#8 OldSpook and Grunt are both on to something. While MNF-I press releases often do contain very bare-bone references to enemy KIA, it is very unusual to see US KIA put in any context at all.
Grunt, as I recall, this phenomenon of reporting US military deaths in Iraq so frequently led to confusion (among wire-service subscribers, i.e., the press itself) back in 2004). So much so that AP had to do a note to editors and change their practices. Part of the problem was that web news sites would post as "new" what were updates to wire dispatches - but I think the wires themselves also had a problem with "over" reporting.
On the other matter, this has been a screaming problem for years. The Marines are the worst. Aside from Fallujah II, the mini-campaigns in the western Euphrates valley to secure elections, and of course the Haditha incident, there has hardly been any information about operations that's made its way into mass print. It would not be hard to conclude that the hundres of USMC KIA in Anbar the last two years accomplished nothing - "a Marine was killed by enemy action in Anbar province" - uh, what was he doing? Fishing in a canal and got shoved in? It's been going on literally for years like this.
I had the opportunity to raise these questions directly with relevant folks in Baghdad. Nobody disputed the facts or the possible impact over time, but nobody was willing to do anything about it.
A related matter, of course, is enemy KIA. While you'll see some mention of this in some press releases, it's almost never done in situations where the US loses someone, and I can't discern a pattern as to when enemy KIA is OK to mention, vs. when it's not permitted.
Right there, every morning, on the CG/MNF-I's battle update assessment (BUA) - unless Petraeus has changed things, is an enemy KIA number. A weekly and monthly roll-up slide shows numbers over those periods. Right there - but while it was only a "secret" level bit of info, it was the most secure info around. This bizarre obsession with an imagined concept of "body counts" persists, and it runs deep.
One of Caldwell's predecessors completely agreed with the substance of my point that enemy KIA should be reported (along with other results), but was resigned to it not being possible due to the fixed views of so many at DOD, in and out of uniform.
There were a few illuminating, amusing, frustrating incidents, one involving the Army to the east in Diyala, another with the Marines during a Euphrates valley mini-campaign, in which the local commanders blurted out the results of battle (as they should), including enemy KIA. The Marine got in some kind of trouble, and there was much huffing and puffing in some circles in Baghdad. The Army guy did not seem to get in trouble. But both instances led to more discussions in Baghdad about the bizarre practice of concealing enemy killed (that's what it amounts to).
Some of the most afflicted start by claiming that we don't have "hard" body counts. !!!!! Hilarious. I pointed out that we had more total control over the battlefield in Iraq than in any war in our history, and therefore at the very least hedged ("4 terrorists confirmed killed, possibly others inside the building") language could be used. No real answer to that point, of course.
The American people have been abandoned, from the Oval Office on down, since early in the Iraq saga (aside from Rummy's press conferences, for a while), to fend for themselves in terms of information about the war, what it means, and how to view costs and difficulties. This bizarre, one-sided release of information on casualties has been one part of it. Nice little reminder that while we have the deadliest and most careful military ever to take the field, our broader capability to wage war is pretty feeble. |
BAGHDAD - Ten more American soldiers have been killed in fighting in Iraq, the military announced on Sunday. Most of the 10 US soldiers were slain in and around Baghdad, the epicentre of IraqÂ’s vicious sectarian conflict and the focus of a controversial 28,000-strong surge in US troop numbers, which is due to peak next month.