A Different Look At Iraq Death Toll

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

We hear almost daily about American deaths in Iraq, the media keeps us very well informed about each & every dead American. While I do believe that we should know about the deaths & mourn each of them, I never see a number on how many terrorists have been & are being killed. We hear about the poor mistreatd terrorists that have been captured, but no death count. Why is that? Would it be because the media doesn't want us to know that our military is doing a good job? Why don't we hear about the good things our military has & are doing for the Afghanistanas & Iraqis? It seems we get two kinds of news from there, dead GIs & how bad we treat the captured terrorists.
Whether you agree with this war or not makes no difference, we're there & we need the whole story, not just what one believes will make Bush look bad.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,192 • Replies: 47

No top replies

Re: A Different Look At Iraq Death Toll

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Would it be because the media doesn't want us to know that our military is doing a good job? .

Yes, that's exactly what it is, madam.

Not!

I am constantly amazed that someone can sit at her keyboard all day and all night and remain so pathetically ignorant.

0 Replies

Yes, yes. It's all another plot by the liberal media. And we're actually winning the war in Iraq, too.

[I've heard it's best to humor the terminally delusional, as they can become abusive when distressed]

0 Replies

No answers then?

0 Replies

Re: A Different Look At Iraq Death Toll

Roxxxanne wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:
Would it be because the media doesn't want us to know that our military is doing a good job? .

Yes, that's exactly what it is, madam.

Not!

I am constantly amazed that someone can sit at her keyboard all day and all night and remain so pathetically ignorant.

I'm ignorant too. I tried to GOOGLE the subject and could not find anything that seperates terrorists from "Iraqi" civilians.

Maybe you can enlighten me else do your feel this statistic not important?

0 Replies

Oh fer crissake... Okay, here. I'll do your job for you:

Casualties in Iraq War

Now, let's review some of what the article tells us:

"Conservative supporters of the war, such as bloggers found at blogsforbush.com, argue the military is taking the correct approach, that the "liberal media" only want to report the "bad news" of dead U.S. soldiers, but ignore the "good news" about killed Iraqi insurgents.

What those arguments overlook is how difficult it is to actually find out how many Iraqis have been killed, be they fighters or civilians.

Officials in Washington don't compile data on Iraqis killed, but field commanders on the ground in Iraq will from time to time give reporters a number referring to enemy fighters killed in a specific battle.

The coalition forces also don't tally Iraqi deaths, nor did the U.S.-backed administration in the months following the collapse of Saddam's regime."

There's clearly nothing nefarious here, fevered imaginings of some bizarre media conspiracy aside.

0 Replies

Re: A Different Look At Iraq Death Toll

woiyo wrote:

I'm ignorant too. I tried to GOOGLE the subject and could not find anything that seperates terrorists from "Iraqi" civilians.

Maybe you can enlighten me else do your feel this statistic not important?

You can't be sooo bad with googling - at least, the Washington Times report should have caught your eyes - it comes up as first link.

0 Replies

Didn't Vietnam teach us the futility of comparing body counts?

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Yes, yes. It's all another plot by the liberal media. And we're actually winning the war in Iraq, too.

[I've heard it's best to humor the terminally delusional, as they can become abusive when distressed]

You might say delusional but there really is something going on with the media and the war right now. They don't like it, so they don't report it in a fair way. There is no talk about how well the troops have been doing and very little in the way of the media being in places where troops are doing well. All we hear is doom and gloom and that doesn't do much to provide a balance view of what is going on in the different war zones.

0 Replies

Here's a little quiz: What is the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:
Yes, yes. It's all another plot by the liberal media. And we're actually winning the war in Iraq, too.

[I've heard it's best to humor the terminally delusional, as they can become abusive when distressed]

You might say delusional but there really is something going on with the media and the war right now. They don't like it, so they don't report it in a fair way. There is no talk about how well the troops have been doing and very little in the way of the media being in places where troops are doing well. All we hear is doom and gloom and that doesn't do much to provide a balance view of what is going on in the different war zones.

I'd argue the problem isn't with the media, it's with how the media makes its money. Good news doesn't attract eyeballs, and so it doesn't attract advertising dollars.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:
Yes, yes. It's all another plot by the liberal media. And we're actually winning the war in Iraq, too.

[I've heard it's best to humor the terminally delusional, as they can become abusive when distressed]

You might say delusional but there really is something going on with the media and the war right now. They don't like it, so they don't report it in a fair way. There is no talk about how well the troops have been doing and very little in the way of the media being in places where troops are doing well. All we hear is doom and gloom and that doesn't do much to provide a balance view of what is going on in the different war zones.

