How many Americans have died in Iraq?

[chinaski]

My oldest friend whom ive known for 20 years is currently over in Afghanistan. I talked to him this morning, and I asked him what he and his buddies thought about how they were been represented in America... he said by far the one issue that pisses people off the most is how the number of GI's killed in Iraq is being completely distorted. He told me that in reality there have been over 6,800 soldiers killed, not the 1,700 number you currently see in every single publication. He says that while the 1,700 is true, thats ONLY the number of soldiers literally killed in Iraq. Literally, within the borders of Iraq. He says, when you figure in all the people killed as a result of their injuries in Iraq, its actually 6,870 people have died. They Military doesnt 'count' people who have died in America, or Germany as a result of their injuries.

Does anyone know if this is verifiable? If its true, (I have no reason to doubt him, hes a republican and one of the badest mofo's ive ever known) - isnt it disgusting the MSM doesnt report the true number? You never ever ever hear of this figure, when it should be the main number sited.

[33sherman]

I've heard about this. I also heard that foreign nationals who sign up in order to get a green card are also not tallied in the official casualty numbers.

[NoMyths]

http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[MrBigglesworth]

Now that I think about it, I have never heard of someone dying at home from their injuries on any of the bios of the dead soldiers. That number (6.8k) seems really high though.

[amdaily]

Just your typical screeching conspiracy theories from the left. The same types who say over 100,000 Iraqi's were killed in the inital U.S. bombings.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Just your typical screeching conspiracy theories from the left. The same types who say over 100,000 Iraqi's were killed in the inital U.S. bombings.

Yes, American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are your standard-issue leftist conspiracy buffs...

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Just your typical screeching conspiracy theories from the left. The same types who say over 100,000 Iraqi's were killed in the inital U.S. bombings.

Concerns of a Marine whos currently risking his life in Afghanistan every single fucking day is not a screeching conspiracy theory from the left, you half wit.

A Marine whos invested 11 years of his life and the last 2 years fighting a war tells me 6,800 of his fellow sodiers have actually died, instead of the 1,700 reported to Americans, I believe him. Especially when its the guy ive always had ideology battles with for the last 20 years.

[Maple Leafs]

Even though you are asking a very basic question that should have a straightforward answer, I would estimate your odds of getting any sort of non-partisan answer to be roughly zero.

[cougarfreak]

Didn't you guys hear? Major combat is over.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Even though you are asking a very basic question that should have a straightforward answer, I would estimate your odds of getting any sort of non-partisan answer to be roughly zero.

I thought my response was pretty straightforward and non-partisan.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Just your typical screeching conspiracy theories from the left. The same types who say over 100,000 Iraqi's were killed in the inital U.S. bombings.

Heh. Sweet parody post.

Well done!

[dacman]

Originally Posted by chinaski

He told me that in reality there have been over 6,800 soldiers killed, not the 1,700 number you currently see in every single publication.

Originally Posted by chinaski

A Marine whos invested 11 years of his life and the last 2 years fighting a war tells me 7,800 of his fellow sodiers have actually died.

Sorry to nitpick, but that makes it really hard to take you seriously.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by dacman

Sorry to nitpick, but that makes it really hard to take you seriously.

Might that not have been a typo?

[dacman]

I'm sure it was, but the point remains.

[Raiders Army]

I'm sorry, but I find this a little hard to believe. How would your friend know this information? He's talking about deaths in Iraq and he's in Afghanistan. Also, the Army Times ran an article recently on all of the Army servicemen who have died over there the past year. They had a picture for each person and a little description of each. No one that I know has complained that their family or friend wasn't included in the retrospective. It just seems a little odd.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by dacman

Sorry to nitpick, but that makes it really hard to take you seriously.

sorry, that was of course a typo..

[QuikSand]

In a way I hate to say it, but this has the trappings of an urban legend, in an admittedly unusual setting. Perhaps the 6,800 killed figure is essentially the core of an aggressive rumor being circulated among the troops abroad.

[Samdari]

It does seem far fetched that four times as many people would live to be stable enough to be transported to Germany or the US, but then die later as a result of the same injuries. In fact, it seems impossible.

