Posted on 03/23/2006 9:16:51 AM PST by centurion316
Over the past month, the average rate at which U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq has significantly fallen, the but the rates at which they are being wounded have dramatically increased.
U.S. mainstream media reports have focused only on the numbers being killed. But over the past eight months, we have repeatedly emphasized in this column that the far larger numbers of U.S. troops wounded, especially those wounded too seriously to return to active duty, represent a far broader and more statistically significant figure of the scale of insurgent activity and the degree to which it is succeeding or failing to inflict significant casualties on U.S. forces.
(Excerpt) Read more at postchronicle.com ...
However, when you are a dedicated member of the MSM, determined to bring defeat to the United States and its military, you have to dig deep. Your day is never done. You are required to gather data and information. Twist it in clever and unique ways. Distort, lie, deceive. Whatever it takes, after all the stakes are high and the danger that the United States might succeed is very real.
Thank goodness there are men such as Martin Sieff willing to go the extra mile to help mold public opinion and influence weak-kneed politicians. He will certainly go down in history along with his comrades of an earlier era who did so much to bring Communist victory in Southeast Asia.
/Sarcasm Off/
We don't talk about wounded here on FR.
I hate to see any of our service men and women injured or killed.
But more Americans are killed in a typical month in Chicago.
"We don't talk about wounded here on FR."
Who says, Orwell?
Of course, when the number of wounded drop, the MSM can always turn to the polls - they can ask soldiers if they'd rather be home or in Iraq - followed by selected stories of the hardships that their families face at home while their loved one is fighting in Iraq.
Nope, suffice it to say, that we do not say much about the seriously wounded that cannot return to duty, here on FR. This is a subject, that has very little reliable data available on the number of seriously wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been few threads that discuss this.
There have not been many threads here on FR, that talk about the number of seriously wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan, compared to other discussions about the WOT.
|
US Wounded by Week |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wnd-RTD: Wounded in Action Return to Duty within 72 hours
Wnd: Wounded in Action Not Return to Duty within 72 hours
Totals updated weekly by the DoD |
"There have not been many threads here on FR, that talk about the number of seriously wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan, compared to other discussions about the WOT."
In that light, I think your post could have been taken in the wrong way. As a vet myself, I WANT to know how many wounded there are, and what problems they are having in getting appropriate care. There is a tendency to make our young go to war, and then leave an inadequate safety net to handle the issues, once all the parades are done, and the streets are swept. I've heard some incidences of bureacratic foul-ups, but not symptomatic problems. The conservatives need the disabled vets on their side when duty calls again.
I'm not really sure what your point is here, but check out post 9. There is in fact, reliable information regarding the number of injured, and I've read many articles discussing wounded US troops in Iraq on FreeRepublic. If you are trying to imply the subject is swept under the rug, you are wrong.
Thanks, track it every day, mostly on the classified side - its part of my job.
If, as you write, there is very little reliable data available on the number of seriously wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan, then why would expect anything more then a few threads?
As you are obviously concerned about this, what effort have you made to find reliable numbers and present them for discussion here?
Is it Chronic or Chronicle?
I too am concerned for those returning. I think this is an important subject. The death rate has dropped, and is low, I think, due to our excellent medical teams and facilities. When someone is wounded, and cannot return to duty, the enemy has effectively killed that person, as far as taking them out the action goes.
Apparently, very little effort was expended on your part.
See Post #9.
Today, yes, but I haven't read many articles about the wounded, compared to the number about KIA, and other WOT topics.
However, I am somewhat confused over your count of 22 KIAs.
When I went over to CENTCOM and did my count I did not get 22 KIA in Iraq.
I believe I counted only 14. And 13 of the 14 were KIA while 1 was due to non hostile fire.
There were 4 other KIAs but they were KIA in Afganistan on March 12, 2006.
Here's my source
It is likely the number of casualties will become the second lowest month since the beginning of Iraq War, if the rate for this month is at this pace. This writer ignores the causalties of US service members for March.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.