Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Media: The Christian Science Monitor
Byline: Brad Knickerbocker |
Date: August 29, 2006
As the controversial war in Iraq continues, Defense Department officials and
civilian experts are getting a clearer picture of American combat
casualties.
Among the emerging details: The fatality rate is markedly less than in
previous conflicts. But while all wars are different, the nature of combat
in Iraq, plus advances in battlefield medicine, mean that the number of
wounded remains relatively high. Enlisted ground troops are most at risk,
but the young lieutenants who lead them on patrol are even more likely to be
killed or wounded.
Lessons learned and historical context are at stake here. But officials also
want to make sure the casualty reporting procedures are accurate and
adequate, especially for the families of those lost or wounded.
The US Army acknowledged over the weekend that it is reexamining hundreds of
casualty reports in response to criticisms of inaccuracies, such as
instances initially attributed to enemy action that turned out to have been
by friendly fire.
All unit-level investigations of battlefield deaths are being checked to see
if they square with records kept by the Army's Casualty Assistance Center in
Alexandria, Va.
Meanwhile, experts at the University of Pennsylvania have examined Defense
Department fatality figures for Iraq and Afghanistan to compare levels of
risk between the services now and in earlier wars. What they found, said
Professor Samuel Preston, a leading demographer, is that the fatality rate
among service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan is "very much lower"
than it was in the Vietnam War. But at the same time, Dr. Preston says, the
relative number of nonfatal casualties is not much different from what it
was in Vietnam.
"In part, we're able to keep injured people alive in a better way than we
did before," he said.
Because of new body armor and advances in military medicine, for example,
the ratio of combat-zone deaths to those wounded has dropped from 24 percent
in Vietnam to 13 percent in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, the
numbers of those killed as a percentage of overall casualties is lower. At
this writing, 2,955 American service men and women have been killed (2,622
in Iraq and 333 in Afghanistan), and 20,174 have been wounded.
Experts are also comparing battlefield casualties with other areas of
American society, such as young men living in violence-prone urban areas.
Young black men in Philadelphia, for example, have a death rate 11 percent
higher than troops in Iraq, according to Preston.
Among other things, Preston and University of Pennsylvania student Emily
Buzzell found that Hispanics have a slightly higher "death risk" than
non-Hispanics and that blacks have a death risk that is lower than nonblacks
- both a function of the kinds of units most of those two groups serve in.
The Marine Corps, for example, contains a disproportionately higher number
of Hispanics than other military branches and also carries a higher casualty
rate.
Among both Army soldiers and marines, enlisted personnel have a 40 percent
higher mortality rate than officers. The exception is Army and Marine Corps
lieutenants - junior officers who typically lead combat patrols and who have
a markedly higher mortality rate than all soldiers and marines.
What's not fully clear at this point in the war is the long-term effects of
intense combat that involves urban fighting, seemingly random roadside
bombs, and suicide bombers targeting US forces. Saving more American lives
in the war zones means more people must be treated for amputations and other
serious injuries, perhaps for the rest of their lives. Also, the New England
Journal of Medicine reported in 2005 that 19 percent of Marine infantrymen
and 17 percent of Army infantrymen studied in four units in Iraq and
Afghanistan "met the screening criteria" for depression, anxiety, or
postraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
For the Army and the Marine Corps in particular, which have some of the most
dangerous jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan, casualty rates can affect personnel
recruiting and retention efforts, not only for psychological reasons but
because the military must replace the 500 or so troops lost each month to
battlefield deaths, injuries, illness, and psychological problems tied to
combat.
Still, considering the intensity and duration of the campaigns in Iraq and
Afghanistan, US losses have been remarkably light, some experts assert.
"Recognizing the political consequences of casualties, US commanders are a
good deal more cautious in risking the lives of soldiers than they might
have been at Gettysburg or Anzio," says Loren Thompson, a military analyst
with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.
Critics say multiple war-zone tours and the recent involuntary call-up of
reserve soldiers and marines amounts to a "backdoor draft" that further
complicates recruiting efforts. Some who supported the US-led invasion of
Iraq generally agree.
"The message prospective recruits are getting is that if you never
volunteered you won't be called, but if you did volunteer, you can be called
again and again, even against your will," says Dr. Thompson. "This seems to
be fundamentally unfair. The government demands that a small number of
citizens who have already served carry even more of the burden, while it
makes no demands at all on the vast majority of people."
