JULY 17, 2003
Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq
Soldiers Dead Since May Is 3 Times Official Count

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK -- News Analysis

Any way you look at it, the news is bad enough. According to Thursday's press and television reports, 33 U.S. soldiers have now died in combat since President Bush declared an end to the major fighting in the war on May 2. This, of course, is a tragedy for the men killed and their families, and a problem for the White House.

But actually the numbers are much worse -- and rarely reported by the media.

According to official military records, the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since May 2 is actually 85. This includes a staggering number of non-combat deaths. Even if killed in a non-hostile action, these soldiers are no less dead, their families no less aggrieved. And it's safe to say that nearly all of these people would still be alive if they were still back in the States.

Nevertheless, the media continues to report the much lower figure of 33 as if those are the only deaths that count.

A Web site called Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx) is tracking the deaths, by whatever cause, of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, based on official Pentagon and CENTCOM press releases and Army Times and CNN casualty trackers. Their current count is 85 since May 2.

Looking at the entire war, there was much fanfare Thursday over the fact that the latest U.S. combat death this week pushed the official total to 148 -- finally topping the 147 figure for Gulf War 1. However, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, the total number of all U.S. deaths, combat and otherwise, in Iraq is actually 224.

This Web site not only counts deaths, it describes each one in whatever detail (often sketchy) the military provides, along with the name and age and home town of each fatality.

An analysis of the 85 deaths by E&P reveals that nearly as many U.S. military personnel have died in vehicle accidents (17) as from gunshot wounds (19). Ten have died after grenade attacks and seven from accidental explosions, another seven in helicopter crashes. Six were killed by what is described as "non-hostile" gunshots, and three have drowned.

The vast majority of those killed -- at least 70% -- were age 18 to 30 but several soldiers in their 40s or 50s have also perished. Pentagon officials also disclosed that there have been about five deaths among troops assigned to the Iraq mission that commanders say might have been suicides. As inquiries continue, one official said the susupected suicides were not clustered in any single time period that might indicate a related cause.

The most recent non-combat death was Cory Ryan Geurin, age 18, a Marine lance corporal from Santee, Calif. "He was standing post on a palace roof in Babylon when he fell approximately 60 feet," the site said.

On July 13, Jaror C. Puello-Coronado, 36, an Army sergeant, died while "manning a traffic point when the operator of a dump truck lost control of the vehicle."

Another soldier, still officially listed as "Unknown," died on July 13 "from a non-hostile gunshot incident," according to the site.

Before that, on July 9, another Marine Lance Corporal, age 20, died in Kuwait "in a vehicle accident."

Many other deaths are only vaguely described as the "result of non-combat injuries." One recent death occurred in a mine-clearing accident. Others "drowned" or "died of natural causes," and still others lost their lives in a "vehicle accident."
---
E&P welcomes letters to the editor: letters@editorandpublisher.com.

Source: Editor & Publisher Online
http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1935586
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P.

...how many Soldiers have died in "accidents". By these numbers non-combat deaths outnumber those killed in hostile action.

Of course they wouldn't reclassify a death by hostile action as an accident to keep the count down would they?

Everyone one of these young people were killed so that that grinning psychopath in Oval Orofice can enrich his family and his cronies.

"Bring em' on" says the cowardly deserter from his Swivel Chair.

Of course nobody who matters is over there. Certainly none of the Children of anybody in his family or Junta.

Support our Troops. Bring them Home!

BUSH LIED AND THOUSANDS DIED. MORE ARE DYING EACH DAY.

This is why I have so much hatred for those who fight for their land.

Why only tears for the oil mersenaries and no mention of Iraqi death?

...EVERY One.

Idealistic and Romantic young men who joined out of a sense of Duty and to seek adventure are not the cause of this War. They are as much victims as the Iraqi's. Pehaps more so because they will have to live with the psychic scars of killing in an unjust cause. Those wounds go to the very Soul.

the statistics for deaths and injury in the US Armed Forces per 100,000 in "peacetime" operations, i.e. deaths from training accidents, traffic accidents, suicides etc?

