The latest report I saw is that at a minimum 3,065 members of US armed
forces have been murdered in Iraq by Bush, Cheney and the neocons. And I
use “murder” as a technical term – I was originally hired here to teach
criminal law; taught it for a number of years. And murder involves
voluntary killing with malice of forethought. It is very clear that
Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, all the neocons lied their way into this
war and murdered those troops. These troops are our mothers and our
fathers, our brothers and our sisters, and ours sons and our daughters,
and we are going to have to stop this war and save them from being
further murdered by Bush and these fanatical neocons.

We also saw just yesterday in the New York Times that the Pentagon had a
report on its website indicating that in fact 50,000 troops had been
injured in Iraq, and not the lower figure they had been using of 20,000.
They back tracked on this figure, all up and down. The Pentagon always
lies about US casualties in wartime. My guess is that the real figure
are a lot more than what that they are reporting.

And then of course the dead Iraqis… Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and
the rest of them have murdered a minimum of 650,000 Iraqis (according to
the Lancet report last Spring). And if you extrapolate from that we are
up to 700,000. And the longer this goes on those figures are going to
increase for both Americans and Iraqis. My guess is that given the surge
we are going to see a bloodbath in Baghdad, for both the civilian
population of Baghdad and US armed forces… We really have to stop this
bloodbath, we have to pull these troops out, and we have to get rid of
Bush and Cheney. At a minimum, we owe it to our armed forces that have
been put in harm’s way in our name to stop this war, and to stop,
certainly, further development of conflict and violence to Iran which
could set up a regional, if not, a global war.
— Francis A. Boyle, Stopping the Guns of War, A-Infos Radio Project, 31
Jan. 2007. Very important interview. The quoted segment starts at the
23:25 min mark.

Pentagon Undercounts Number of Troops Injured
… the Pentagon is being accused of undercounting the number of troops
injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you looked at the Pentagon’s website
last month, it would have appeared that about 47,000 soldiers had been
injured in the two wars. But now the figure on the website has dropped
to less than 32,000. The Pentagon is no longer including troops who
suffered what it considers minor injuries or mental illness.
— DemocracyNow, 5 Feb 2007.

So far, what exactly is surging in Iraq?
U.S. casualties, which are at a post-invasion high: According to an
Associated Press analysis, more American troops were “killed in combat
in Iraq over the past four months — at least 334 through Jan. 31 — than
in any comparable stretch since the war began”; and February, with 34
American deaths in its first nine days, is exceeding this pace. These
loses are largely due to roadside bombs (IEDs) and to the fact that U.S.
troops are now engaged in almost continuous urban warfare. Before the
invasion of Iraq, the possibility of fighting an urban war in the Iraqi
capital’s streets and alleys was the American high command’s personal
nightmare. Now, it’s their reality — and the President’s surge plan can
only make it more nightmarish.
—Tom Engelhardt, Surging into Catastrophe in Iraq, TomDispatch, 12 Feb.
2007. (Introduction to an article by Michael Schwartz.)

At least 800 civilians under contract to the Pentagon have been killed
and more than 3,300 hurt in Iraq doing jobs normally handled by the U.S.
military…
It is not clear how many of the employees are American but the casualty
figures make it clear that the Defense Department’s count of more than
3,100 U.S. military dead does not tell the whole story.
—Iraq war claims 800 Pentagon contractors’ lives, PressTV, 24 Feb. 2007.

Commentary on recent developments
The report on the urban-rural mix in the US forces is worth reading.

Remembrance down the Memory Hole…
Several of the “remembrance” websites are starting to neglect updating
their output. The Seattle Times website has not been updated since March
2004. The Baltimore Sun stopped reporting on February 11, 2005.

Why this data sheet?
The US military doesn’t allow the compilation and publication of Iraqi
casualties, and it is very difficult to know how bloody the occupation
of Iraq has resulted. The only indication of the intensity of the
conflict are the military fatalities. We can use this as a proxy measure
to determine if the occupation is a bloody quagmire or if the dust is
finally settling on the rubble.

Furthermore, as demonstrated elsewhere, the Pentagon and their media
surrogates are attempting to hide the true extent of the carnage among
its soldiers. It is very difficult to find accurate fatality figures,
the classification of fatalities leads to exclusion in the official
death tally (e.g., contractors are excluded), and the number of errors
creeping into the official fatality reports is increasing, e.g.,
fatalities originally reported, but then not confirmed; long delays in
reporting; excluding the subsequent deaths of wounded soldiers after
they were transferred out of Iraq. If it is only the American and
British fatalities that are going to stop this bloody occupation of Iraq
then it behooves us to amplify the information on these fatalities –
primarily to counteract the attempts by the Pentagon and its media
surrogates to cover this over.

Another means to determine the intensity of the resistance against the
US-uk troops is to analyze the average daily death toll for each month
(first column). The center column pertains to a linear trend of the
average fatality rate – enables one to obtain some (limited) perspective
of how this will continue. The last column is the percentage of
“hostile” fatalities out of the total for the month.

