U.S. troops have one in 11 chance of being wounded or killed in Iraq

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=e8d802e9958d7d57

U.S. troops have one in 11 chance of being wounded or killed in Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big News Network.com Friday 7th January, 2005

The number of U.S. soldiers suffering combat injuries in Iraq has surpassed the 10,000 mark since the war began in March 2003, CNN reported Wednesday.

In a statement, the Department of Defense said 10,252 U.S. troops had been wounded since March 19, 2003, of which 5,396 were hurt seriously enough they were unable to return to the battlefield. Another 4,856 U.S. troops were wounded and were able to return to duty in Iraq, the statement said.

The numbers of dead and injured grew Thursday when nine U.S. soldiers were killed in three separate incidents, one of which included the deaths of seven soldiers killed when their vehicle hit a roadside explosive device.
snip...

With a total casualty count of 11,601, and a permanently deployed force of 130,000, the chances of U.S. doldiers being killed or wounded in the conflict have been reduced to one in 11.

more...

Ok those are pretty shitty odds if you ask me!!!

or on Day Two?

But they are still safer than they would be in the streets of L.A......

/sarcasm

n/t

;)

One has to wonder if the lamestream media will drive THAT ratio home.

If it were the megabucks lottery, you couldn't sell tickets fast enough...but when the gamble is a leg, an arm, your life, who is going to want to get into that sort of situation?

They'll HAVE to start drafting, I can't imagine anyone volunteering with those odds, unless they are so desperate for work that they'll take any risk and pray they get lucky.

They can't torture much more out of the reserves...they'll have to start pulling more active duty out of their cushy office jobs, scrape the barrel by recalling retirees, keep stop loss in effect, but then, eventually, they'll have to think about some kind of draft.

Unless they leave, that is. I don't see them doing that, unfortunately.

Poor Iraqis. When we Americans speak of war, we only speak of our military losses, as if the poor innocent civilians of the country we decimate never existed.

How easily we can recite the numbers of dead Americans in Iraq. How easily we can forget that the real victims are not our troops but the "collateral damage" we cause, in our zeal for war and blood and money and oil.

and your odds go up if your a governor or Iraqii Police or a journalist!!!

There are about 25 million people in Iraq, so even the horrific numbers we have seen estimated by Lancet are going to be swallowed by that. The killed-to-wounded ratio is probably higher for Iraqis than U.S. troops because they don't have the same access to body armor that the troops do, and that is one of the reasons we have such a low k/w ratio (although a lot of the injuries are crippling).

The U.S. k/w is about 1/10 so if we estimate the Iraqi k/w is 1/3 and use the Lancet number of 100,000 killed, we get (100,000+300,000)/(25 million) = 1.6%. Because of the sloppy numbers, I think it is appropriate to estimate 1-2% as a rough guess.

Looking downthread, I see that the estimates for the U.S. troops are being debated because of questions about the accuracy of the official tallies and the number of troops involved. The troop odds will probably be higher because their concentrations are in areas with lots of combat, therefore increasing the odds that one will be hurt (or killed).

,...the disease from bad water, the effects of DU, etc....

The effects of war can certainly be AT LEAST as catastophic as the effects of a tsunami or other horrific natural disaster.

Because the Lancet study is only for deaths, I had to estimate (very roughly) the relationship between killed and injured. My estimate was 1 to 3, but I do factor in the wounded, etc. Argue about the ratio all you want, but I did think about that.

Your denominator is wrong. There have been way more than 130,000 troops in Iraq. They are constantly being rotated in and out.

I have no idea, but I'd guess over 300,000 soldiers have serfed in Iraq which would make the casualty odds more like 3 % not that that matters to one of those 11,000.

.... soldiers have SERFED in Iraq

Mazen Dana discovered a whole bunch of mass graves in Iraq.
He was killed because he had a pretty good idea as to who exactly was in them.
http://carl-nyberg.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/11/163741/794

make a difference? I agree with you that the 130,000 number is way too low to be using.

You're correct about soldiers and Marines roating in and out of the war zone and the total numbers, may indeed exceed 300,000, but I've read reports from Col Hackworth and military doctors treating wounded in Germany that place the casualties closer to 30,000 (some estimates were 27,000 in November).

hospitals. And if they keep sending the same soldiers over there, that number will drop.

Kind of like Greg Palast noted on time during the Falaja assault: DOD reported 200 soldiers wounded and 400 showed up in Germany for hospitalization. Palasts question was: who shot the other 200 on the plane.

More lies.

The 33,000 was several months ago, so it's probably around 37,000.

Again, has anyone noticed none of the injured die?

Don't remember exactly where I saw this. But I recall the probability of a Union soldier being killed in the Civil War by Hostile fire was 1 in 11. (IIRC about twice that number died from illness)

.

hard to imagine actually. With many is "safe" positions the odds must rise exponentially in at-risk areas.