Then we can put things into perspective.

...Proof of Femat's Last Theorem?

State your point.

Can you tell us how many US armed forces personel die in service per month on average please???

Then we can see if the numbers show a conspiracy with regard to the casualties in Iraq.

Quite simple really.

Britannica maybe?

The point as you well know is an indeterminable. Given that it would be Politically damaging for their to be too many casualties from continued hostilities there is an incentive to minimize the number of deaths from hostile action so as to not arouse public ire.

There is historical precedent for such: Vietnam.

I do not trust proven liars to tell the truth. I guess I am funny that way.

BUSH LIED AND THOUSANDS DIED. And they are still dying.

You publish on Indymedia yet ANOTHER article written by someone else and you do not do any background reading or checking of facts. I DO.

Let us take the article you posted and breake down the first part so you get some sort of a clue how it goes.

Your Intro... ""According to Thursday's press and television reports, 33 U.S. soldiers have now died in combat since President Bush declared an end to the major fighting in the war on May 2""

TOTALLY CORRECT! so where is your story????

""Soldiers Dead Since May Is 3 Times Official Count""

Umm... soldiers dead is EXACTLY official count!!!!

""But actually the numbers are much worse""

Official count is 85 of which 33 were due to hostile actions as the article says.

""According to official military records, the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since May 2 is actually 85""

So the military is releasing figures for the total number of soldiers who have died in Iraq since May 2. I still can't see any cover up.

""Nevertheless, the media continues to report the much lower figure of 33""

The media is reporting the figure 33 as COMBAT deaths.

anyway, you get the jist of the way that article is spinning the figures to suit the authors purpose????

NOW... The important part, YOUR comment!!!!

"Of course they wouldn't reclassify a death by hostile action as an accident to keep the count down would they? "

and I ask, what is the average death rate per 100,000 of deployed US troops due to non-enemy action????

You questioned the government data, now show us how the government are "reclassifying" deaths.

Understand now?

Perhaps a little shrill perhaps?

I think you should lay off the Junk Food for a while it's not good for your already elevated Blood Pressure.

The point of course which you don't want to confront is that we have young men and women dying far from home as the result of a bogus trumped up war which was sold by lies. Lies which become more apparent each day as Duhbya careens from one foot in the mouth to two. I suspect what is occurring with your rather frantic and heated "rebuttal" is that "you just can't handle the truth." You've been had. And now a lot of good kids are dead because of the filthy Son of Bitch you support.

Preying on your conscience?

Maybe G-d will forgive you.

You start with the insults.

I do not deny our armed forces are suffering casualties in Iraq. What I do object to is people like you using the body count to further your political agenda.

That article gave a false impression.....

You are blind to the spin.

Oh well....

...is that? That a bunch of good kids are really not dead? That it is all a bad joke and their families are not really grieving the loss of a loved one? That several thousand Iraqi's are really not dead, dying, or crippled for life?

That the death toll is NOT being understated?

No one, none, nada, zero, or the people in Duhbya's Circle has lost anyone or had anyone in harm's way. Only 1 member of Congress had a son in harm's way.

This is an insider's War which is not in the best interests of the United States. It is a War of Imperial Agression conducted for the personal benefit of small and venal men who see only the personal profit they can extract from this misery. Every kid who has died is testimony to the evil you and your ilk have wrought.

They are blood upon your hands not mine.

Perhaps you find it a trifle, I do not.

You ARE using the deaths of people for YOUR political agenda.

People like you just wet themselves every time someone dies in Iraq because it suits your purpose..

Don't deny it, everyone can see the thread.

What a sad life you lead.....

Irrational person
Are you retarded?
Do you have a valid point?
Dio is simply stating that our US brothers and sisters are fucking DYING everyday fighting this bullshit imperialist campaign.

And you try to turn the shit around to make the anti-war perpective seem happy about continuing US losses.
FUCK YOU.

We are trying to make all you stupid ass war mongers see the TRUTH of the matter.
WE WANT THE SOLDIERS HOME NOW.

