| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| U.S. Troops See Highest Toll Yet | |
| 2004-09-05 | |
| About 1,100 U.S. soldiers and Marines were wounded in Iraq during August, by far the highest combat injury toll for any month since the war began and an indication of the intensity of battles flaring in urban areas. U.S. medical commanders say the sharp rise in battlefield injuries reflects more than three weeks of fighting by two Army and one Marine battalion in the southern city of Najaf. At the same time, U.S. units frequently faced combat in a sprawling Shiite Muslim slum in Baghdad and in the Sunni cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra, all of which remain under the control of insurgents two months after the transfer of political authority. "They were doing battlefield urban operations in four places at one time," said Lt. Col. Albert Maas, operations officer for the 2nd Medical Brigade, which oversees U.S. combat hospitals in Iraq. "It's like working in downtown Detroit. You're going literally building to building." The sharp rise in wounded was, for the first time, accompanied by a far less steep climb in battlefield fatalities. Since the start of the war in March 2003, 979 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and almost 7,000 have been wounded. Until last month, however, the monthly tallies of fatalities and wounded rose and fell roughly in proportion. In August, 66 U.S. service personnel were killed in Iraq, according to the Defense Department. The toll was the highest since May, when 80 fatalities were recorded. But it was well below the 135 U.S. combat deaths in April, when a sporadic guerrilla war that had largely been confined to the so-called Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad spread to cities across the previously quiescent Shiite Muslim belt in southern Iraq. The U.S. military does not routinely release the reported number of Iraqi casualties and wounded. Commanders said they had no immediate concrete explanation for why the number of wounded increased so sharply without a comparable rise in combat deaths. "All I know is I've got more patients here," said Col. Ryck Beitz, commander of the 31st Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad, which admitted 425 patients last month, a new high.
| |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 I was suprised by the high # of wounded who were only lightly injured and had returned to duty within 24 hours. I believe they call that the "Kerry Factor". Could we have some 2028 presidental candidates among our fighting men in Iraq? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-09-05 5:42:16 PM |
| #4 Pretty g--damn sad when WaPo appears to be rooting for higher KIAs. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-09-05 12:55:54 PM |
| #3 How many significant factual errors and distortions just in this excerpt? Let's see. I'm open to instruction on this one -- Ramadi and Samarra are "under the control of insurgents"? Huh? That's news to me, as one of SNL's faux news anchors (Kevin Neelan?) used to say. The description of the April events is an elaborate version of the "widespread fierce fighting across Iraq" lie that wire services have inserted into every story since April. Aside from the very short-lived Sadr "uprising" in a few southern locales at that time -- where I believe very few of the KIAs were taken, as well -- there was no spread of guerrilla war. Then there's the ongoing toggle-switch thing with killed through hostile action vs. total who have died in all ways. Surprisingly, some media outlets have occasionally done the obvious correct thing and broken out the KIA vs. died through natural causes, suicides, industrial accidents, etc. I say "surprising" because of course doing this yields a smaller number of KIA -- not good for the misleading and tendentious media framework about Iraq. I usually check lunaville.org for the break-out, which has been running roughly 75% KIA/25% other causes. For purposes of putting the whole thing in perspective, I've been searching for a global DOD "other" causes figure (so that Okinawa, Oklahoma, and Italy, etc., are included) -- anyone know of one? The other thing (perhaps explored in the rest of the article, but I can't bear to put myself though WaPo stuff in general any more) is the wounded break-down. I saw one report a few months back describing one battle's aftermath, and I was suprised by the high # of wounded who were only lightly injured and had returned to duty within 24 hours. The 7,000 number, to have much meaning, should be broken down this way. The excerpt refers to the answer to its own implied question -- why the changing proportions of wounded vs. KIA -- without seeming to realize it. The answer is that the US is on the offensive (and also that units have learned, and improved their m.o.). The April anomaly was, I believe, entirely explained by a few incidents in which the bad guys took the unexpected initiative. I also believe most US fatalities have been in purely passive situations, i.e. roadside bombs and other situations where there is no ongoing exchange of fire. When there's combat, the other side loses, and loses real, real big, every time. Gee, ya think that along with the pro forma disclaimer about the US side not releasing enemy KIA numbers, the Post might have made the entirely reasonable and obvious comment that enemy casualties are known to be hugely disproportionate, and that nearly every encounter with US forces is lethal to the bad guys, the main reason they mostly avoid such encounters? Nah, that would be editorializing, I guess ..... A USMC friend now in al-Anbar said before he headed out there last month that the "exchange ratio" of USMC and bad guys KIA in that province was approaching 1-50. Something to consider when the sporadic reports of one or two Marines KIA in western Iraq trickle in. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-09-05 11:23:40 AM |
| #2 The DU moonbats are pining away for the 21 deaths that'll put it at 1000. You can bet Kerry's camp's got slogans ready too. Assh&les |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-05 11:00:47 AM |
| #1 All hail American Combat Medicine. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-05 10:56:52 AM |