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

In a way I hate to say it, but this has the trappings of an urban legend, in an admittedly unusual setting. Perhaps the 6,800 killed figure is essentially the core of an aggressive rumor being circulated among the troops abroad.

That is my thought as well. Does the army regularly give out more accurate information only to other soldiers in the army? If this was true, someone would have already pointed that out to a major news source and it would become headline news nation wide?

[dacman]

Well, I'm sure there's some disconnect -- there usually is between military types and non-military types (most media).

If it's 1,700 is COMBAT-related deaths in Iraq, then it probably doesn't include:

1) Anyone killed or fatally injured outside the borders of Iraq (you are sort of correct there -- if the fatal injury occured in Iraq, but the service member died outside of Iraq, it should still count)

2) Non-combat related deaths even if they occured in Iraq -- training accidents, vehicular accidents, accidental weapon discharge resulting in death, suicides, etc. etc. Last I heard, there have been over 400 service member suicides in Iraq -- that's a lot, but no one talks about that much.

3) Non fatal casualties (hell the word casualty is a problem in and of itself -- too many people think casualty = dead -- not true)


Not sure if any of that is the reason for the difference.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'm sorry, but I find this a little hard to believe. How would your friend know this information? He's talking about deaths in Iraq and he's in Afghanistan. Also, the Army Times ran an article recently on all of the Army servicemen who have died over there the past year. They had a picture for each person and a little description of each. No one that I know has complained that their family or friend wasn't included in the retrospective. It just seems a little odd.

I need to clarify a couple things.

When i said Iraq, I meant combat deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan. The current death toll we all see is roughly 1,700. Those 1,700 were killed 'on the battle field' in either Afghanistan or Iraq. On the battle field, the stipulation. Meaning, they literally died inside the confines of the 2 countries we are at war in.

If a soldier gets wounded and is shipped out of the battle field to another country and dies because of his injuries on the battle field, they are not counted towards that 1,700 number we all see. I believe that 1,700 falls into a classification of death, something like 'Combat Death'. The remaining are considered something like 'Post Combat Death'.

Im not presenting this as a conspiracy theory, or hearsay. Im telling you straight from my friends mouth to my ears, he says the marines in his outfit are all mystified as to why the media doesnt present the actual numbers. This leads me to believe the 'true' combat death numbers are public knowledge and are accessible somewhere. Im not sure how he knows, when he told me, I just automatically believed him. Hes high up the chain, is a Marine for life and when it comes to anything military, hes the closest thing to rambo ive ever seen It was a short conversation, and it was basically the only nonpersonal thing we talked about. I just asked him what the general sentiment was on how the soldiers felt they were being represented, and thats what his repsonse was.

[Raiders Army]

The 1,700 figure is only for Iraq.

From the Army Times:

And four more American soldiers were killed Saturday in two roadside bombings west of Baghdad, the military said, increasing the number of U.S. forces to die since the war began in March 2003 to at least 1,701 — with at least 1,297 as a result of hostile action. The figures include five military civilians.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...925-910617.php

The death brought to 149 the number of U.S. military personnel killed in and around Afghanistan since Operation Enduring Freedom drove the Taliban from power in late 2001.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...925-906671.php

FYI, the Army Times is not an official publication of the U.S. Army.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I need to clarify a couple things.

When i said Iraq, I meant combat deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan. The current death toll we all see is roughly 1,700. Those 1,700 were killed 'on the battle field' in either Afghanistan or Iraq. On the battle field, the stipulation. Meaning, they literally died inside the confines of the 2 countries we are at war in.

If a soldier gets wounded and is shipped out of the battle field to another country and dies because of his injuries on the battle field, they are not counted towards that 1,700 number we all see. I believe that 1,700 falls into a classification of death, something like 'Combat Death'. The remaining are considered something like 'Post Combat Death'.

Im not presenting this as a conspiracy theory, or hearsay. Im telling you straight from my friends mouth to my ears, he says the marines in his outfit are all mystified as to why the media doesnt present the actual numbers. This leads me to believe the 'true' combat death numbers are public knowledge and are accessible somewhere. Im not sure how he knows, when he told me, I just automatically believed him. Hes high up the chain, is a Marine for life and when it comes to anything military, hes the closest thing to rambo ive ever seen It was a short conversation, and it was basically the only nonpersonal thing we talked about. I just asked him what the general sentiment was on how the soldiers felt they were being represented, and thats what his repsonse was.

