Go to content Go to navigation Go to search

Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

Intertwingularity revealed

Articles filed under tag “civilian-deaths”

Tags: , , , , Bloody hands, unerasable milestone

I was wondering about this at lunch [on Aug 8], and now — lo and behold — Kos has pointed out, using data from Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, that

We have now lost more men and women [after] the fall of the Baghdad statue [than before].

That’s 258 Americans plus 44 Brits dead, 54 of them since Bush said “Bring ‘em on.”

We’re coming up way too rapidly on more killed after Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln than before.

Of course, as I attribute to Iraqi people equal, inestimable value in the sight of God, I am compelled to note that the reported Iraqi civilian death count at Iraq Body Count is now 6,0877,798.


2003-08-26 update: We’ve hit another sad milestone that can’t be erased, can’t be undone. This, paraphrased from the AP, as alerted by RonK at dKos:

We have now lost more men and women after Mr. Bush announced from the aircraft carrier that “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended” than before.

That’s now 277 Americans plus 49 Brits dead (according to ICCC).

And today’s Iraq Body Count numbering of Iraqi civilian deaths: 6,1137,830. (Iraqi casualty count is 20,000+.)


2003-08-10 update: Today I see in passing an interesting (and related) letter at the Horse that depicts an even grimmer reality. Note the following consequence of word misuse applies independent of one’s political position:

AP has been misusing the word “casualty” with regard to the “preemptive” US action in Iraq with dismaying regularity.

Today’s example [Mike: I’m not sure when “today” was] from Yahoo[:]

  Since President Bush announced an end to major
  combat in Iraq on May 1, 56 soldiers have died
  in combat. The total combat casualties in the
  war has climbed to 170 …

The true number of casualties is much higher, likely in the thousands.

A “casualty” is not only a dead soldier. The word also signifies the injured, captured, and MIA.

Misusing the word “casualty” to report only combat deaths misleads the reader into believing the number of US soldiers whose lives have been shattered by this chosen war is an order of magnitude smaller than is actually the case.

If your only experience of war is from watching TV where bloodless bullets drop soldiers with a gentle “Ugh”, perhaps it’s hard to appreciate how long it takes for a skull fracture to heal, how demoralizing it feels to return to your wife without legs, or the unimaginable frustration of doing anything without hands. Please do not trivialize the sacrifice of these men by washing away their numbers away through a dishonest choice of words. …

If you mean to count the dead, dare to use the word “dead”. If you mean to count casualties, dare to count them all.

Cmdr. MacBragg
PsyOps Unit 44
Groom Lake AFB