What
is the real story on the deaths of US occupation
troops in Iraq? 
July 24, 2003Questions Remain
About U.S. Deaths in Iraq
By Greg Mitchell
NEW YORK -- SINCE my article for
E&P Online one week ago about the media
misrepresenting the American death toll in Iraq, we
have been flooded with e-mails commenting on this
subject. Many have raised troubling new angles or
provided tips on mysteries surrounding "non-combat"
fatalities, which we are investigating.
 Eric
Mueller comments: THIS is a story that
has been brought to my
attention. It is from Editor & Publisher,
and consists of letters from readers
in the US many of whom agree with the
author of the piece who maintains that the
death toll among US military in Iraq is
grossly under reported, and the coverage
of the deaths cursory at best. One letter compares the accident rate
in peace time with that reported for Iraq.
Others note specific instances unreported
in the media. Still others point out that
the US press offered individual
biographies on all the victims of the
September 11, 2001 attack and in the
attack on the US warship in Aden, but
somehow the service personnel killed in
Iraq are virtually ignored. THIS is in total contrast with the
coverage of the Vietnam war when the
network news would, as I recall, publish
pictures and names of dead American
servicemen once a week. It seems clear that there is a near
blackout on news of casualties among the
military personnel in Iraq, for whose
welfare the Administration wants to appear
so solicitous. Presumably this is a
concerted effort to prevent the emergence
of a "Viet Nam Syndrome" of public
aversion to foreign military adventures.
But how is it that a "free" press in which
each publication may supposedly report
whatever is in the public record can be
made to march in lock step? Arabist Eric Mueller
is this website's expert on Middle Eastern
affairs. He is a featured speaker at this
year's Real
History weekend at Cincinnati, August
29-September 3, 2003. |
It is too soon to tell whether this article, and
the wide discussion it seems to have provoked, has
had an effect on coverage. The article charged that
the media, taking a cue from the Pentagon,
routinely refers only to U.S. deaths by combat in
Iraq since early May (now around 40) rather than
the much higher number of all deaths (now
approaching 100), which include an unusually high
number of motor accidents, suicides, and
unexplained "non-combat" deaths.As recently as Wednesday, the front page of
The New York Times referred simply to
"attacks that have killed 40 American soldiers
since President Bush declared the end of major
combat in May." On the same day, however, a CNN update took the
unusual approach of mentioning the total death toll
first, before noting the lower number of deaths in
combat. Two days ago we presented a selection from the
first batch of e-mail response to the article. Here
is another provocative sample:  My
husband is a war veteran and it makes the two of us
crazy that the media is doing this. Hope you don't
mind but everytime I hear or see a reporter do this
I am quoting you and your article with a link to
it. The attempt to sanitize the deaths of these
soldiers is shameful. Joan and Pete
Ingolia
Besides
more accurate reporting on U. S. troops killed in
Iraq, I'm curious about those listed simply as
wounded. There is a tendency to assume, well, OK,
they were "just" wounded, just a flesh wound, that
sort of thing, they'll recover nicely with
treatment and down-home, self-deprecating humor
from Hawkeye and Trapper. Instead, "wounded" might
mean the loss of limbs, having one's legs blown off
by a mine. Sadly, I doubt the majority of the
public appreciates this possibility, given a
lifetime of TV and movies where the hero takes a
bullet, rips off part of his sleeve with his teeth,
bandages himself up, and soldiers on heroically.
Perhaps it might be more meaningful to replace
"wounded" with "maimed" or "disfigured" or whatever
is the appropriate word under the circumstances.
Robert P.J. Day I
resent the spin you are trying to place on the
number of Americans killed in Iraq. You are trying
to make out that the "Mainstream Media" is in
cahoots with the government in an attempt to hide
the death tolls. I know you are trying to do a job
but please lay off the yellow journalism. I agree
with you that all of these deaths are tragic, but
the military is a DANGEROUS occupation, even in
peace time. I would be willing to bet that the
percentage of non-combative deaths is comparable to
the death count for any given theater where U.S.
personnel are stationed. Have you ever read Stars
and Stripes? A day doesn't go by where you don't
read about some poor person who gets killed through
accident, stupidity, or otherwise. So stop making
it out that the truth is being hidden from the
American people. Scott Wilson Some
claim that the "non-combat" death rate is little
different than what you find in the usual
"peacetime" Army. I've found Department of Defense
statistics ("Mortality Trends Among Active Duty
Personnel, 1992-2001," MSMR Volume 09,
Number 01, January 2003) which cite a peacetime
mortality rate of 57.38 soldiers per 100,000 per
year, all services. Fifty-three percent of all
deaths were "attributable to accidents," while
twenty percent were suicides, and eighteen percent
disease deaths. None were combat-related; this is a
peacetime survey. So, given the Iraq deployment of
approximately 150,000 American soldiers, sailors,
and airmen, and taking the first two months since
Mr. Bush declared the end of major combat
operations -- if you do the math you would expect
7.6 fatalities in peacetime. But the number of
stated accidental deaths among American military
personnel in Iraq approximates 60 for that period.