Byline: Brad Knickerbocker |
Date: August 29, 2006
As the controversial war in Iraq continues, Defense Department officials and
civilian experts are getting a clearer picture of American combat
casualties.
Among the emerging details: The fatality rate is markedly less than in
previous conflicts. But while all wars are different, the nature of combat
in Iraq, plus advances in battlefield medicine, mean that the number of
wounded remains relatively high. Enlisted ground troops are most at risk,
but the young lieutenants who lead them on patrol are even more likely to be
killed or wounded.
Lessons learned and historical context are at stake here. But officials also
want to make sure the casualty reporting procedures are accurate and
adequate, especially for the families of those lost or wounded.
The US Army acknowledged over the weekend that it is reexamining hundreds of
casualty reports in response to criticisms of inaccuracies, such as
instances initially attributed to enemy action that turned out to have been
by friendly fire.
All unit-level investigations of battlefield deaths are being checked to see
if they square with records kept by the Army's Casualty Assistance Center in
Alexandria, Va.
Meanwhile, experts at the University of Pennsylvania have examined Defense
Department fatality figures for Iraq and Afghanistan to compare levels of
risk between the services now and in earlier wars. What they found, said
Professor Samuel Preston, a leading demographer, is that the fatality rate
among service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan is "very much lower"
than it was in the Vietnam War. But at the same time, Dr. Preston says, the
relative number of nonfatal casualties is not much different from what it
was in Vietnam.
"In part, we're able to keep injured people alive in a better way than we
did before," he said.
Because of new body armor and advances in military medicine, for example,
the ratio of combat-zone deaths to those wounded has dropped from 24 percent
in Vietnam to 13 percent in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, the
numbers of those killed as a percentage of overall casualties is lower. At
this writing, 2,955 American service men and women have been killed (2,622
in Iraq and 333 in Afghanistan), and 20,174 have been wounded.
Experts are also comparing battlefield casualties with other areas of
American society, such as young men living in violence-prone urban areas.
Young black men in Philadelphia, for example, have a death rate 11 percent
higher than troops in Iraq, according to Preston.
Among other things, Preston and University of Pennsylvania student Emily
Buzzell found that Hispanics have a slightly higher "death risk" than
non-Hispanics and that blacks have a death risk that is lower than nonblacks
- both a function of the kinds of units most of those two groups serve in.
The Marine Corps, for example, contains a disproportionately higher number
of Hispanics than other military branches and also carries a higher casualty
rate.
Among both Army soldiers and marines, enlisted personnel have a 40 percent
higher mortality rate than officers. The exception is Army and Marine Corps
lieutenants - junior officers who typically lead combat patrols and who have
a markedly higher mortality rate than all soldiers and marines.
What's not fully clear at this point in the war is the long-term effects of
intense combat that involves urban fighting, seemingly random roadside
bombs, and suicide bombers targeting US forces. Saving more American lives
in the war zones means more people must be treated for amputations and other
serious injuries, perhaps for the rest of their lives. Also, the New England
Journal of Medicine reported in 2005 that 19 percent of Marine infantrymen
and 17 percent of Army infantrymen studied in four units in Iraq and
Afghanistan "met the screening criteria" for depression, anxiety, or
postraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
For the Army and the Marine Corps in particular, which have some of the most
dangerous jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan, casualty rates can affect personnel
recruiting and retention efforts, not only for psychological reasons but
because the military must replace the 500 or so troops lost each month to
battlefield deaths, injuries, illness, and psychological problems tied to
combat.
Still, considering the intensity and duration of the campaigns in Iraq and
Afghanistan, US losses have been remarkably light, some experts assert.
"Recognizing the political consequences of casualties, US commanders are a
good deal more cautious in risking the lives of soldiers than they might
have been at Gettysburg or Anzio," says Loren Thompson, a military analyst
with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va.
Critics say multiple war-zone tours and the recent involuntary call-up of
reserve soldiers and marines amounts to a "backdoor draft" that further
complicates recruiting efforts. Some who supported the US-led invasion of
Iraq generally agree.
"The message prospective recruits are getting is that if you never
volunteered you won't be called, but if you did volunteer, you can be called
again and again, even against your will," says Dr. Thompson. "This seems to
be fundamentally unfair. The government demands that a small number of
citizens who have already served carry even more of the burden, while it
makes no demands at all on the vast majority of people."