The article is trying to INFLATE combat losses to force a political U-turn....

Like it or not WE ARE COMMITED TO SEEING THIS THROUGH.

When your party is in power then you can decide how, when and where US troops are deployed. Until then shut the fuck up and support the troops.

Dives in with the personal insults.

Sad to watch.......

Can't attack the argument attack the poster.

inflating the losses?
The statistics came off a DoD website, so how can I be INFLATING the number.
We will see this through eh?
Please explain for all of us STUPID folks here at Indymedia how the war will be "won".
Please provide details.
Didnt your leader GW already say that the war was over?
Why are people still dying?

When my party is in power?
What does that mean?
The democrats? Dont make me laugh.
They' re as corrupt as your party.

The whole system is corrupt.
I stand for the constitution (somthing you might try reading ) of america. I stand for the American people and justice for all.

And since your so pumped up about "fighting for America"---why didnt you enlist?
Cant wait to hear your excuses.
hA H@ Ha

Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq

now take note of that....... THAT IS THE THREAD.

READ the thread. Now tell us WHERE THE MEDIA UNDERPLAYED the death toll...

The article is saying they are under reporting the number of deaths. The fact is they are reporting COMBAT deaths and stating so. Frequently they also report the NON-COMBAT deaths also in the same report.

Which media????? Tell us who is saying 33 total?

I just did a quick search on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/16/sprj.irq.main/index.html

""BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. soldier was killed Wednesday in an attack on a convoy in Baghdad, bringing the number of American battle deaths in the Iraqi conflict to 148 surpassing the 147 killed in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Thirty-three of those deaths have come in attacks since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1. ""

and later.....

""According to the Pentagon, 222 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, including 148 in hostile fire, since the conflict began in March. In the Gulf War, there were 147 battle deaths and 145 deaths in nonhostile incidents.""

Accurate......

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/19/sprj.irq.main/index.html

""Ambushes have killed 17 U.S. troops in Iraq since President Bush declared an end to major combat May 1, and another 37 have died in what are described as non-hostile incidents. ""

Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq, well CNN isn't, then which media outlet is??????????????????????????????????????

rnp,
From inspection of the link provided, the placement of the paragraph where they accurately state the reported total casualties so far is in the most obscure place it could possibly be. It is underplayed as much as it could be while still being present. Fourth to last paragraph, right before a bold intro to another unrelated section. Anyone who has designed webpages a while knows that the two most important sections of a page are the top and bottom, the bottom much more than you might think, because instinctively people frequently scroll to the bottom of a page before actually reading the page, to scan everything in but in such a fashion as to end the scanning gesture at the point one would begin the reading action. I don't think its a conscious effort by people to do it in this way but repetition breeds effeciency.

Assuming most people have a short attention span and will not read all of the 'recap' section that makes up the second half of damn near any article cnn makes, placing information you want Underplayed right around the 2nd third of that recap material is where it is most likely to not get any attention.

Also consider the information that they wanted percieved was first on the page, in larger text, in bold, next to a picture. It could be no more prominent.

The thread topic was not lying about the casualties, it was underplaying. And that is exactly whats going on. To say nothing of those poor damned iraqis. One of our guys dies and its world headlines, 6000+ of them die and not so much as a blip on the radar. Hell, statistically their armed forces aren't even a relevant number. We could have wasted 20,000 of them walking into baghdad and we'd never know because no one cares. And you rightleaning types be careful, yes i know they are shooting at our guys but was this war ever legal? Did we have justification to invade? If not, can you really blame them from trying to defend their country? They at least deserve a number, some relevance...

inflating the losses?
The statistics came off a DoD website, so how can I be INFLATING the number. (the number of combat losses is being inflate by your ranting and trying to add normal suicide etc deaths to it)

We will see this through eh?
Please explain for all of us STUPID folks here at Indymedia how the war will be "won". (did I say this war would be won??? don't even go there....)

Please provide details.
Didnt your leader GW already say that the war was over? (The first phase is)
Why are people still dying? (um people are still killing each other?)