I don't think you're spreading conspiracy theories, or that you or your friend are pinko kooks, or any of that other crap, but this is kind of the very definition of hearsay. Your friend can't know that there are 5,000 deaths that occured outside of, but as a direct result of combat in, Iraq and Afghanistan that aren't being reported in the media. If this information were readily available to him, and were reasonably verifiable it would be available to you and me. He's high up the chain, he's Rambo, does he have any documentation or proof?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Samdari

It does seem far fetched that four times as many people would live to be stable enough to be transported to Germany or the US, but then die later as a result of the same injuries. In fact, it seems impossible.

Statistically speaking 98percent of all med-evaced do survive. I think 6.8 k is too high a tally. It's at least 1700 give or take 100.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by dacman

Well, I'm sure there's some disconnect -- there usually is between military types and non-military types (most media).

If it's 1,700 is COMBAT-related deaths in Iraq, then it probably doesn't include:

1) Anyone killed or fatally injured outside the borders of Iraq (you are sort of correct there -- if the fatal injury occured in Iraq, but the service member died outside of Iraq, it should still count)

2) Non-combat related deaths even if they occured in Iraq -- training accidents, vehicular accidents, accidental weapon discharge resulting in death, suicides, etc. etc. Last I heard, there have been over 400 service member suicides in Iraq -- that's a lot, but no one talks about that much.

3) Non fatal casualties (hell the word casualty is a problem in and of itself -- too many people think casualty = dead -- not true)


Not sure if any of that is the reason for the difference.

From what I've seen ther are 1700 total combat/non combat deaths overall in
our expedition in Iraq. There have been I think 1500 combat deaths and 200-400 non combat related deaths (accidents, suicides, drownings, illness etc).

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

From what I've seen ther are 1700 total combat/non combat deaths overall in
our expedition in Iraq. There have been I think 1500 combat deaths and 200-400 non combat related deaths (accidents, suicides, drownings, illness etc).

And these numbers make a lot more sense than arguing that 3/4 are being excluded from the reported stats on technicalities. I think this is just hot air.

[tategter]

I think your friend meant total casualties, not deaths.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by tategter

I think your friend meant total casualties, not deaths.

The numbers for wounded unable to return to duty after 72 hours are right around that 6800 number. Which may be where the misinterpretation is happening.

[cougarfreak]

Could it be the difference between regular army troops and reserve troops? Newsweek had a story awhile back, I talked about it in my current events class.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Concerns of a Marine whos currently risking his life in Afghanistan every single fucking day is not a screeching conspiracy theory from the left, you half wit.

A Marine whos invested 11 years of his life and the last 2 years fighting a war tells me 6,800 of his fellow sodiers have actually died, instead of the 1,700 reported to Americans, I believe him. Especially when its the guy ive always had ideology battles with for the last 20 years.

I wasn't questioning the patriotism or commitment of our men and women on the front lines, I'm saying your friend is mis-informed.

As another poster said, 5,100 people just don't vanish and no one raises a concern over it. You have the Army Times as well as Nightline reading off the names and showing photos of every soldier killed in the line of duty. If they showed only 25% of those killed (1700 of 6800), there would be a large number of families coming forward wanting to know why their son/daughter's sacrifice is not being recognized.

The 6,800 is simply bogus as far as deaths are concerned. Hopefully snopes will debunk it soon as this is not the first time I've heard someone mention it.

[Dutch]

Chinaski, FWIW, the US Marine Corp is an official branch of the US Navy. (Don't tell him that, he'll rip your fucking arms out, but I digress). When personnel from the US Navy begin a story by saying, "This is a no-shitter..." prepared to be bullshitted, mileage on the validity of the ensuing story will vary. Did your Marine buddy start his story by saying that?

[JeffR]

Think about the implications of what he's suggesting. The Pentagon can't hide naked prisoner pyramids or someone peeing on a koran in secure, closely-controlled facilities, but it's somehow going to be able to cover up over 5,000 deaths from a media that would only be too happy to report them? The New York Times published an article a couple of weeks ago that exposed a private airline as being CIA-run. Does it sound credible that their reporters would draw attention to something trivial like that, but ignore a story that'd be absolutely devastating to an administration the Times was trying very hard to get voted out of office a few months ago?

