensational" or not?
In your calculus, is a death from, say, an IED more "sensational" than a death from being run over by a Hummer?
Again, the need for this execise is.....? Oh yeah, intellectual honesty.
Posted by euzoius at November 28, 2005 05:52 PM"In your calculus, is a death from, say, an IED more "sensational" than a death from being run over by a Hummer?"
No, not at all. However, I am not the one calculating the political imapact of each death and rejoicing in the increasing "body count."
"Again, the need for this execise is.....? Oh yeah, intellectual honesty."
Try it, you might like it!
Posted by Bagley at November 28, 2005 05:57 PMIt seems to me that the whole point of your post IS, for some reason, to "understate the loss" by telling us that one "type" of soldier's death is "qualitatively different" than another.
I didn't know this was a doctrine of our military.
And you cannot insulate yourself from this effect by lamely telling us lefties that you are not trying to understate the loss.
It's intellectually dishonest.
Posted by euzoius at November 28, 2005 06:12 PM"And you cannot insulate yourself from this effect by lamely telling us lefties that you are not trying to understate the loss."
I am not trying to understate the loss. Read my posts.
I am, simply, pointing out that the left is sensationalizing the loss(es) for political gain.
I include each one of these men and women in my prayers each night.
Posted by Bagley at November 28, 2005 06:17 PMI include each one of these men and women in my prayers each night.
Posted by Bagley at November 28, 2005 06:17 PM ....ya sure you do!
I include each one of these men and women in my prayers each night. -Bagley
Even the ones who die in traffic accidents on Diego Garcia while supporting operations in Iraq?
Or do their deaths not rate high enough to warrant inclusion in your prayers?
Posted by snark at November 28, 2005 07:03 PMI include each one of these men and women in my prayers each night.
I'm sure they appreciate it.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 28, 2005 07:14 PMI include each one in my prayers and raise you those soldiers who are not dead yet.
Posted by Thor Likes Pizza at November 28, 2005 07:34 PM"Outside the absolute depravity.." Whats truely depraved is how you can be blow-boy to the kind of moral cretin who would allow an estimated 50+ capital defendents to go to trial without qualified representation cuz it plays well in the hang-em-high state. But, like a good little winger your first thought was probobly "its not me." followed by "they were poor(expendable)" and last but not least "Bush is gonna cut my taxes!"
Posted by jondee at November 30, 2005 02:50 PM