Iraq: Putting troop casualties into perspective

Iraq Coalition Casualties ^ | Dec. 12, 2003 | rightcoast

[rightcoast]

Operation Iron Hammer began one month ago today, on November 12, 2003 as a more concentrated effort to neutralize pro-Saddam and terrorist forces inside Iraq.

Much has been made of the fatality rate throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom, but I think it's important to put these figures into the proper perspective.

From the official start of Op. Iraqi Freedom on March 20, 2003 to the present, there have been 539 Coalition deaths in Iraq. Of these, 378 (70%) were combat-related deaths due to hostile fire. The remaining 161 were due to accidental, non-combat factors. Further, for Operation Iraqi Freedom in total to date, there has been a average hostile combat death rate of 1.42 per day.

To illustrate, let's break up the war into its three logical stages.

Stage 1 was the invasion of Iraq and the beginning of major combat operations, that lasted until the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003. During this stage, there were 131 Coalition fatalities due to hostile fire. This is an average of 6.55 per day.

Stage 2 was the occupation of Iraq and the continuation of major combat operations, that lasted until May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared the end to major combat operations. During this second stage, there were 9 Coalition fatalities due to hostile fire. This is an average of 0.43 per day.

Stage 3 is the current stage of Iraqi reconstruction, and the effort to neutralize the pro-Saddam and terrorist forces inside Iraq. The stage continues to the present day, and includes Operation Iron Hammer. During this third stage (to date), there have been 238 Coalition fatalities due to hostile fire. This is an average of 1.06 per day.

So, average fatalities dropped sharply in the second stage of the war, but now in this current stage, they have roughly doubled. The question is to ask: why the change?

It makes sense for combat deaths to have dropped so sharply since Baghdad fell, but if you'll notice, the change in the average death rate has been since President Bush declared major combat operations over. Those pro-Saddam and terrorist forces working in Iraq have stepped up their attacks on Coalition forces precisely for the reason that President Bush declared progress and laid the path for the focus on Iraqi reconstruction.

Pro-Saddam and terrorist forces want nothing of this, and have calculated that the best way to defeat us is by inflicting as many deaths as the can over a protracted period. It's a test of will, and claiming that the war is some sort of "failure" because of recent deaths is in my opinion dishonoring those who have died for our cause.

[polemikos]

I would find a monthly breakdown to be helpful.

[spoiler2]

If the combat deaths since our forces dropped the Iron Hammer are counted, you might find that the daily death rate is even less that that shown in stage 2, above.

[dodger]

By way of interesting comparisons, approximately 140 US Police Officers have died on duty in the US this year. Likewise, how many GIs died in the first day, week, month of the Normandy Invasion of WWII?

[rightcoast]

"I would find a monthly breakdown to be helpful."


March 2003 - 80 hostile combat-related fatalities (6.67 daily average)

April 2003 - 60 hostile combat-related fatalities (2.00 daily average)

May 2003 - 7 hostile combat-related fatalities (0.23 daily average)

June 2003 - 24 hostile combat-related fatalities (0.8 daily average)

July 2003 - 28 hostile combat-related fatalities (0.90 daily average)

August 2003 - 23 hostile combat-related fatalities (0.74 daily average)

September 2003 - 18 hostile combat-related fatalities (0.60 daily average)

October 2003 - 35 hostile combat-related fatalities (1.13 daily average)

November 2003 - 94 hostile combat-related fatalities (3.13 daily average)

December 2003 to-date - 10 hostile combat-related fatalities (0.83 daily average - over 12 days)

[polemikos]

many thanks!

Ramadan was tough!
Let's hope December holds!

[Elkhound4]

Unfortunately, this type of analysis degrades the sacrifices soldiers and their families have made.

[McGavin999]

November's rates are high because of the Chinook and Blackhawk crashes.

[oceanview]

it provides some perspective. we probably lost more men in the first few landing craft at Normandy then we have in this entire conflict.

[centurion316]

You are missing the point. Of course the individual and family sacrifice is extreme - it always is. But, the press would have us believe that these losses are unsustainable and will inevitably lead to an admission of failure by the United States and a withdrawal in defeat. The Democrat Party of the U.S. is fueling the flames on this issue hoping to regain political power on the dead bodies of our fallen soldiers.

