Last week the US lost its 1,000th soldier killed in combat. Why did no one

[JoFerret]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=592328


Because the coalition wants to play down the carnage. Especially when it comes to civilians
By Andrew Buncombe, Severin Carrell and Raymond Whitaker
12 December 2004


A deadly milestone was reached in Iraq last week, and hardly anyone noticed. Captain Mark Stubenhofer of the US army's 41st Infantry Regiment, killed in a firefight on a street in Baghdad on Tuesday, was the 1,000th American to die in combat since the country was invaded nearly 21 months ago - yet none of the reports of his death mentioned the fact.

The reason? Only one news agency spotted that the Pentagon's official tally of deaths in action had reached 999, and that its latest casualty announcement meant that the toll was now in four figures. And when Capt Stubenhofer's name was released later, after his family had been informed, no news organisation made the connection, not even The Washington Post, which carried a story because his home town - Springfield, Virginia - is in its circulation area.

The Post reported that Capt Stubenhofer, 30, had last spoken to his parents when he called from Iraq to tell them his wife had had their third child, a daughter. "He never got to see her, though. She'll only know him through us," his mother, Sallie Stubenhofer, told the newspaper. It was his second tour of duty in Iraq; during his first he was awarded the Bronze Star.
<more>

[gordianot]

1. Well over 1000 now. Last figure I heard was 1200 +.

There is a really convoluted way of accounting for casualties so the real number is hard to find. There are many Americans keeping the tally. Even though we do not see the coffins when they return home many of us are not going to forget.

Weekly I try to find out how many of our young people we have lost. Our Scout Troop is collecting phone cards for the Veterans Hospitals.

[Crunchy Frog]

2. The 1000 is fatalities specifically caused by

hostile action. The larger figure encompasses deaths from accidents, illnesses, suicides, etc.

[gordianot]

3. Some hard to define.

For example a soldier floors his Humvee to avoid an ambush or mines and turns over the Humvee he/she is not listed as a casualty due to hostile action.

I maintain anyone who dies in Iraq is a casualty of War. Once again the Pentagon is playing with a numbers game given they way they are counting this. I think they are trying to avoid another wall in DC.

Personally I think they could brand names on Bush instead.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. I agree,

alot of the "non-combat fatalities" are directly related to hostile activity, and even the ones where the connection is less direct, they're still mostly related to being in a combat theater.

Another thing that pisses me off is that they've stopped counting those injured in accidents in the wounded statistics. There could be a half dozen soldiers severely wounded in a vehicle accident or helicopter crash and they won't even make it into the official wounded numbers.

They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. Not count "non-combat" deaths, but not bother to notice when combat deaths reach 1000 either. They just want us to forget that soldiers are dieing there period, and for the most part, people will, at least until the draft comes.