An army at war is much more accident-prone than one
at peace these days, but is it more than eight
times more so? Or is reporting "combat deaths"
(i.e., deaths directly caused by an enemy
combatant) as distinctly different than "accidental
deaths" making a facile distinction? Shouldn't the
cause of these deaths be examined and reported more
fully, and categorized by the press according to a
more subtle, independent standard, and not one that
parrots the monochrome one of the Pentagon? Reports
that echo Pentagon pronouncements shaded to
encourage Americans to believe that Iraq is a less
dangerous place for its troops than it really is
serve an administration that seeks to minimize the
cost of this invasion. As a second matter, today's
combat evacuation and care system is the very best,
and saves the lives of soldiers who would have
surely died from their wounds if they had sustained
them in World War II or even Vietnam. That is an
improvement that should be applauded, but it
conceals the level of violence in modern American
warfare generally, and in Iraq, specifically, when
comparing it with past American conflicts. Failing
to cite the number of wounded or accidentally
injured along with the accidentally and
deliberately killed makes Iraq seem safer than it
is for American troops. Again, I think this a
disservice to the truth and the press should expose
it. Brian Broadus Charlottesville, Va. Don't
you find it difficult to believe that with
occasional exception, only -- and exactly -- one
soldier is reported killed every day? With 150,000
spread over a hostile field the size of California,
are the odds not against such arithmetic? If more
than one soldier is killed at remote and separate
parts of Iraq, and they are from remote and
separate parts of America, why report more than one
death on that day? Who will know? Why not play into
the evident American comfort with one loss per day?
Mark Dowie Has ANY U.S. newspaper published an exhaustive
survey of U.S., Allied, and Iraqi casualties due to
the war and occupation? As an aside, one might want
to point out that the official cause of death
listed as a "non-hostile" gunshot wound is either:
A) An accidental discharge, which is not something
that generally happens when soldiers are in
garrison, and thus should be counted as a combat
casualty -- just like "friendly fire" or "blue on
blue" deaths; or B) Suicide, which is particularly
disturbing, because it means that officers leading
the troops are missing the warning signs of a
suicidal subject. Brad Smith, Los
Angeles Thanks
for the article. It was cathartic. T.
Takemoto Although
I was sickened when I read your story, I was not
surprised. I have long suspected that these
so-called "accidents" were occurring under sinister
circumstances. Yes, war breeds such tragedies. But
in this war, they are occurring in far greater
proportion than normal, and that's because they
aren't really accidents. As to the suicides, they
also need to be scrutinized. Just what drives these
young people with their entire lives ahead of them
to reach such a low point? I have observed that
during the entire course of this misadventure, the
so-called "free press" has largely behaved in the
manner of a government-owned propaganda agency. I
urge you to continue shining a light into this dark
corner of the war effort. John R. Lusk Lakewood,
Ohio I
have written all three networks and NPR about the "
30 dead since May 1st" phenomenon in the media. It
is disgusting that they do not number all dead and
wounded from day 1. There are over a thousand
wounded but we don't hear about it. And yes, it is
clear there is alot of combat related vehicular
"accidents." As usual the media doesn't want the
people to be informed. Jane Bardis
Jenks Another
fascinating aspect of the reporting of casualties
in Iraq, or lack of reporting, is the dearth of
reporting on the deaths of Iraqi citizens (soldier
or civilian) since the "end" of the war -- except
the celebration at the killing of Saddam's sons.
Since the Iraqis are a supposedly free people now,
and their country is under occupation by U.S. and
other foreign entities, it would seem that death
and injury to these people might warrant some
coverage. Iraqbodycount.net now reports between
6,000 and 7,800 civilian deaths in Iraq. But not a
whisper of this in the mainstream news, and not
much in the alternative press either. Everytime I
hear a news report that begins, "Another American
soldier was killed today...." I wonder about the
Iraqis also killed, and how those deaths can be so
blithely ignored. In as little as five words, i.e.
"Twelve Iraqis were also killed," a small measure
of balance could be brought to the reporting.
Thanks for your enlightening article and the chance
to comment. Ames Flagg Johnson, Vt. Source: Editor & Publisher Online Greg
Mitchell is editor of E&P. 
Locals say
[Hussein] brothers fought and died as
heroes
|
![[]](../../std/dings/list.gif){kind=small}
write to David
Irving