I have been tracking casualties by battalion and separate company, as announced in the DoD press releases. Most battalions have lost between 1 and 3 soldiers from both combat and noncombat causes. Since each battalion is composed of between 3-5 companies, this is less than 1 loss per company. A soliders life revolves around his company. He may have a few friends in another company, and he will hear about casualites in other companies and battalions, but his reality is based on what happens in his company. These loss rates are extremely low for a company of soldiers engaged in combat operations. Militarily, they are sustainable forever. I know this is hard for those who have never been in combat to understand, but I assure you, from personal experience, that this is so and is a function of the complex psychology that governs the life of a soldier in combat as well as the overall attitudes and resolve of those doing this difficult job. They will do and do well what others have not the stomach for. We can count on them, they will not let us down.

Likewise, the country can sustain this forever. The county will lose more to the present flu epedemic than we will have lost at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, Afghanistan, and all Iraq War deaths. The numbers are very, very small for a country of our size. We lost over 58,000 in Vietnam, most people in this country do not know a single one of them.

The political impact is an entirely different matter. Those who buried their heads in the sand for years while these Islamic radicals have waged holy war against us, are trying to use the grief of the families of those who have died to catapult them back into power. Once they have achieved that end, they will swear fealty to the French and return to their utter disdain of those foolish enough to serve their country in uniform. Remember what they thought of military absentee ballots in Florida during the 2000 election. Never forget.

[rightcoast]

"November's rates are high because of the Chinook and Blackhawk crashes."

November 2, 2003 - 15 fatalities due to helicopter crash (hostile fire, missile attack) near Fallujah.

November 7, 2003 - 5 fatalities due to helicopter crash (hostile fire, missile attack) near Tikrit.

November 15, 2003 - 17 fatalities due to helicopter crash (hostile fire) in Mosul.

[rightcoast]

"If the combat deaths since our forces dropped the Iron Hammer are counted, you might find that the daily death rate is even less that that shown in stage 2, above."

From November 13, 2003 (the day after Iron Hammer) until December 12, 2003 (today), there were 49 fatalities due to hostile combat. This is a daily average of 1.69.

I think that's enough analysis for a while.

God bless, and my very deepest sympathies and prayers for those brave men and women and their families. America owes these soldiers a debt of eternal gratitude.

[cookcounty]

"Unfortunately, this type of analysis degrades the sacrifices soldiers and their families have made."

With a son getting ready to go over in January, (I thank you for your prayers), I have to disagree. There are cold calculations that are necessary in this kind of dirty work. One death is a catastrophe for the family who suffers it. Yet, in a democracy, sustaining an effort can be closely related to the numbers. Some numbers are "too costly," while others are deemed "sustainable." I don't have a problem with this kind of analysis, as long as it is undertaken with respect for those who paid the ultimate price. Would it make any difference if we spiked to 1,000 a day? Or if we dropped to 1 a month? Of course it would. There's nothing wrong with discussing trends. I'm praying hard for a downward trend, and I'm noting every name.

[spoiler2]

Ouch, your quite right...

Thank you for the correction.

[rightcoast]

"By way of interesting comparisons, approximately 140 US Police Officers have died on duty in the US this year."

The 'Officer Down Memorial Page' lists data for police officers that have died in the line of duty. According to the website, so far this year there have been 135 police officer deaths (this includes accidental and malicious deaths).

[rightcoast]

Sorry, the Officer Down Memorial Page is located at:

http://www.odmp.org/

2003 data can be found at:

http://www.odmp.org/yeardisp.php?year=2003

God bless these brave public servants. I remember how much reverance and respect police officers and fire fighters were afforded in the days following 9/11. Count me among those who still respect these fine men and women.

[rightcoast]

"...[H]ow many GIs died in the first day, week, month of the Normandy Invasion of WWII?"

I've found information at the website for the D-Day Museum in Portsmouth, Hants (United Kingdom).

(My source data.)

From the website:

"Casualties" refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult...

In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead...

Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces...

[dodger]

Thanks for the Police & D-Day links (& extraordinary to note that 2500 Allies were killed on D-Day alone). You are correct about the strident inaccuracies of the media, too.

[berserker]

It would be better if you did not compare apples with oranges. The current casualty rates since May 1 should be compared with those during the occupation of Germany and Japan, and not to the landings at Normandy.