Can anyone give me an answer to this question?

[boston bean]

Does the number of troops killed in Iraq count soldiers that have been wounded and then died a few days, weeks, or months after being transferred to a hospital?

The reason I ask this is because I think a shot across the bough was made in the Iraq Study Group Report. When they said that it would be beneficial if statistics (such as the number of attacks counted don't include attacks that didn't harm troops)weren't manipulated for policy sake.

[H2O Man]

1. They were speaking

about things such as roadside bombs that do not kill or injure a US serviceman, and then are not counted; and a variety to violent attacks on Iraqis.

[noamnety]

2. Yes, it includes those who died as a result of earlier wounds

Here's an example to prove it: http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=9352 (Died in March from being wounded in Nov) - you'll find his name if you click on the March 06 bar here: http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Weeks, days, months, yes. I just looked at one of those casualty

sites listed at the top of the page, and saw many specific listing from Landstuhl, where they were evacuated to, and a couple from stateside.

Didn't see any mentions of longer term - soldiers from the first year of the war that finally succumbed to their injuries - but that doesn't mean there aren't any. But I have never seen any such listings in the paper, either. I imagine it would be difficult to not include them - surviving relatives would probably raise holy hell if they did not get listed. I know I would (though I'm glad to say none of my younger relatives are over there).