Year
or
Month Average US-uk fatalities per day
(inc. hostile and other; 1-May-03 thru 23-Feb-07) Linear trend of av.
fatalities p/day Pct of fatalities due to hostile action
2003† 1.5 1.8 63%
2004 2.4 2.1 85%
2005 2.4 2.3 81%
Jan 06 2.2 2.5 88%
Feb 06 2.1 2.5 83%
Mar 06 1.0 2.5 90%
Apr 06 2.6 2.5 87%
May 06 2.5 2.6 87%
Jun 06 2.0 2.6 93%
Jul 06 1.5 2.6 91%
Aug 06 2.1 2.6 89%
Sep 06 2.5 2.6 88%
Oct 06 3.5 2.7 94%
Nov 06 2.5 2.7 91%
Dec 06 3.6 2.7 88%
Jan 07 2.9 2.7 94%
Feb 07 3.1* 2.8 94%*
The trend was calculated using monthly data using a simple linear
regression (using only complete monthly data). The forecast and the
trends indicated in the graph were derived from daily data. There have
been some amendments to the early data because CentCom recently released
data pertaining to earlier fatalities.

(*) Asterisk indicates a statistic was computed on incomplete monthly
data.
(†) Indicates statistic computed from May until Dec. 2003.
(!!): simply not credible.
(d): long delays in reporting.


The US and British armies are professional. (NB: a propaganda-compliant
means of referring to them is: “volunteer army,” which they are not.) As
soon as an army hires soldiers then there is a concern that it will not
be representative of the population at large, and that it will hire
minorities or poor in disproportionate numbers. The table below provides
the race/ethnic composition of the US-uk fatalities, and the main
objective is to determine if some minority groups are over-represented.
The reader is responsible for the interpretation.

Race/ethnic group of US-uk soldiers
(1-May-03 – 23-Feb-07) US
number pct UK
number pct
White 2,308 75.5% 94 95.9%
Black / Afro-American 278 9.1% 1 1.0%
Hispanic 337 11.0% 0 0.0%
Other 89 2.9% 3 3.1%
NA 43 1.4% 0 0.0%
Total 3,055 98
Women 73 2.4% 2 2.0%

Classification done by author from photographs, last names, and
additional archival search. This is an imperfect means of
classification, but no other source is available.
This article deals specifically with the US Army composition and that of
the fatalities.
Alternative official source.

Age of US-uk military fatalities post 1-May-03 thru 23-Feb-07
Age interval Percentage

age <= 25 57.9%
25 < age <= 35 30.5%
35 < age <= 45 9.7%
45 < age <= 55 1.8%
55 < age <= 65 0.1%

Statistics about the overall cost of the war (blood and money)
The cost of the Occupation of Iraq:
US-uk Military Fatality Forecast (using data thru 23-Feb-07)
Period from 1-May-2003 until: Fatality forecast
1 May 2007 3,341
31 Dec. 2006 4,056
NB: this forecast DOES NOT include the fatalities which occurred during
the “hot” phase of the war, i.e., before 1 May 2003.

The forecast is based on a simple linear regression – it doesn’t attempt
to be fancy in forecasting the threat potential, etc. However, even such
a simple method yields good forecasts. The data used for the forecast is
»daily« data – performs better than monthly data.

NB: the point of this forecast is to give an indication of the terrible
toll this occupation will exact; it is by no means presented in a
callous fashion.

US military fatalities in Iraq as a percentage of the total number
killed during the Vietnam War
US fatalities in: Number/Pct
Iraq 3,195
Vietnam 58,178
Iraq/Vietnam 5.5 pct
Source: The number of US fatalities listed on the Vietnam War Memorial.
For the US fatalities in Iraq, the 140 US military killed during the
“hot phase of the war” was added to the total number of fatalities
tallied for the occupation period. NB: In both cases the number of
fatalities understates the actual number of US personnel killed. For
example, US State Dept. employees or other non-DOD government employees
are not counted in these tallies. In Iraq, several embassy employees
were killed, but not counted. Similarly, mercenaries or contractors
aren’t counted. In Vietnam, ditto.

Explanation: The number of fatalities in the database used for this
study includes: (1) fatalities in the US, but caused in Iraq (and not in
the official count); (2) State Department personnel. There are about 20
of these in total.

