Do Soldiers who die after they're removed from the "battlefield" count ...

[elehhhhna]

in the official death-toll (1,109 a/o 11:44 a.m. central) ?

[Jim__]

1. My understanding is that after 24 hours - they don't count

There was a newspaper article about this a while ago. My recollection is that if a soldier is removed from the battlefield and survives 24 hours, he is not counted among the dead from the war.

[RivetJoint]

3. Not true

The military counts them as having died as a result of wounds received on the battlefield.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. After how long? One week? One month? After release from the

hospital, then collapsing at home six months later?

What is the real death toll for the troops?

[RivetJoint]

7. If the death was as a result

of the wounds received, no matter HOW long after, it is counted as a combat death.

[MacDo]

8. Yes they are counted

Just like a vet from Vietnam can still be added to the wall if he dies as a result of wounds suffered there. The body count goes up as well.
We've lost enough people in Iraq. Let's not make it worse than it is.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. I Think That's Right

See, even we can agree once in a while. I think that unless they die of complications from the original injury, after they've completely left the battle theater they count as killed in action.

For instance, if they are badly wounded, patched together flown to Germany, and die of a staph infection while recovering, i think they are not KIA. But, if they die anytime while in theater, as a direct consequence of the injury suffered in theater, they cound as KIA.
The Professor

[RivetJoint]

10. Even in your first instance,

They would still count as a combat death, since the death can be directly attributable to the wounds they received in battle.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Now We Disagree

I think my scenario is correct. Complications beyond the battle theater on an otherwise stabilized patient are not counted. They are counted as military deaths, but they are not attributed to KIA. I'm pretty sure that's correct, but not 100%.
The Professor

[RivetJoint]

12. It's nuanced

Even if they are stabilized, but die as a DIRECT result of those injuries at a later time, they are counted as a combat death. I'm 100% sure that is correct, as it happened to an Air Force enlisted man in my former squadron. He was sounded in a mortar attack, medievaced to Ramstein/Landsthul and died ten-eleven days later from complications during surgery (he was pretty messed up).

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Ahh!

So, he was listed KIA, despite the fact that he died in surgery? Wasn't it the surgery that killed him? Not that the surgeon did anything wrong.

Or could it be that, since the surgery was a life saving operation, and that he would have died without the surgery, that then the nuance you suggest comes into play. In my example, the guy would have lived had an infection not set in. In your case, the guy would have died anyway, so surgery was the only option. Your case is clearly KIA. Mine might not be so.
The Professor

[RivetJoint]

16. Like I said, it is nuanced

The surgery would not have been necessary save for his wounds; therefore, it was the "wounding" that was the proximate cause of death.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. I Completely Buy It

That's why i thought my example differed. Hence, someone could die.

The reason for my belief is this: The next door neighbor's fiance went to Viet Nam in 1968. About 10 months later he was badly injured in a mortar or artillery attack.

He came back pretty messed up. Damage to the neck made him unable to speak above a whisper, he had no site in one eye, his jaw was so shattered he couldn't completely close his mouth and he had some cognitive damage.

He died in only about 3, maybe 4 years. He was only 23. But, he never was listed as KIA and his name is NOT on the wall in D.C.
The Professor

[WoodrowFan]

18. yes, but

is the Pentagon STILL couting them that way THIS war??

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. That's what I was asking. Are the listed casualties KIA, killed in

theater (shich would include accidents and suicides), or total deaths attributable to having been in Iraq? And what about Afghanistan casualties?

[knowbody0]

2. no-they're counted as wounded

[donkeyotay]

4. It is my understanding that they don't

I don't have the link, but several months back there was an interview with some surgeons over there who were talking about how some of these soldiers with serious head injuries were sent home "alive" so that their families could see them before life-support was withdrawn. IIRC, those - and those sent to the facility in Germany - are not counted as having died in Iraq.

Sorry, I don't have time right now to track down the link.

[malmapus]

6. A possible no on the count

I want to say that they are not counted as dying in country if they make it home, even if its from injuries recieved while on deployment. Don't quote me on that though but I kinda recall things like that when I was in service, grrrr dam'd memory loss and only at 30 too =/

[Bandit]

15. What is considered "the battlefield"?

Is all of Iraq "the battlefield" or just certain portions at any given time? I thought Bush* told us the entire world was the battlefield in this "New War on terror"

[bullimiami]

19. it is unknowable

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing Rummy