When my party is in power? (what is your political allegance by the way?)
What does that mean? (back at you...)
The democrats? Dont make me laugh. (me either...)
They' re as corrupt as your party. (what is my "party" seeing as you are on a roll here...)

The whole system is corrupt.
I stand for the constitution ,somthing you might try reading , of america. I stand for the American people and justice for all. (well great for you! I will read it when it comes out in paperback unless I can get a copy on Ebay cheap!!)


And since your so pumped up about "fighting for America"---why didnt you enlist? (aw you really don't want to know do you?.. hey why don't you enlist, fight for what you feel is right!
Cant wait to hear your excuses. (can't wait for you to get a clue ....)
hA H@ Ha (you coughing up a fur ball????)

Upon rereading my last statement it appears unclear why I mention the human inclination towards scanning the document in reverse. The point is that if they were placing the actual fatality numbers right at the end, I would find the case against them of underplaying to be considerably less than where they actually put the real info (buried in the second half recap).

Just wanted to clarify that.

that even COMBAT deaths are not the number one news item any more. I do not feel that the "media" is under reporting the loss of US lives in Iraq, the sad fact is it is not news. When they do report they specify combat (and as CNN is now saying Battle) deaths and totals.

You realise US troops are STILL being killed in Afghanistan???

Anyway I object to the Libertarians and other anti the current administration using the number of dead to advance their cause.

AMERICA is commited in Iraq, like it or not.

...what a disgusting little pimple you are. Reducing the loss of life to some sort of Political Equation.

An agenda? Is the abhorrence of the unnecessary loss of life an agenda? Well, I guess I have an agenda then.

Certainly it is not the one you falsely attempt to imply one of some mere political calculus. Gloat over the loss of American Kids in some God forsaken Desert? What a repugnant thought.

No it is you who are attempting to spin this into something it is not. You have been listening to that hate filled Closet Queen Michael Savage Weiner too much.

As for what people can see from the thread they can see that I abhor the loss of life in the Bush Junta's Oil War.

My agenda is what is best for this country. NOT what is best for Duhbya and his Cronies.

My agenda is not seeing young kids used as pawns in a sick Geopolitical Game called further enrich the psychopaths.

Your position is nothing more than that of a sick little sycophant slurping up that which your master drops for you.

Support the Troops?

You betcha - Bring them home. Their job is defending this country not making another filthy pile for a Nazi Collaborating bunch of swine.

Well there snapperhead,
Turn on the T.V. set and see how many times after they mention another US casualty, and then go on to mention the OVERALL total.
You'll see what i mean.

Also, heres some news articles that dont mention the overall count of American soldiers dead
(for you info)
I decided to give you TWO REFERENCES.

FIRST
Washington Post
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=18&u=/washpost/20030712/ts_washpost/a45480_2003jul11
(ALL THOSE STATISTICS AND NO OVERALL COUNT)

SECOND
New York Times:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=6&u=/nyt/20030716/ts_nyt/gikilledandseveralotherswoundediniraq
(LIST DEATHS SINCE MAY1, BUT NO OVERALL COUNT)

There you go two articles on this Saddam holiday and two major news references that FAILED to put in the
OVERALL dead total.

But you dont see the real picture do you?
US soldiers are dying for NOTHING.

and you never answered my question about military service........

It does seem like the press is now trying to hype up the fatalities (finally). I can't say I trust their motives, i've just gotten so used to seeing no media representation of my viewpoints at all that i don't trust it when my perspective gets some airplay. But they do seem to be turning, abruptly, on bush and crew. They seem to be turning towards deanthough, and that worries me a bit too cause he seems like KucinichLite, like 'all the buzzwords, none of the conviction'... I'm sticking with kucinich until i see a photo of dean where he doesn't look like he's lying.

I have heard some (actually just one) statements by our soldiers that they don't feel this 'nitpicking' over intelligence specifics benefits them in their goal of getting the hell out of dodge. I disagree though, I think the sooner we discredit bush, his administration, and all his reasons behind this war, the sooner we can hand over administration of this disaster over to the UN and bring our guys home. Let the UN stabilize for a moment and then start throwing money, resources, supplies, anything we can but more bombs at them to try to rebuild.