What do you mean, 'how well they have been doing?'

We all understand that the troops are doing their job well. But noone, not even the troops, really understand what their job is.

What metrics can we look at for 2006 that you could say were very positive for the American soldier? Well, we didn't lose any pitched battles and we've protected American interests well enough in Iraq during this time. I'm quite sure that we've caught insurgents and AQ members out the wazoo over the course of the year.

You see reporting on the bad stuff, however, because the bad stuff got much, much worse last year. Violence was way up in Iraq.

So it really depends on how you look at it - if the 'job' of the troops is to engage the enemy in low-level ways, and protect the US bases and Green Zone in Iraq, then they did an amazingly good job. If the job was to quell violence, to settle Iraq down, then they performed amazingly poorly.

The truth is somewhat in the middle, so I would say that they performed somwhere in the middle. I don't blame line troops for failures in command, which is where many of the problems stem from...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

LoneStar, break it down further. Terrorists, suspected terrorists, alleged al qaeda. The Bushie Doctrine, shoot first, sort em out later.

0 Replies

The problem isn't entirely the "fault" of the media.

The military became acutely aware of the problems of using body counts as a performance measure during the Vietnam conflict. The enemy often carries with them their dead as they leave the battlefield, and that alone makes estimates more guess than actual. Soldiers, even well-trained and blooded professionals, come out of fire-fights so emotionally wrought that their assessments are warped. When a firefight "ends", who can expect soldiers on the ground to suddenly take up pad and pencil to carefully count bodies. Unit commanders may adjust the estimates to make their own units more ferocious and effective than they really are. How does one do body counts of those KIA by artillery fires or aerial bombardment? How does one accurately count KIAs when the enemy wears no identification to separate them from the populace? Since our schooling in Vietnam, the military strongly de-emphasizes body counts.

This enemy of the United States and the West depend upon anonymity to protect themselves from the lethal response of the U.S. military. Their propaganda is aimed at destroying the Will of the American People to continue the fight until it is won, so they love news that emphasizes all the civilian deaths. What is a civilian, a body that when photographed isn't clearly a dead terrorist.

In today's world where mass communications is instant, and reports can come from anybody, military control of theater reports would be a failure that would be a PR nightmare. So we have a military saddled with the accredited news hounds, and some of them let their political beliefs outweigh objectivity. Whether the Coalition forces are making headway will not be found merely counting the dead ... on either side. This is a contest of Will, who will blink first? To appear ready to throw in the towel will give the opposition strength and renewed determination to step up operations in hopes of a coming victory.

There is a natural tendency to mythologize one's opponents as invulnerable, while discounting one's own strengths. We need to hold on to our faith in our government and military leaders to do the right thing. Today's U.S. military is filled with the finest of our youth, and they are superbly trained for traditional military missions. They are still learning what it takes to succeed at non-traditional missions like being policemen or government policy makers.

0 Replies

Quote:

We need to hold on to our faith in our government and military leaders to do the right thing.

Our what?

For most Americans, what you describe doesn't exist; and that isn't a failure with them, but with the military and government leaders in power.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Here's a little quiz: What is the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist?

Didn't I answer this one already?

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

They are still learning what it takes to succeed at non-traditional missions like being policemen or government policy makers.

Our military, at least since the Second World War, has specifically trained enlisted people and officers to serve as police and occupational specialists. One of the severe criticisms of this government's policies in Iraq almost since the beginning of the invasion has been that no provision was made to police the country, nor to administer the country as an occupied territory. This government has been engaged in locking the barn door after the livestock have escaped since the very beginning.

0 Replies

Re: A Different Look At Iraq Death Toll

woiyo wrote:

I tried to GOOGLE the subject and could not find anything that seperates terrorists from "Iraqi" civilians.

civillians, aren't they all terrorists

i always get the impression that LSM thinks so

0 Replies

Re: A Different Look At Iraq Death Toll

Walter Hinteler wrote:

woiyo wrote:
I'm ignorant too. I tried to GOOGLE the subject and could not find anything that seperates terrorists from "Iraqi" civilians.

Maybe you can enlighten me else do your feel this statistic not important?

You can't be sooo bad with googling - at least, the Washington Times report should have caught your eyes - it comes up as first link.

Did you post it Wally?

0 Replies

It is interesting when you talk to soldiers that were there, that when they return to the U.S. and read the news, they wonder if the news articles are talking about the same place. It is apparently very different from their impressions of the place, so the only obvious conclusion is the media is not accurately reporting the situation.

0 Replies

A Different Look At Iraq Death Toll

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know