You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Pentagon: 1,000 Troops Wounded in Iraq War
2003-07-11
Can't find the original source for this one, either. This was originally part of a three-article post. I've split it up and edited it a little, and cut one article because it's redundant. I'm assuming Mike didn't just make the whole thing up...
CNN Thursday 10 July 2003
For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, Pentagon officials have released the number of U.S. troops wounded from the beginning of the war through Wednesday. Responding to a request by CNN, the Pentagon said more than 1,000 U.S. troops have been wounded or injured in Iraq since March 20, when a U.S.-led airstrike started the war. The Defense Department provided these figures:
  • 791 troops were wounded or injured during combat

  • 253 troops were wounded or injured in action not related to combat operations, such as traffic accidents or accidental gunshot wounds. The Pentagon [did] not disclose the type of wounds or injuries sustained. But the numbers shed more light on the overall toll the fighting has taken on U.S. troops during the war and subsequent occupation of the country. From the time President Bush announced the end of major combat operations May 1, U.S. troops have been enduring sneak attacks on almost a daily basis around the country, resulting in deaths or injuries.

  • According to Pentagon numbers, between May 1 and Tuesday, 73 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.
    • 29 by hostile fire around Iraq
    • 44 troops from non-hostile fire or in accidents

  • Since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 211 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.
    • 143 troops by hostile fire
    • 68 troops by accidents or other non-hostile incidents
As for the dollar cost of the Iraqi war and occupation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Senate committee Wednesday that it is projected to cost the Pentagon an average of nearly $4 billion a month through September.
Posted by:Mike Rogers (Mike in Tokyo)

#5  I don't want to sound heartless but 1000 casualties in a operation involving 250,000 is not very high. It's not even one percent of the force involved. The report is probably right but it's sensationalizing the number. 1000 casualties represent about one-half of one percent. It sad when even one person dies but war is a dangerous business. Get ready for the left to call for our surrender and withdrawal.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter)   2003-7-11 1:02:22 PM  

#4  By the way, 3,000 Americans were killed in the World Center attacks. Hundreds were injured and thousands have post-traumatic stress disorder and respiratory problems from being in the vicinity of the Muslim-sponsored attacks. Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers are out of work because of the terrorist attacks.

What the heck does the injured list have to do with anything? War is hell. So is fighting fires. So is being a cop. What's he trying to tell us? That we shouldn't fight fires or chase criminals? 50,000 Americans are killed in auto accidents annually - maybe we shouldn't drive.

Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-7-11 11:18:55 AM  

#3  Between May 1 and Tuesday, how many Americans died by drowning in swimming pools?

I bet it's more than 73.
Posted by: mojo   2003-7-11 11:08:36 AM  

#2  That's pretty normal. In the other major wars of the past hundred years, the list of wounded was far higher, and was roughly in proportion to the high rate of soldiers killed in action. During WWI and WWII, many of the wounded who might have been saved, if evacuated immediately, died because the intensity of the fighting prevented an early evacuation. And helicopters hadn't been invented yet. (Helicopters are a real life-saver for medical evacuation because they can land anywhere, they're faster than motor vehicles and don't have to deal with lousy road conditions, which can, in some cases, kill the wounded by causing the resumption of previously stanched bleeding).
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-7-11 11:03:45 AM  

#1  we realize that if we lose this one, nothing else matters.

Are you seriously entertaining the thought that we could lose this one? Excuse me while I let out a bellylaugh. Media hyperventilation and wishful thinking aside, there is zero possibility we will lose it. Anyone who says that the peace will be more difficult that the war that preceded it is full of it. War is hard - extremely hard, but typically short in duration. Compared to war, enforcing the peace is easy, but can take a lot of time.

It was 25 years before we drew down our presence in Japan. Nothing much happened there after an initial period of sporadic attacks lasting several years. (An example - soldiers would disappear, never to be found. AWOL or murdered and buried? These incidents decreased as time progressed. You draw your own conclusions). Almost 60 years later, we're still in Japan.

Everyone thinks of Iraq as a bottomless rathole. But before Iraq, there was Mesopotamia. This country has real possibilities. I believe that by the time we leave Iraq, five or six decades later, it will be the strongest and richest country in the Mid East, perhaps even an ally of Israel.

What the media perceive as problems in Iraq aren't even real problems. Iraq has oil. Unlike Japan and Germany in the postwar period, most of Iraq's cities aren't flattened. Iraq's bridges and power stations are intact, except for a little looting. (In WWII, Allied forces made a lot of river crossings on pontoon bridges because the Germans had destroyed the existing structures). Iraq is in better shape than most Allied cities after WWII - Allied troops destroyed many of these cities in order to get at the German troops who were holding the line.

The media can only see what's in front of their noses - they have no sense of perspective. What they see in Iraq is different from peacetime conditions in their own countries, so they point out all the differences. They are congenitally anti-American and doing a comparison to what happened in the past would destroy the anti-American angle, so they skip the comparison altogether.

Bottom line - take the gloom-and-doom talk from reporters with a few cupfuls of salt. Understand that many liberal hate-America reporters will lie without compunction if there's an anti-American angle in a story.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-7-11 10:08:44 AM  

00:00