Vorkosigan

Media Underplays Iraq Death toll

Any way you look at it, the news is bad enough. According to Thursday's press and television reports, 33 U.S. soldiers have now died in combat since President Bush declared an end to the major fighting in the war on May 2. This, of course, is a tragedy for the men killed and their families, and a problem for the White House.

But actually the numbers are much worse -- and rarely reported by the media.

According to official military records, the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since May 2 is actually 85. This includes a staggering number of non-combat deaths. Even if killed in a non-hostile action, these soldiers are no less dead, their families no less aggrieved. And it's safe to say that nearly all of these people would still be alive if they were still back in the States.

Bill

One has to wonder if the classification of these deaths as being "non-combat" deaths is at all motivated by politics.....

== Bill

Krieger

Yep, I have noticed that the capitalist media outlets have been playing with the numbers of dead the entire time as well. Can't say I'm surprised though. I like that website link in the commondreams article... very much.

Derec

As oposed to what? Central command economy media outlets?

WHat I have noticed is that the casualties are much more readily discussed in the media in the last couple of weeks.
Personally, I find the combat/non-combat deaths distinction useful, as long as both numbers are reported.

UMoC

Krieger

A little OT though, but has anyone seen a similar counter for Afghanistan? I think I remember one on another left-wing site (but it wasn't a commondreams article). I'd like to see how many troops have been killed total (in Bush's wars).

Godbert

One really would have to substract the number of statistically expected deaths among 150000 soldiers in the same timespan under normal circumstances. No need to sink to the governments level and distort the facts - it's bad enough as it is.

Krieger

"Accidental" deaths are still included in the total number of war dead though.

For example, around 335 Americans died in Gulf War I. That is number which is in the history books, but only 147 of those were combat deaths. Most of the 620,000 men that died in the Civil War died from diseases, but it is still part of the total war dead. 5,500 died in the Spanish American war, but only 500 died in combat (they must have had really shitty medics lol). Etc, etc,...

Bill

So-called "modern medicine" didn't exist until well into the 20th century. When my mom was born in 1918, most kids were still born at home. By the time I was born, in 1947, most kids were born in hospitals. Someplace in the middle of that range of years, so-called "modern medicine" was born.....

== Bill

Danya

So what's causing all of these non-hostile deaths? Illness, suicides, accident's? And I think the media could still seperate the numbers without being misleading which is what they are when they report less than half of the true number. This is why the US media has become such a joke.

Krieger

Yep, I know. It is just that the percentage (500 of 5,500) was much worse in the Spanish American war than the Civil War.

Well, a lot of them come from helicopter crashes and stuff like that. Those stupid helicopters fall out of the sky a lot (or they are shot down by Iraqi farmers, hehe).