| I deleted the original text in this post and created a table that was easier to read. Thanks to mhw for the post. |
| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Sept 07 - Lowest military fatality total in many months | |
| 2007-09-30 | |
| |
| Posted by:mhw |
| #13 I blame General David Petreaus. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-09-30 11:43 |
| #12 Its like this: there are ALWAYS non-hostile deaths in the military, Its a hazardous occupation. I lost a room mate in "peacetime" in Korea a couple of decades ago. But people only pay attention to military deaths, and only in aggregate, when it means something for them politically. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-30 11:12 |
#11 Blogger "Spook86" has a discussion:Call it Spook's Inverse Law of Iraq War Reporting: if you don't see a spate of stories on U.S. casualties at the end of the month, then there must be some good news the MSM is ignoring. |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-09-30 09:35 |
| #10 Since it's being tracked as well, the table needs another column for enemy. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-09-30 09:02 |
| #9 thank you for creating the table the issue of non combat deaths is pretty difficult to analyze yes it is true that back in the late 70s (w Pres Carter) the average non combat deaths in a year was about 2000 (worldwide all services) however, that was with a much larger active military and without recent medical, logistical and military equipment improvements; in any case, the non combat deaths in Iraq are, in many cases, related to the logistics needed to maintain the pace of military activity or are otherwise closely related to the needs for the combat |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-09-30 08:21 |
| #8 Humvee turns over into a canal drowning all aboard, CH46 or 47 buys the farm full up with troops.. anonymous5089, Just like maneuvers or routine transportation accidents during peace time. |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2007-09-30 06:33 |
| #7 Same mistake as the media makes, however. 61 total deaths, 22 non-hostile, 39 hostile. Vow, 22 non hostile deaths? I really have no point of reference, is it an high number for a 165 K population with biased demographics (younger average age, more males than females, fitter,...)? I remember reading about non-hostile deaths like an humvee falling into the euphrates with its inoccupants drowning, or a soldier inside the green zone drowning while going to a swimming pool, so I guess these numbers include both occupational hazards and "fact of life" like diseases or random accidents, but is 22 an high figure? |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-09-30 06:23 |
| #6 Chuck Simmins: Same mistake as the media makes, however. 61 total deaths, 22 non-hostile, 39 hostile. Well Chuck we have access to a first rate Iraq Combat analyst and statistician that's even better than the DOD staff gets! ~:) |
| Posted by: Red Dawg 2007-09-30 06:17 |
| #5 Same mistake as the media makes, however. 61 total deaths, 22 non-hostile, 39 hostile. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2007-09-30 06:05 |
| #4 That's good news. It appears that most terrorists don't even bother anymore. No "Good Morning" today? |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-09-30 03:24 |
| #3 The democrats had better manage to choke out some praise for Petraeus over this. Oh, Hell, who am I kidding? They probably view this as a setback to their campaign strategy. Damn them all. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-30 02:18 |
| #2 The Surge is NOT working - Reid/Pelosi |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2007-09-30 01:08 |
| #1 But, but Blackwater! |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-09-30 00:53 |