Will the American GI death toll reach 1000 by November?

[Fenris]

I ask because I wonder how this U.S. soldier death toll compares to that of other conflicts since Vietnam. 1000 is low compared to the death tolls of other wars, yet to the current American public, it may seem very high. Certainly, when compared with the number of GIs killed during the first Gulf War (148) it seems almost astronomical. Let's compare some numbers:

Gulf War I - 148 Americans (400 counting friendly fire), 100,000 Iraqis

Mogadishu ("Black Hawk Down") - 18 Americans , 500-1000 Somalis

Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada) - 19 Americans (14 of those due to friendly-fire), 45 Grenadians, 24 Cubans (Pentagon estimate)

Operation Just Cause (Panama) - 23 Americans, 314 Panamanian

Vietnam - 58,000 Americans, 5,100,000 Vietnamese

Of course, I am being selective here. But my point is, how will Americans react if the number passes 1,000 by November? Will it effect their vote? It's entirely possible. So the question remains: Will the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq reach 1,000 by November?

http://www.bcpolitics.ca/int_stats.htm
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20020925.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Just_Cause

[mike_c]

1. not intending any disrespect...

...but this is a pretty ghoulish poll. Casualties will undoubtedly continue to increase on both sides for as long as the occupation goes on. Foreign troops MUST leave Iraq as soon as possible!

[Fenris]

3. I don't mean to be ghoulish

I am just curious as to how many people on this board, after examining the rate at which soldiers have died during the war, think the number will pass 1000 by November. I think I just want to see if others see this as a major point in post-Vietnam history.

[ThomWV]

2. On The Day There Are 1,000 Dead

There will be a turmoil in the streets that will rival New York City at midnight, Times Square, and it won't be friendly.

[wryter2000]

4. I hope you're right, Thom

I was going to vote "no," but I just saw another thread that reported over 200 Americans dead in Iraq in April and May alone.

Remember when Whistle Ass ordered his underlings that there would be NO MORE deaths after March?

[DieboldMustDie]

12. I hate to say it...

but when the 1000^th American dies in Iraq, very few people in the U.S. will even know it. :shrug:

[Ms. Clio]

5. At least 1,000

Could be as high as 1,500, or more, if this is any indication:

April-May GI Iraq Death Toll Tops 200
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x591850

[Radical Activist]

6. When you have to name something "operation just cause"

isn't that an obvious tip-off that it isn't a just cause at all? Like they knew it was a bunch of BS so they had to give it a good sounding name to fool people. Kind of like...Operation Enduring Freedom.

The other things that strikes me about this list is how effective the US military is at killing large numbers of people. There can't be another military in the history of the world that always had such lopsided victories in terms of the number of the enemy killed compared to the number of their own soldiers killed. Does this mean the US is killing a large number of civilians as a matter of routine?

[Alex146]

7. After Viet Nam US lives seem to have become much more valued

Before Viet Nam we would have considered Mogadishu to be a huge victory, now it's a huge defeat.

[mistertrickster]

8. I think what bothers Americans more than the death toll (unfortunately)

is the seeming lack of progress. The rate of deaths have increased, not decreased, the longer we're there.

This makes a lot of people wonder how we can be making "progress" if the death toll is going up not down . . .

[mopaul]

9. get your death and injury statistics here...............

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Details.aspx

[MI Cherie]

10. Just wondering ...

... are "friendly fire" deaths or other accidents included in the toll? I seem to remember at one time they had different count numbers. Their numbers also didn't include those who died of their injuries off the battlefield (hours, days, or weeks later), either.

[haele]

11. I hate to say this...

But if things continue the way they are, and the US does not begin pulling out troops from the patrols and prisons by the end of July, we will see 1000+ US troop dead in "combat" - or by "insurgent activity" by Labor Day. In fact, I'd predict between 1500-2000 combat deaths by November in the aforementioned situation - not to mention an additional 100+ "Coaltition" civilian deaths due to "terrorist" activities should the military not begin to pull out at the June 30th "turnover".

As it is, we've already seen over 1000 official casualties languishing on the streets after they've been discharged from active duty without some sort of follow up medical care, job re-training or housing assistance...

Haele

[Darranar]

13. Sadly, yes. n/t

[lanparty]

14. July ...

We'll certainly reach 1,000 by July. The pace of insurgency QUICKENS ... it does NOT wane. The introduction of all the pictures will make things worse. The lines are drawn and WE are on the wrong side.

I suspect that the Bush admin will be giving out careful orders to avoid another "fallujah" style engagement. Effectively, Bush will tie the hands of commanders in the field. Our troops will go into "defensive" mode.

Ironically, this might produce better results. :shrug:

[Leprechan29]

15. 200 in 6 months?

thats about 33 per month, about 1 per day. We will easily reach it if the rate holds relatively steady.

And it is sad that the rate is at its level. In my local paper there was an editorial yesterday (30 May 2004) that said that the war dead we acceptable, based on losses in the past, and the casualty rates of previous conflicts. However, it compared the casualty rate to that of WWII and Korea and Vietnam, an intrinsic flaw. (I know this is a tanget, but bear with me) Since Vietnam, casualties for a conflict, especially one that is seen in some circles as unjust and/or illegal are unacceptable at any rate. It seems that the losses suffered today are a major departure from conflicts such as Grenada and Kosovo, possibly a sign of how dedicated the insurgent forces are.

[Delano]

16. This is a disgusting poll.

It totally plays into the wrong notion that we democrats "want more troops to die so that Bush will lose" It also serves no constructive purpose.

[Bombtrack]

17. I hope it doesn't, but I've thought about it and it's probable

Really sucks.

[kentuck]

18. I hope not...

Not a thought I wish to entertain at this time..