Casualties Down in Iraq

The Strategy Page ^ | January 2, 2007 | none

[Man of the Right]

January 2, 2007: Casualties in Iraq were down this year, about four percent less than the 6,793 dead and wounded in 2005. That's not the impression you get from the mass media, but that's because bad news leads, and good news gets buried. But Iraq is most definitely still a combat zone. Some U.S. troops sent there in 2006 became casualties, and about one in 200 was killed. Very much a dangerous undertaking. And those are just the physical, combat casualties. Even more troops got sick from disease, or were injured in non-combat accidents. Also, about one in 500 troops developed a serious case of combat fatigue, and was sent home. About half the troops, those that spent any time "outside the wire" (where they could get shot at), also developed less serious cases of combat fatigue. The military knows, from past experience, that cumulative time spent in a combat zone like Iraq, will eventually wear a soldier out. The British have shared data they acquired from several decades of sending battalions of troops to Northern Ireland. Too many years spent dodging rocks and bullets, and British soldiers developed psychological problems. Actually, the same thing is turning up in the civilian "emergency services" (police, fire and medical). Get exposed to traumatic events over too long a time, and you, well, sort of burn out on it. Actually, that effect has even been noted in high pressure jobs that have nothing to do with blood, bullets or fires. Some types of traders in the financial industry are noted for their propensity to "burn out" after so many years. Stress gets to you after a while, even if you are trained to handle it, like combat troops are. In Iraq, the army is also discovering the Israelis first noted in 1982, that older reservists have less capacity for combat stress than do younger men. Being older may make you wiser, but it also leaves you more beat up by the usual stresses of life. Older reservists, activated and sent to a combat zone, come back more the worse for it than do younger soldiers. So while the physical casualties in Iraq were down in 2006, the psychological ones, because they are cumulative, are up. Or, rather, they are piling up.

[Man of the Right]

Of course the article is referring to 2006 casualties. The reason for the slight decline may be that we're making a little progress transfering the combat load to the Iraqis or the brass is reducing contact with the enemy to minimize casualties. With many service members returning to Iraq for a third or even a fourth tour, in many cases days in combat are the highest since World War II or the Civil War and will soon reach the unprecedented stage.

[jdm]

Good post.

[Brilliant]

I think the operative word is "casualties." What if you look only at killed?

[rlmorel]

A fair, and well written opinion. Thanks for posting it.

[Paleo Conservative]

s. The reason for the slight decline may be that we're making a little progress transfering the combat load to the Iraqis or the brass is reducing contact with the enemy to minimize casualties.

The article refers to "6,793 dead and wounded in 2005". Considering 3,000 Americans have been killed during the whole time we've been in Iraq, that number must refer to the total number of US and Iraqi killed. If that number is down 4% from last year, it means fewer people total are being killed not just a decrease in Americans killed due to transferring of duties to Iraqis.

[woofie]

where the hell does the left get the 600,000 dead civilian number?

[alienken]

I'm waiting for this story to be picked up by the MSM. I'm also waiting for the MSM to report casualities of the enemy so if they are keeping score we can tell who is winning. I think I will just get used to waiting.

[SandRat]

Now this is not what the MSM says. < / sarc

[Man of the Right]

The main steam media are losing their audience to the Internet The failing attempt to attract an audience through sensationalism is a far-stronger motivator than the left-wing politics of editors and reporters. Further, few reporters have any military experience, and fewer speak the language, and understand local politics and culture. No one knows how many Salafis and Baathists have been killed, or more important, how many are fighting. A Vietnam-style body count is counter-productive, and the military has tried to avoid it. For example, would it make the public feel better if we knew 15 sand-furbies are being killed for every American, if that happened to be true?

[Man of the Right]

They made it up.

[Man of the Right]

U.S. KIA are running 850 annually and just passed the 3,000 mark.

[Man of the Right]

U.S. casualties are reported at the following site (among others):

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

(Global Security.Org). You can do the math to see if John Pike (Global Security.Org) agrees with James Dunnigan (Strategy Page).

Here's a more detailed summary of battle casualties:
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm

The cause of death category includes everything except "slipped on a banana peel" or "run over by pie wagon".

[Marine_Uncle]

Good article. And I respect your comments. But we should also observe the fact that the Iraqi Government has not allowed the US to pull off any large raids. We have dispersed to such a large degree so much of the al Qaeda and supporting forces in al Anbar, Bibil, and the northern provinces, that only the occasional well planned raid comes to pass to get at known groups of insurgents and so called resistance fighters.
We simply do not have well organized groups of enemy to go up against. And so much of the killings are carried out by little bands of criminal types, and the later, where the fact of the matter is over, before anything can follow up. This whole deal is nothing more then what police in large US cities have to contend with every day. Street crime has increased in the USA. And there is little the police can do to prevent it from occuring.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Bump the good news.

[Man of the Right]

This is consistent with what I'm reading. Most of our casualties are from IEDs. Most of the remainder are from mines, mortaring and sniping.

[Marine_Uncle]

And you are correct in your assesment. What else can we say. It is just the way things are going down. It has to be up to the IG to take a much more brutal stand against all potential and known groups that continue to kill both Iraqi and US forces.
I bet if Allawi was running the show a hell of a lot of Sadrist and other groups would long ago be resting in their holes in the ground.
I place all the blame on this Maliki ran government. Period.

[PISANO]

Considering 3,000 Americans have been KILLED during the whole time we've been in Iraq

I consider it my solemn duty to dispel MYTHS perpetrated by the media and taken up by many here on FR.

There have been 2427 KILLED IN ACTION in the IRAQ WAR, not 3000!!

That is about 2 per day.

GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!!