...out of your last post. It is like a time warp back to 1969 and listening to the supporters of the Vietnam War.

"We've already lost too many lives therefore we need to sacrifice the lives of more and more and more and more."

WE are not committed to Iraq. Duhbya and his Gang are. As are phony bloodsucking shills who act as apologists for that which admits of no apology.

You said it !!!! "what a disgusting little pimple you are. Reducing the loss of life to some sort of Political Equation. "

Equasion equals numbers equaling something....

You started this thread for political purposes by questioning numbers. I have done with you on this thread.

Make sure you know what the hell you are cutting and pasting on the next one!

...I think the Casualties may be getting a little more notice because Duhbya has become a liability to his masters.

Too many badly constructed lies that are now unraveling.

They may want to set him up and bury him so that any investigation will not go into things they do not want the general public to become aware of or concerned about.

Time will tell - I am speculating here but I suspect we may see such a scenario.

...is Irrational Abnormal Shill cutting and running because it has no argument left other than to impute false motives to others.

between us whe have refined the thread. "MEDIA" is not under reporting as a whole, but some "Media outlets" are.

Now could not Diogenese have done some research and given a list of the ones that were under reporting as the article states and those that were trying to give a full picture?

Cut and paste queens are so pathetic some times.

As for your question on Military Service I will join the US Military on the same day that hell freezes over. What is your excuse????????????????

...clearer. We have us one of them thar' Chicken Hawks.

What colour is the sky on your planet?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=18&u=/washpost/20030712/ts_washpost/a45480_2003jul11

was POLL results. no death numbers. (you stated for that link "ALL THOSE STATISTICS AND NO OVERALL COUNT" , there was NO mention of numbers of dead, just popularity polls)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=6&u=/nyt/20030716/ts_nyt/gikilledandseveralotherswoundediniraq

""Thirty-four American soldiers have have been killed by insurgents since President Bush (news - web sites) declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq (news - web sites) on May 1; at least 49 have died in other incidents such as traffic accidents and weapons discharges, the latest such death coming late yesterday when a marine fell from the roof of a building where he was on guard duty, military officials said.

Before today's attacks, 300 American soldiers had been wounded in combat and 315 in noncombat incidents since May 1, Corporal Pruden said""

You said that link was "LIST DEATHS SINCE MAY1, BUT NO OVERALL COUNT"

Is your mouse decieving you??

How successful are we? Thats certainly a broad question but overall, weighing the various factors, how are we doing?

Figure, so far, well, not too good really.

Afghanistan, bigger taliban playground now than it ever was. Making a bunch of money off heroin now too. Yay. No Osama.

Iraq. We either went to free the iraqis, or we went to go get the wmd. No wmd, and the iraqis are laregly without power, clean water, adequete supply chain structure, medical facilities, or anything resembling a stable lifestyle. This is the freedom we bring? And no Saddam either.

So our report card is, so far, pretty bad really. And then you start thinking of fatalities on either side and you really have to wonder if any of it is 'worth it'. Did iraq have wmd? Looks like no. Did we go in for the oil? Well we secured and privatized (stole) it within half an hour of entering the country and it has since been the only thing resembling secured in the country. Did we get Saddam out of power? For now, supposedly, yes. Until we catch him though, no. Will we catch him while we are so busy trying to restore basic public services we can barely maintain control? No. Will we need more people over there? Yes. Will anyone in their right mind sign up for this shit now? Hell no.

So... can we win? No. Did we ever have any decent reason to be there in the first place? No defensible reason. Strategic influence and oil are not defensible reasons to kill off thousands of people. Even if we could "win" and occupy Iraq and maintain control indefinately, is it even a fight we should win? It looks, more and more, like definately no. This is not a fight anyone can win. I think it is time for everyone involved to cut their losses, let us declare ourselves the losers, we can call the iraqis the victors, in reality everyone lost but who cares now. Let the iraqis figure out their own social system, finances and whatnot and let us do the same.

