US Iraq Casualties Rise to 72,400

US military occupation forces in Iraq under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 19 combat casualties in the eight days ending July 22, 2009, as the official total since the 2003 invasion rose to at least 72,380.

The total includes 34,910 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and more than 37,490 dead and medically evacuated (out of date: last reported April 4, 2009) from "non-hostile" causes.*

The actual total is over 100,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the more than 30,000 veterans whose injuries-mainly brain trauma from explosions - were diagnosed only after they had left Iraq.** In addition, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Report names eight service members who died of wounds after they left Iraq and are not counted by the Pentagon.***

US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by occasionally reporting only the total killed (4,332 as of July 22) but rarely mentioning the 31,4461 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 36,624 (as of April 4))*** military victims of accidents and illness serious enough to require medical air evacuation, although the 4,332 reported deaths include 868 (up one) who died from those same causes, including at least 18 from faulty electrical work by KBR and 177 suicides through 2008.****

Key:

* The number of wounded is updated weekly by the Pentagon.

** New York Times, Jan 26, 2009

*** Iraq Coalition Casualty Report

**** the number of "non combat" injured is reported irregularly by the Pentagon.

**** NYTimes, Jan 30, 2009 Compiled by Michael Munk @ www.MichaelMunk.com

400,000 Troops needed For Afghanistan

No, that's not a typo. The outgoing US commander of NATO troops in Afghanistan says it would require 400,000 troops to secure that country.

ISAF Commander McNeill has said himself that according to the current counterterrorism doctrine, it would take 400,000 troops to pacify Afghanistan in the long term. But the reality is that he has only 47,000 soldiers under his command, together with another 18,000 troops fighting at their sides as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, and possibly another 75,000 reasonably well-trained soldiers in the Afghan army by the end of the year. All told, there is still a shortfall of 260,000 men.

Gen Dan McNeill is one of the straight-shooters of the US military, he says what he means and says it when it needs said. Four hundred thousand troops. As opposed to the less than 200,000 sent to Iraq for the Surge.

Worse, it costs the U. S. three times to maintain a soldier in Afghanistan that it costs it to maintain a soldier in Iraq. Consequently, the U. S.'s maintaining a force of 400,000 in Afghanistan would cost us nearly ten times what we're spending in Iraq right now.

But as Brandon Freidman points out today, the alternative - what is happening right now - is that the US is losing on the central front of the poorly named "War On Terror".

In terms of enemy fire, May 2008 was the second deadliest month of the war since hostilities began in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11. This also marked the end of the deadliest 12-month period for U.S. troops in combat in Afghanistan since the war began nearly seven years ago.

1. We have just experienced the deadliest 12-month period of the war in Afghanistan in terms of hostile fire--by far.

99 Americans have been killed in action since 1 June 2007. The previous 12-month high was 70--between 1 June 2005 and 31 May 2006.

2. The hostile fire death rate for American troops in Afghanistan last month was four times that of Iraq.

One out of every 2,500 (.04 percent) Americans in Afghanistan died last month at the hands of the enemy. This is much higher than in Iraq, in which one out of every 10,000 (.01 percent) American troops died.

That hostile fire death rate is comparable with many of the worst months in Iraq during the Surge, when administration officials and military leaders were telling us to expect higher casualty rates - and yet there's no Surge in Afghanistan.

Brandon, a veteran of the Afghan and Iraq wars, writes: More