3000 US casualties?

[Bee]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but there was a general who came out and estimated 3000 US casualties in the ground war. Some said this was high, others said it was low. Has anyone's opinion changed now that we are 3 weeks into the war?

I thought it was high at the time, but not really sure because of a lack of information on the battle plan and everything. Now, I'm more confident the estimate was much too high. I don't want to come off "insensitive" because any death is sad, but it amazes me that in a majority of firefights we apparently are suffering minimal losses. I've seen many reports that indicate a handful of US wounded and hundreds of Iraqi casualties. Many of the experts I saw indicated that our technological advantages would be somewhat neutralized in ground combat and even more so in urban combat. So far in Baghdad, we've not seen that. We also have not seen that in Basrah with the British troops. It seems that our technological advantages may not be quite so dominant, but they definitely have not been neutralized. I saw one report that indicated almost half the casualties for the coalition have been from accidents. While the fighting isn't over, I think we are approaching the end of the major conflict. What do you guys think?

[Fritz]

It is still early. 3000 casualties seems like a reasonable expectation when you consider the civil/guerrilla phase that will follow the conventional war.

[Bee]

I believe the general was speaking of the conventional war to overthrow Saddam, not any police action/terrorism that would occur afterward.

Edit: As of last night the Pentagon is reporting 89 US military killed in the war.

[sachmo71]

This morning the toll was 89 killed, 8 missing, and 7 POWs. I think 3000 is high.

[Fritz]

In military language, casualties include killed, missing, captured, wounded, deserters, etc. Many wounded that are returned to units are not yet a part of the casualty count. 3000 may turn outto be high, but a reasonable expectation.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Fritz
In military language, casualties include killed, missing, captured, wounded, deserters, etc. Many wounded that are returned to units are not yet a part of the casualty count. 3000 may turn outto be high, but a reasonable expectation.
Fritz beat me to the punch with this.

I think 3000 is a reasonable estimate.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Fritz beat me to the punch with this.


Never stand between me and punch.

[WSUCougar]

...by the way, sorry for using the terms "Fritz" and "beat" in a sentence of polite conversation. How rude.

[Bee]

I found the article again about the general. He was estimating 3000 casualties in a 2-3 day battle to take Baghdad, not for the war overall.

I had understood it previously as permanent casualties from an interview on CNN, but even including temporary casualties the estimate seems high to me.

[Fritz]

Look up battle planning estimates for MOUT combat. 3000 will may be a low depending on the expected size of the force used.

[Tarkus]

There will be nowhere near 3,000 casualties in this war. We won't even get close to 1,000. Are you guys watching any of this?

Tarkus

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Tarkus
There will be nowhere near 3,000 casualties in this war. We won't even get close to 1,000. Are you guys watching any of this?

Tarkus

I think there is still a lot to do before all is said and done. Things can change very quickly in war.

[Bee]

I guess how close we'll get to 3000 depends on how you define what the general meant by casualty. The "official" definition from the DoD includes KIA, MIA, wounded and even those who get sick. I don't think we'll see that many in the battle to take Baghdad as the ex-general indicated (even including all the various categories of casualties).

If you check news releases from the DoD, they are only calling KIA as "casualties". They are calling wounded as "wounded", MIA as "MIA". (I couldn't find any news releases that talked about guys getting sick :D). The impression I got from the general was that he was speaking of casualties in the same manner as the DoD news releases and not necessarily the "official" definition.

[detroit_fan]

When you talk "casualties of war" you are talking about dead troops not wounded ones.

[Havok]

We wont get anywhere near 3,000 Casualties in this war. We have like 85 right now and the war is almost over. Now there will be some street fighting and guerrilla tactics but they wont kill anywhere near 3,000 of our troops.

This isnt Mogadishu and we dont have a Pu**y ass president in office. (like Clinton)

[The_herd]

ca·su·al·ty
n. pl. ca·su·al·ties

One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.




The word casualty is often mis-used in the english language, it is not necessarily loss of life.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by The_herd
ca·su·al·ty
n. pl. ca·su·al·ties

One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.




The word casualty is often mis-used in the english language, it is not necessarily loss of life.
While you are technically correct you know that when anti-war folks are talking casualties they are talking dead.

Tarkus