Pentagon Admits 26,000 Iraqi Casualties since Jan. 2004

[berni_mccoy]

(cross-posted from LBN)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.casualties/index.html

(CNN) -- A recent U.S. military report estimates that nearly 26,000 Iraqis were killed or wounded by insurgent attacks from January 1, 2004, through September 16, 2005.

"Approximately 80 percent of all attacks are directed against coalition forces, but 80 percent of all casualties are suffered by Iraqis," the Pentagon report said.

Ok, did I get this right? 80% of X = 26,000 which means X = 32,500.

That means 6,500 casualties were not Iraqi.

[niyad]

1. but they were all killed by insurgents, right?

[jobycom]

4. Not killed. Casualty means killed or wounded.

The report is saying that 26,000 Iraqis have been killed or wounded by the insurgents. They are not including the Iraqis we have killed, whether civilian or "insurgent."

So the 6500 would be the number of coalition forces killed or wounded. That seems in line with my limited understanding of the US and coalition casualties, though I admit to not being overly informed on this.

[kurth]

2. Thanks, Scooter!

It's amazing that the criminals in the White House have no trouble whatsoever sleeping at night.

[intheflow]

3. If 26,000 died in 10 months, how many have died

in the 33 months since the war began? We started off with shock and awe, that was conservatively estimated to have killed 10-20,000 people. We must have hit at least 100,000 Iraqi casualties by now. :cry:

[jobycom]

5. Not dead. Killed or wounded. Casualty does not mean dead. nt

[intheflow]

8. You're right.

My mistake. Though considering the whole war is illegal, even one wounding or death on either side is tragic.

[jobycom]

9. Not in any way trying to justify the number, just pointing out the detail

[berni_mccoy]

12. I agree, but...

Since Jan 2004, 1220 U.S. soldiers have died due to hostile action. (source again, CNN at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html)

That means, according to this report, 5280 soldiers have been wounded due to attacks in that same time period. But the U.S. is also reporting 15,220 wounded IN ACTION for the entire war. Something doesn't add up here...
That is I don't believe this recent report by the Pentagon.

It sounds like they are under reporting causalties by as much as a factor of 3. That means the Iraqi death toll may be around 75,000 instead of 26,000 from these attacks...

[jobycom]

14. Glad you agree. LOL! It wasn't a point you could disagree on, it was

just a fact.

As for your numbers, they make assumptions that we'd have to see the whole report to better understand. For instance, it doesn't say the other casualties were all Americans, it doesn't say that all American casualties came from insurgent attacks, we don't know how they are classifying insurgent attacks. So of that 6500, many may have been other coalition casualties, or relief workers, or journalists, or foreign nationals in Iraq. Some of the 1220 US casualties may not be classified as insurgent deaths. Or they may be. I don't know, but that CN report is too vague to make any great assumptions from.

As for whether they are lowballing or flat out lying about the Iraqi casualties, I'm sure they are. Keep in mind that Muslim burial practices require a body to be buried quickly, and that 82% of Iraqis want us out of there. Which means that people may not be reporting all of their dead, and may be getting their dead out of there before we show up. So I don't believe our numbers at all. They may have counted 26,000, but I don't know what criteria they are using to count. Is the word of an Iraqi that his brother or friend was killed enough, or do they need the body? The military is full of beauracrats who can be creative when it comes to counting.

[berni_mccoy]

16. I thought I was replying to the post that said the number seemed low...

And wouldn't agree/disagree with a fact... (that's something bushco does! :-))

[jobycom]

17. Ah! I hate it when I do that! nt.

[LynnTheDem]

6. "80% all attacks are directed against coalition forces"

Yes.

Exactly.

[jobycom]

10. We wanted to be flypaper, supposedly. So we're flypaper.

Unfortunately, we aren't the ones getting stuck.

[LynnTheDem]

11. When we're doing the slaughtering, we call it "collateral damage".

When others do it, it's used as our excuse to invade, occupy, and slaughter.

[jobycom]

13. And when we kill civilians, they become insurgents

It is always that way. That's why people like you and me and most of the rest of DU opposed Bush's invasion in the first place--because we've all seen what happens during wars.

Heck, I opposed, and still oppose, his invasion of Afghanistan, too, but I seem to be in a minority there.

[LynnTheDem]

15. You & I are in the world MAJORITY re Afghanistan.

Only America & the UK had a majority support attacking Afghanistan; the rest of the world was opposed.

So it depends what planet we're talking about...USSA or the rest of the world. ;)

[jobycom]

18. I kinda forget there's a world out there, what with the Berlin Wall

that the media builds around our nation.

[LynnTheDem]

19. It's the only bit of comfort I can find nowadays...

There still IS a world out there and they are NOT rightwingnut MFing morans.

*Repeat as often as necessary*

:D

[libodem]

7. this makes me gut-sick

Why should Iraqi citizens be punished for 9/11? While Big Oil reaps almost 10 Billion in profits. America builds permanent bases galore over there just so we can ride herd on Syria and Iran. The average Iraqi citizen means nothing to this administration. The average Army private, and Marine mean nothing to this administration. They are all pawns, all expendable, pieces of equipment to be used and abused at Bushes whims and fancy. Culture of 'Life?.....where do they get off?