Why this month's casualties in Iraq are even worse than you think

[alcibiades_mystery]

OK. This month has been horrendous in terms of US troops killed (and wounded) in Iraq. But it's even worse than that. I noticed, in looking over the death figures for this month, that nearly all the dead seem to have been killed in hostile action. This seemed to differ from previous high death-rate months, during which, to my memory, many more of those who died seemed to have been killed in some non-hostile incident. With a bit of review, I saw that my observation is borne out by the facts:

October 2006 (85 total, as of October 22): 82 killed by hostile fire, 3 killed in "non-hostile" accidents/incidents (3.5%)
November 2005 (85 total, all month): 72 killed by hostile fire, 13 killed in "non-hostile" accidents/incidents (15%)
October 2006 (96 total, all month): 77 killed by hostile fire, 19 killed in "non-hostile" accidents/incidents (19.7%)
January 2005 (107 total, all month): 54 killed by hostile fire, 53 killed in "non-hostile" accidents/incidents (49%)
November 2004 (137 total, all month): 125 killed by hostile fire, 12 killed in "non-hostile" accidents/incidents (8.7%)
April 2004 (135 total, all month): 126 killed by hostile fire, 9 killed in "non-hostile" accidents/incidents (6.6%)
November 2003 (82 total, all month): 70 killed by hostile fire, 12 killed in "non-hostile" accidents/incidents (14.6%)

Now, I only checked the months that had greater than 80 total KIAs, but by those figures, this October has had the highest rate of hostile-action KIAs of the war. I'd be willing to bet that this would stand for all months (it would be a nice project if anyone has the time to do all that counting). This month, 96.5% of US KIAs were killed in hostile action. Compare the months with the highest death tolls: November 2004 (91.3%) and April 2004 (93.4%).

Now, one can draw a number of conclusions from this raw data. First, one could say that our troops are nbetter trained in the environment and therefore dying less due to accident. One would expect, however, to see a gradual decline in the ratio if that were the case, and that doesn't seem bhorne out by the data. Last month, 10 of 71 KIA's were due to non-hostile incidents (14%); the month before, it was 7 of 65 (roughly 11%). The drop off to 3.5% seems significant. The other explanation is that the amount and intensity of the hostile action has increased. This seems more likely. You'll also notice that in raw numbers of deaths by hostile action, this is the third worst month of the war, exceeded only by the major battles in Fallujah and Najaf (November 2004) and the first Shiite uprising and Fallujah incursions (April 2004). What is remarkable about this month is that no major assault is associated with the high rate of hostile fire KIAs. The violence is just as deadly, and utterly dispersed...

[Blackthorn]

1. Purely speculation

But it might explain the "unconfirmed" reports of casualties from the Camp Falcon attack.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Because of the high number of Marine deaths this month, I'd rule that out

You wouldn't fudge service, to boot.

Besides, I'm not sure why you place quotation marks around "unconfirmed." Any deaths from Camp Falcon are, in fact, unconfirmed. I've only heard of dubious Internet reports, all leading back to a single VERY dubious source. Yes, yes. I know. We can't believe ANYTHING they say, etc. But we either speak about substantiated evidence, or we barely need bother speak at all. Until we have even the mildest of confirmations that any US personnel died in the Camp Falcon attack (we don't have even a shred), any discussion of it is, as you say, purely speculative, and probably unproductive.

I can only deal with substantiated fact, and attempt to interpret it. Flights of fancy and weirdo Internet rumors are what they are, and we believe them or not based on our desires to believe more than anything else.

[Blackthorn]

7. I agree.

However, when I preface my post with "purely speculation" the post should be read as if I am speculating, not asserting.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. And where did I ever assert that you were asserting?

:crazy:

[Blackthorn]

10. Play semantics if you wish.

"I can only deal with substantiated fact, and attempt to interpret it. Flights of fancy and weirdo Internet rumors are what they are, and we believe them or not based on our desires to believe more than anything else."

I was posting in response to this. I'm more than happy to make leaps beyond facts provided the rationale and logic makes sense.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Ah, but rationale and logic are often flimsy costumes for

the desire to believe...

[Blackthorn]

13. I don't appreciate the implication

Are you religious? Do you have a similar attitude to people who believe that 2000 years ago god got Mary preggers who had the son of god who died for our sins and rose three days later. People believe this story word for word, yet *I'M* the crazy one for thinking that there were significant loses in the Camp Falcon attack.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Who said you were crazy?

Not me. I also am NOT religious, so there goes that tactic.

My point is this: the seeming plausibility for high casualties in the Camp Falcon attack goes up when we want to believe it. This has nothing to do with being crazy. Lacking evidence, we believe what we want to believe, then call it logical afterwards.

[Blackthorn]

18. You didn't say it, you implied it.

"Lacking evidence, we believe what we want to believe, then call it logical afterwards."

I find your use of the word "we" incredibly condescending. You don't know me, but you seem to know exactly how I (should) think.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. I'd noticed the same thing.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who sits around obsessively poring over statistical details at that site.

Another thing that I've noticed is that the percentage of fatalities from small arms fire seems to have increased dramatically.

[catmandu57]

6. Snipers?

The news has been reporting on an increase in snipers lately, that may account for the increase in small arms deaths and the decrease of accidental.
That, or it may be more misinformation.

[madrchsod]

4. i`m trying to figure out the the air med evactuation

of over 17,000 personal due to disease.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Kick

[Jeffersons Ghost]

9. K&R when you bash um with anti-war, I'll even vote for your OP

i suspect we're in the deadliest month EVER in Iraq but they've banished most of the embedded news reporters. i leave to others to speculate on why.

[lonestarnot]

12. Nope, no they are not, because I never believe anything they say. Never.

[Keepontruking]

14. Deaths

Don't believe every thing you read and everything you hear
unless it is straight from the source!!!!!!!!   "Circus
Girl  and sometimes they don't even know why........

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Huh?

What are you even talking about?

[canetoad]

15. Growing numbers of young men

are travelling to Iraq to join the Jihad against US troops.

Seems it's turning into a cause for young muslim men (and probably quite a few others too) to make a sort of pilgramage to Iraq to show solidarity with the Iraqi resistance. ABC (AU not US) screened a doco recently. Sorry, no video, but here is the program website
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1756296.htm