Break down of US Iraq casualties

<p>In another thread, someone made the statement that "Iraqi's are killing US solidiers every day." Someone else posted a link to the CNN site (<a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;)
that showed all of the casualties in the war and listed the cause of death for each. As I read through the list, it began to occur to me that many of the deaths were not combat related, so I spent some time adding up the CAUSE of death of the over 1100 men and women killed to date.</p>

<p>Surprisingly, over 600 of the deaths - over 50% - were NOT directly attributable to Iraqi actions against our military troops. Instead, these military personnel died from things like vehicle accidents (lots of those), heart attacks, collapsing after training exercises, non-combat accidents (electrocution and drowning accidents), non-combat equipment malfunctions and a host of other things. Many of these deaths are things that occur with relative frequency among troops stationed here in the U.S. so to a certain extent, I'm not sure it's even fair to say being in Iraq caused some of these deaths.</p>

<p>My question: should the media be breaking the cause of death down in their coverage? Especially when they make a big to-do about "surpassing 1000 deaths" --- yet over 50% of those deaths were not combat related?</p>

<p>Maybe it's just my opinion, but they're all combat related. The accidents, drownings, electrocutions, all of these things are combat related because most of them happened en route to operations and the likes. I looked at that site a while ago too and was surprised, but not in the sense that, "Hey why are they saying 1,000!!>!@ its like 50% combat related!!11" but more like, "Wow that's depressing that our soldiers are over there and either being shot at or getting in accidents or whatever you want to say. Depressing that they volunteer their life to defend our country and in whatever way they may have died, beacuse of this war they did." I'm sort of rambling, sorry. I'm against the war and that statistic almost makes the 1,000 plus a stronger statistic than without it.</p>

<p>Yes, they're all combat related. But shouldn't we be told that they are not all directly being caused by the Iraqi's? I just used this example in another discussion. Suppose the media started blasting headlines saying "1000 Colleges Students DIE on Campus every YEAR!!!" Yes, they are all college-related deaths. But, wouldn't you want to know that some are suicides, some are natural causes, some are accidents, some are alcohol poisonings? How long do you think it would before some parents would start saying "College is too dangerous! I'm not letting my kids go!" without knowing the reasons for the deaths? It's the same with Iraq. Yes, Iraq is a DANGEROUS place to be - absolutely. But the danger is not exclusively from the Iraqi insurgents, it's also from equipment malfunction (and we need to do something about that!), accidents, illnesses (maybe we shouldn't be sending older reservists who have a higher chance of heart attacks), and other things.</p>

<p>well you could also look at it another way, all the deaths may not be directly combat related, but there are many many injuries both physical and mental that may not be tabulated either in the media
Example, a friend of my daughters I have mentioned him before as he was the only National Merit Scholar in her class, opted to work in Micronesia teaching school before he went to college, then decided instead to go into the Marines and volunteered to go to Iraq because he was uncomfortable with his recruitment position.
He was in a vehicle that hit a IED and while his commanding officer was killed, he lost his foot. Being an amputee is going to have a profound impact on the rest of his life, and I haven't seen any lists of soldiers who have been severely wounded.
I still run into people that were so traumatized by war, particularly Vietnam that they are unable to function. Just go up to any group of homeless men, and I bet you will run into a few. Their lives have been harmed, but they aren't in the lists of casualties either.</p>

<p>Absolutely agree with you Emerald. I'd like to see the media reporting on injuries as well. Actually the site I listed on the other thread has links to sites that do tabulate injuries fairly accurately. Something like 8500 combat related injuries just to US military. No count of civilian injuries that I could find. It really is horrible.</p>