Main foreign military forces in Iraq (in theater only)
Provenance Estimated numbers Date/Source
United States 132,000 (at least) 20 Feb. 2007 [1]
“Contractors” & mercenaries 20,000 – 30,000 14 Oct 2004 [2]
UK 7,100 Feb 2007[3]
Source:
[1] BBC News, 20 Feb. 2007.
NB: The total number of US troops in Iraq in May 2003 was 148,000, and
this level has been surpassed on various occasions during the occupation
phase. 165,000 is the highest number to date – this was during the
occupation phase, and not the hot war phase. There have been recent
reports (Oct 2006) that there will recent be a 15,000 increase of US
troops in Iraq in the coming months – bringing the total to about
155,000.
[2] On 13 Oct. 2004, Phyllis Bennis stated that the second largest
contingent of soldiers were “contractors” – there are more of them than
UK soldiers. She quoted an estimate of 20,000; at present 17 contractors
are dying p/month. Ha’aretz quoted an estimate of 30,000 in July 2004.
On 25 May 2006, Andy Bearpark, the head of the British Association of
Security contractors stated that there were between 15,000 and 20,000
contractors in Iraq, and out of these 5,000 are British. NB: In November
2006, it was revealed that the number of contractors in Iraq had tripled
since 2005 – so the above number is likely an underestimate of the size
of this contingent.
[3] BBC, Blair announces Iraq troops cut, BBC Online, 21 Feb. 2007.

For an alternative source see GlobalSecurity estimates.

Cost of the US-Iraq war
Through June 2004 [1] US$151bn
Estimate through 23-Feb-07 [2] US$368bn
As a percentage of the Cost of the Vietnam War 62 pct
[1] Source: Phyllis Bennis
[2] Updating using the estimates from the “Times Square” cost meter
which is based on the following formula: “increases at a rate of $177
million per day, $7.4 million per hour and $122,820 per minute”. Please
note that Bennis’s estimate refers only to the US budget allocations,
and refer only to costs once the war started (Source: personal
communication). These figures exclude: lead-up to the war, increasing
“security” costs in the US, reduced trade with Arab countries, etc. The
true cost of this war, if it can be computed at all, is much higher.
NB: The Pentagon recently reported that the cost p/month of the war had
gone from US$4bn to US$5.8bn. Since these figures were reported by UPI,
they will not be used until better estimates are published elsewhere.
The current monthly cost estimate used to generate the current figure is
about US$5.3bn/month.
The cost of the Vietnam War in 2004 dollar terms was put at US$597bn by
the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Alternative estimates can be found here.
Also see Phyllis Bennis article.
Joseph Stiglitz is deriving a figure in the trillions of dollars due to
the medical costs that will continue for decades, see here.
And finally: National Priorities estimate.


Is president Bush empathy-impaired or maybe callous? Judge for yourself.

Number of times president Bush has visited wounded soldiers or been
present at funerals since May 1st 2003.
Funerals 0
Hospital visits 5
Jog around the White House with veteran limb-amputee with leg prostheses
1
Related article
Source: White House list of events schedule is checked regularly.

Explanatory Notes:
The propaganda-compliant terminology for the post-May 1st period is
“after the end of major combat operations.” Of course, conceding that
the US is occupying Iraq would mean that another justification for this
war was a sham. This is the reason the common media terminology aims to
avoid the usage of the word “occupation”.

The military fatality statistics are collated for the post May-1st
period because this refers exclusively to the enforcement of the
occupation of Iraq. Including the earlier fatalities would be confusing
because it would include those incurred during the “hot war”. The nature
of these fatalities is different, and therefore they should be analyzed
separately. Furthermore, the concern now is to end the occupation of
Iraq, and therefore Americans should be aware of the cost of this
current policy
Honest accounting would dictate the inclusion of all the military
fatalities enforcing the occupation, and thus include British, Italians,
Spanish, etc. It would be ideal to be able to include mercenary
fatalities too — alas, no data is available. However, there is much work
involved in collating quality data, and hence the data was restricted to
the US and “uk” (yes, lowercase “uk” because they are less than 10% of
the “coalition” contingent.)

NB: Whereas in previous conflicts “casualties” referred to both
fatalities and wounded soldiers, in the current Pentagon arrogant and
grisly accounting the wounded soldiers have been ignored. The statistics
it makes available refer only to US military fatalities.

This analysis also aims to be as accurate as possible, and any
observation about its accuracy should sent to Amplifications &
Corrections.

On the data used. All entries are obtained from the US and UK military
websites in the list found below. All the soldiers killed in Iraq or who
were listed as “supporting the operations in Iraq” are included here —
that is, some soldiers killed in Kuwait or in the Persian Gulf were also
included here. Furthermore, if there is a good indication that a person
was directly employed by the US-uk armies, then their fatality was also
included. For example, in August a translator wearing a US army uniform
was killed — he was included in this tally. There are a few instances
where via Reuters or AP references can be found to fatalities, but
subsequently these are not found in the official military sites. The
unconfirmed fatalities are included if found in two or more reputable
sources, e.g., Reuters, AP, BBC. All entries have been cross-checked
with the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count database, and there is a less
than 1% discrepancy (14 in February 2005). NB: the figures tallied here
contain some suicides of soldiers that occurred outside the US – these
are never counted by the usual sources. There are also some fatalities
due to contagious diseases (e.g., encephalitis) contracted in Iraq.