And if the nukes come, then so be it. The iraqis wouldn't be the first people that don't love everything american to get the bomb. I don't think they necessarily would but I'm saying I for one do not care. Not enough to try to bully the world into US compliance. That can never succeed and will only further this insanity. We can lock down the country sufficently to prevent the import of nukes, so if the only way to hit us with a nuke is to launch it at us, fine, we will know who to smack the shit out of. And everyone knows this so really there is probably no problem to worry about. Its like handguns, just cause i have one doesn't mean i'm going to go carjack everyone with a better car than me.

What is the "Chicken Hawks" reference?

on a new topic I may have had nothing to contribute.

However, this is a media mis-reporting thread.

"As for your question on Military Service I will join the US Military on the same day that hell freezes over."

War Supporter unwilling to carry the load but willing to let others die = Buck, buccck, buuuuuuccccck, Chicken + Hawk.

And yes I AM a Veteran.

Have you ANY FUCKING IDEA why I have not, will not, ever be a member of the United States Armed Forces?

So you are a veteran, big deal........

Hey Dio, tell us how many die in service of non-combat related injuries in the US armed forces each year, you should know!

FINALLY we found someone who can really tell us.

In a time of war there are some people who it would be to the disadvantage of the nation to have them as part of the fighting force.

Either because they have somthing better to do in the country, in particular some farmers doctors nurses and administration people for keeping the home land organized especially if it will be attacked. Also people who ar e physically handicaped or mentaly handicaped may also have reason to stay home. For example you would probably not want a person with one eye and dodgy vision in the other eye to have your back on a battlefield.

Besides that do you really want people jumping in and out of your military depending on what wars they support?

You don't want people who are not citizens of the USA or residents in the USA as part of the Armed Forces either do you?

LMAO!

and going to bed.........

Yes I do want ordinary people to put on a Uniform and take up Arms - WHEN THE NEED ARISES TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY.

Not because some Chicken Hawk Deserter in a Brooks Brothers Suit wants a few Million more in his Bank Account.

The function of the Military is to defend the Country against foreign agression not to make money for well connected psychopaths.

Defense of the Nation is something which is a responsibility we all carry whether we wish to acknowledge it or not.

Some of us chose to spend time in Uniform to help shoulder the burden of standing guard. I do not necessarily look down on someone who has not done so. I do object strongly to loudmouth cheerleading Chicken Hawks who were unwilling to help shoulder the burden, and the risk, but are perfectly willing to send others off to die in foreign wars which are not in the best interests of the Nation but exist only to protect or extend the financial holdings of someone wealthy enough to buy a Politician.

So, Scootie I do expect people to come and go as they choose to do service to the country. I do not expect them to die in Afghanistan for Good ol' Enron nor in Iraq for Chevron, Bechtel, or Halliburton.

Being prepared to defend the country does involve a certain amount of political and physical positioning. A country that allows itself to be cut off from its resources or alienated from its allies or any other form of out manoeuvring during peace time is likely to suffer in war time.

As regards the chicken hawk argument you would presumably know for example that the commanding officers since hundreds of years ago tend to not be the very front of the fighting in order to prevent loss of control.
A captain might order a "foot soldier" to go on a dangerous mission however he is presumably not a "chicken hawk" for not going himself. Or if he is then the term is of no value.

As regards the common argument that they send their children to fight as if this is inherently a good thing - Consider that a doctor is not supposed to operate on his own children because he would become too emotionally involved with the action.
IE the emotional attachment that you are trying to produce is one that doctors have deemed to be inappropriate for decision making.

Now that it is 2006 and the death rate in Iraq has come out to average less per year than the peacetime death rate under the last 4 Presidents, I wonder how this author feels about "jumping the gun" on stories like this for political bias and propaganda.

The Devil (George Warmonger Bush): "Sorry to Oil the Phony Numbers and the Media Manipulation but Oil comes First. Fill her Up ?????"