Military Definition of KILLED IN ACTION

[BOSSHOG]

(DOD) A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty other than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is killed outright or dies as a result of wounds or other injuries BEFORE REACHING A MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITY. I kinda remember that definition from my military training and the time I spent in a combat zone. Sorry to have inconvenienced anybody.

http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/dek.htm

[ET Awful]

1. That's accurate. The correct category for someone who dies

after reaching a medical treatment facility is "Died of wounds received in action."

You can find that later on the same site: http://www.fas.org/news/reference/lexicon/Dec.htm#casualty%20category

Both will appear on DOD reports of fatalities.

KIA is only applicable if the person dies "in action" if the action is already over and the person has been transported, they are no longer "in action" so the official designation changes.

[BOSSHOG]

5. The English Language, the world's most difficult

Add to the mix military lexicon and you have obfuscation squared.

Casualties.org lists "military fatalities." I was referring to killed in action in a previous post. Our dead servicemembers are totaled on the bottom line but they may have gotten to that total on different paths.

[Dhalgren]

2. So, are the published casualty figures of KIAs or is it a

total list of "casualties" which would include all deaths and injuries stemming from occupation service?


On edit: OK, I see #1 post.

[ET Awful]

3. The published casualty figures include KIA, accidental deaths and

of course, "died of wounds received in action." They would also include self-inflicted wounds, etc.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. But do the numbers cover...

killed CIA Spooks like Johnny Hamm? Or any of the other secretive "special forces" groups the various US military/intel groups have? Now that is something I would like to know....

[ET Awful]

9. They're not going to declassify reports of casualties on missions

that haven't yet been declassified.

If they disavow the mission, they can't publicly announce casualties as a result of the mission.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. I asked this because...

the first Thanksgiving after the invasion, my sister's stepson came home for the holidays from the German airbase that was taking in the bodies of the dead -- in fact, he was involved with unloading the "tubes". At that time, he told her not to believe what was being reported in the media, that the casualty numbers were "significantly higher" that what was being reported.

Ever since hearing that, I have been trying to figure out just who the heck was being ferried into Germany that may not be reported on. The "contractors"? Special Ops? (One in the same?)

[ET Awful]

11. If they were actually "significantly higher" there would be many

more military families speaking out by now.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. Those were his words....

and they made me wonder if the casualties were folks involved with secret operations, you know, the kind of folks whose families don't even know they are operatives and their deaths could be blamed on something else. :shrug: The reason I believe what he said is because several things he mentioned at the same time were later proven to be all too true.

My sister's stepson was suffering from a bit of PTSD from his work with all the bodies. He was not a happy camper.

[sui generis]

4. nothing like field triage

if it looks they're gonna die, let 'em. They'll get a medal and you can use your available resources on the soldiers most likely to survive.

I actually have the armed forces wartime field triage manual at home, but that's the gist of it.

[ET Awful]

6. Yes, but the same triage procedure is used in natural disaster response.

If you have someone critically injured with a chest wound who is very likely to survive if you act quickly and you have someone critically injured with a head wound that isn't likely to survive regardless of what steps you take, triage procedures both for the military and for civilian disaster response would dictate that you treat the chest wound as a priority.

It's sad, but triage is nothing but making the best you can of a very bad situation.

It's designed to prevent treating someone not likely to survive, thereby making someone more likely to survive wait longer than they should, and losing both patients as a result,

[sui generis]

7. oh I completely absolutely agree with it

hard choices - and you are completely correct that it is also appropriate in natural disaster response.

There are other considerations too - how far gone do you want to bring someone back from? A severe head injury with obvious brain or cervical spinal cord damage, extended anoxia, etc. is something to use one's judgement with too.

It happens all the time in emergency rooms all around the country, just doesn't make the news.