[panerd]

All I have to say is if this story ever came to be proven true, than my opinion of the media would take a 180 degree turn to "The media is bent completely right" You are telling me not one news outlet (Air America?) would have gotten on this story yet?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Concerns of a Marine whos currently risking his life in Afghanistan every single fucking day is not a screeching conspiracy theory from the left, you half wit.

A Marine whos invested 11 years of his life and the last 2 years fighting a war tells me 6,800 of his fellow sodiers have actually died, instead of the 1,700 reported to Americans, I believe him. Especially when its the guy ive always had ideology battles with for the last 20 years.

Dola:

And I mean no disrespect to your friend serving over in Iraq, but using the patriotism defense as the reason why we should believe his story is pretty far fetched.

If I I made a post about how some molestation victim told me that 95% of fathers molested their kids and then everytime someone questioned her story I said "Do you know what it is like to be molested? She does!" would that all of a sudden make her story credible?

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by panerd

Dola:

And I mean no disrespect to your friend serving over in Iraq, but using the patriotism defense as the reason why we should believe his story is pretty far fetched.

If I I made a post about how some molestation victim told me that 95% of fathers molested their kids and then everytime someone questioned her story I said "Do you know what it is like to be molested? She does!" would that all of a sudden make her story credible?

Ah, the old "molested girl" analogy. I believe Socrates used that a time or two when he was debunking shit.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Ah, the old "molested girl" analogy. I believe Socrates used that a time or two when he was debunking shit.

F*CKING AY RIGHT!!!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Statistically speaking 98percent of all med-evaced do survive. I think 6.8 k is too high a tally. It's at least 1700 give or take 100.

Exactly. The vast majority of injured soldiers taken out of country survive, albeit often with less limbs than originally issued. If you want to talk about the horror of the Iraq conflict, talk about soldiers who've lost limbs - there are a LOT. Don't make up dead soldiers.

[Blackadar]

Actually, if you look at the statistics, perhaps your friend misinterpreted something.

There's over 1700 KIA - killed.
There's about 6,500 or so injured - often called casualities as tategetr said. Often, that's interpreted to be killed, but it's really killed or injured enough to be removed from the battlefield.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Actually, if you look at the statistics, perhaps your friend misinterpreted something.

Or, at least as likely, somewhere along the chain the notion of "casualties" became "deaths," either by misunderstanding or exaggeration. It's certainly possible that someone told his friend 6,800 deaths, and that he's just faithfully passing on what he heard.

But I agree, this is the most likely explanation as to what's happening here -- there's a semantic difference that may very well just be a (careless) mistake.

[MrBigglesworth]

According to antiwar.com, there have been 12,000 or so wounded so far, so it would be odd if have of those wounded eventually died out of the country.

[Warhammer]

I've gotta say I agree something got mixed up in the translation. I also want to add that not all members of the military over there are for the war. I have friends on both ends of the political spectrum that are in the military and both of them give you different opinions of what is happening over there.

The guy on the left would have you believe we are about to get kicked out of Iraq, and the one on the right says that there has not been a suicide bomber over there that was not from Iran.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

According to antiwar.com, there have been 12,000 or so wounded so far, so it would be odd if have of those wounded eventually died out of the country.

I think it's a safe assumption that any site named "antiwar.com" might be a little high with their numbers.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I think it's a safe assumption that any site named "antiwar.com" might be a little high with their numbers.

When you 'assume' you make an 'a$$' out of 'u' and 'me' Those are the official Pentagon numbers that I got from antiwar.com. Don't know what the Pentagon considers 'wounded' though (hangnail? missing limb?).

[MalcPow]

If you look at the link NoMyths posted up top, http://icasualties.org/oif/ , it shows the number of wounded (meaning wounded and unable to return to duty after 72 hours) at 6400. There is a roughly equal number who were wounded but returned to duty within 72 hours. So when dealing with a 12,000 number of wounded it is important to realize that half of those were back on duty within 3 days of their injuries. Conveniently enough the wounded but unable to return to duty in 3 days figure corresponds pretty closely to the 6800 number being thrown around. And yes, these are official figures at site NoMyths linked to.