The real number of GIs "wounded" in Iraq

[Ugg]

Link (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1041722,00.html)

The true scale of American casualties in Iraq is revealed today by new figures obtained by The Observer, which show that more than 6,000 American servicemen have been evacuated for medical reasons since the beginning of the war, including more than 1,500 American soldiers who have been wounded, many seriously.

It is military police policy to announce that a soldier has been wounded only if they were involved in an incident that involved a death.

Critics of the policy say it hides the true extent of the casualties. The new figures reveal that 1,178 American soldiers have been wounded in combat operations since the war began on 20 March.

It is believed many of the American casualties evacuated from Iraq are seriously injured. Modern body armour, worn by almost all American troops, means wounds that would normally kill a man are avoided. However vulnerable arms and legs are affected badly. This has boosted the proportion of maimed among the injured.

I find it very disturbing that a soldier can only be wounded if he was involved in a death. That is truly sick and twisted and another sign of the massive disinformation campaign being carried out by the Pentagon and the WH. One wonders how this will affect a soldier's pay, Nope, even though you are missing an arm and a leg, we cannot consider you wounded..... Is this effed up or what?

[Pinto]

It's all about not letting the public know what's really going on.

If the US is having a hard time, what about the Iraqis themselves.

Iraqi deaths from gunshot wounds are running at about 1000 per week at the moment. Many are from looting, revenge killings and people being shot by the US army at check points. It's a bit hard to know how many are being killed by the US daily as they only report to the media events that involve US deaths.

The Iraqis don't count.

[Backtothemac]

Having served, I can tell you this is a BS story.

Wounded is wounded, and KIA is KIA. Now, they may not report to the media, but that is not true. Look daily. 10 troops wounded, 1 killed etc.

Everything in life isn't a coverup.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Having served, I can tell you this is a BS story.

Wounded is wounded, and KIA is KIA. Now, they may not report to the media, but that is not true. Look daily. 10 troops wounded, 1 killed etc.

Everything in life isn't a coverup.

Not everything in life is honest and crystal clear, either. Need I remind you, two presidents made a concerted effort to mislead the American people about what was going on in Vietnam. They calculated that it would all work out in the end, and that their lies would be vindicated by victory.

I can't say with absolute certainty that this story is completely correct; but neither can you say with any authority that it is not.

[Ugg]

"Since the war has started, I can't give you an exact number because that's classified information, but I can say to you over 4,000 have stayed here at Andrews, and that number doubles when you count the people that come here to Andrews and then we send them to other places like Walter Reed and Bethesda, which are in this area also," Col DeLane told National Public Radio.

He said 90% of injuries were directly war-related.

Some of that number may involve double-counting - if a soldier stays at the Andrews clinic on the way to Washington and then again on the way back to the war or back home, for example. But the actual number of wounded still appears to be much higher than the official figures.

"When the facility where I'm at started absorbing the people coming back from theatre [in April], those numbers went up significantly - I'd say over 1,200," Col DeLane said.


"That number even went up higher in the month of May, to about 1,500, and continues to increase."

link (http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html)


He is among 17 Marine reservists from Fox Company, drawn mainly from Utah and Nevada, awarded Purple Hearts for wounds received in combat.

___ They are called WIAs for wounded in action, but their numbers are not listed under casualty postings from the U.S. Central Command or the Pentagon. Reporters must specifically ask for those tallies.
___ So far, 1,007 U.S. military personnel have been wounded since March 19 when U.S. troops crossed the border into Iraq, said Lt. Ryan Fitzgerald from Central Command. That number compares with 467 "nonmortal wounds" in the 1991 Gulf War, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
___ "I know of no other war in which WIAs have not been listed among the casualties," said Robert Voyles, director of the Fort Douglas Museum. "I have no idea why this conflict would be any different."
___ Fitzgerald said WIA numbers are not publicized because the military has no way of determining the severity of the wounds.
___ "Someone could get a couple of stitches for a cut and return to duty that same afternoon," he said. "That's why we give these numbers on a response basis to reporters. This is to help the media. Otherwise, we would have to refer them to each of the four services for the determination."
___ Lt. Col. Cynthia Colin at the Pentagon said the Department of Defense posts only battle deaths because that is the number provided by Central Command.
___ 'We can't put out numbers we don't have," she said. "It's my understanding that day-to-day incidents are more difficult to track."
___ The DOD lists the number of U.S. battle deaths in Iraq on its Web site, http://www.Defense link.mil: 174 in Operation Iraqi Freedom, compared to 148 in the first Gulf War.
___ Utah National Guard historian Richard Roberts, a retired colonel, said he fears that the number of WIAs isn't posted because of political efforts to downplay consequences of the war.
___ "There's always more wounded than those who are killed," he said. "The number of battle deaths is tragic, but it's only a part of what's happening in a war."


LINK (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/aug/08172003/utah/84646.asp)



The following article discusses the same issue and tells of the overflowing military hospitals. It also has a graph of the wounded.


WA Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12096-2003Sep1.html)


Why would the number of wounded be classified? It sounds as though the Pentagon along with gw & co. wants to pull the wool over our eyes yet again.