1000 days in Iraq

[MickeyFinn]

Some quick facts about the last 1000 days.

Christian Science Monitor
December 13, 2005
Pg. 20

Backstory: 1,000 Days In Iraq



Compiled by Daniel Enemark

Tuesday marks the 1,000th day of the war in Iraq. Apart from the debate over its purpose and progress, here are some basic facts about the conflict.

Casualties

* 2,149 US forces have been killed, including 44 women.

* 15,880 US soldiers have been wounded.

* On average, 37 US soldiers a month are shipped home because of '"psychiatric" problems.

* 201 non-US Coalition forces have been killed in Iraq, including 98 from Britain, 27 from Italy, 18 from Ukraine, 17 from Poland, 13 from Bulgaria, and 11 from Spain.

* 25,000 to 30,000 is a rough estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians who lost their lives for war-related reasons since May 2003.

* An estimated 3,700 Iraqi police and military have died since June 2003.

Sources: The Brookings Institution, GlobalSecurity.org, The Wall Street Journal, Iraq Minister of Interior

Causes of death

* Of the 2,149 US troop casualties, the largest number resulted from hostile fire (some 693). Other major contributors: Improvised Explosive Devices (636); accidents, friendly fire, and other 'nonhostile causes' (393); helicopter losses (126); car bombs (111).

Source: The Brookings Institution

Insurgent strength

* 3,500 is the lowest estimate of full-time insurgents. US military estimates put the range between 8,000 and 18,000 "core" insurgents. Iraqi intelligence officials believe the number of insurgent sympathizers could be as high as 200,000.

Source: "Iraqi Force Development" by Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Troop levels

* 160,000 US troops are currently deployed in Iraq.

* 1.05 million troops have been stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001.

* 32.6 percent of American troops have been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for two or more tours of duty.

* 23,000 non-US or Iraqi soldiers are serving as part of the Coalition forces.

Sources: US Department of Defense, The Brookings Institution

Contractors

* As of March 2005, more than 20,000 individuals were working for private contractors in Iraq.

* 6,000 of these were guarding individuals, escorting convoys, or performing other security roles.

* 286 private contractors have been killed.

* As of July 2004, the US had paid out more than $50 billion to civilian contractors. Among the largest contracts: Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton ($10.8 billion); Parsons Corp. ($5.2 billion); Fluor Corp. ($3.8 billion); Washington Group International ($3.1 billion).

Sources: P.W. Singer "Outsourcing the War in Iraq" in Foreign Affairs, The Center for Public Integrity

Journalists

* 75 journalists have been killed in the war; 2 are missing.

Source: Reporters Without Borders

Iraqi Opinion

* 64 percent of Iraqis predict their lives will improve in the coming year; 69 percent believe the nation will improve.

Source: Oxford Research International for the BBC (November 2005)

The mailbag

* Up to 400,000 pounds of mail is delivered to US service members in the Gulf each day. It arrives on its own 747.

Source: US Postal Service

[Boom]

And congressmen are saying that in 2006 the cost of the war could reach half a trillion dollars. That's 500 billion, or $500,000,000,000. Boy that is a lot of zeros.

Didn't the Bush administration tell us that this wouldn't be a prolonged, expensive operation with high casualties? Didn't they fire a guy for daring to say that the cost could reach 100 billion?

[MickeyFinn]

Considering that it is a war, the American casualties are pretty low. Of course, in my opinion, it wasn't worth even 1 American life.

[Inez]

Great research there Mickey :D . Why do we need to save the world when our own country needs work? Eh I guess cuz we're Americans and we're always here to help....

[Nymf]

the biased link
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

[Rooster]

More perspective...

In the past 2 years, there've been more murders in California, than we've lost soldiers in Iraq.

[mctana]

Compare the entire military, civilian and police deathcount in Iraq with automobile deaths in the US in 1 year.

[spyder913]

even more perspective - there are many many more people in california than troops in iraq =P

[Boom]

You don't think there were also murders in Iraq?

Apples and oranges.

Compare the murder rate in California to the murder rate in Iraq if you want. Not sure what the point would be.

Our war losses are a completely different ballgame

[Rooster]

even more perspective - there are many many more people in california than troops in iraq =PBy the same token, you'd either have to say there are more murderers in California than there are terrorists... that, or the murderers in Cali are just better than the terrorists in Iraq

[Rooster]

You don't think there were also murders in Iraq?

Apples and oranges.

Compare the murder rate in California to the murder rate in Iraq if you want. Not sure what the point would be.

Our war losses are a completely different ballgameNot really... people complain about the losses of soldiers in Iraq, but do we hear an outcry regarding the murder rate in California? No... it all has to do with what people feel like griping about - not about reality.

[Post]

See, people are neglecting the relative terms of these deaths. Obviously, if a company employees four people, and two of them die from working there, then that's a really crappy place to work, even though Microsoft or Motorola or whatever may have a much higher amount of people dying there. Why? Because having one out of every two people employed there dying sucks. Not because having two people per year sucks.

So let's see these in their relative terms:

"In the past 2 years, there've been more murders in California, than we've lost soldiers in Iraq."

There are 6.14 murders for every 100k people in California every year. In the Iraqi war, we've lost 1319.75 soldiers per 100k sent to Iraq.

"Compare the entire military, civilian and police deathcount in Iraq with automobile deaths in the US in 1 year."

Ok, let's. I wasn't able to find any sites putting all of that info together for Iraq, but as far as civilian casualties go, it's 105.73 civilians out of every 100k dead from the war. Automobile deaths in one year for the US is 14.9 per 100k.

[malkovich]

this discussion is moving further and further away from anything meaningful with every post ...

[Post]

Well, I believe the overall "theme" from the start of this thread, as far as the debatable things go, is whether or not we've paid a considerable price for our occupation of Iraq. To which we're still debating.

[Noleader]

See, people are neglecting the relative terms of these deaths. Obviously, if a company employees four people, and two of them die from working there, then that's a really crappy place to work, even though Microsoft or Motorola or whatever may have a much higher amount of people dying there. Why? Because having one out of every two people employed there dying sucks. Not because having two people per year sucks.

So let's see these in their relative terms:

"In the past 2 years, there've been more murders in California, than we've lost soldiers in Iraq."

There are 6.14 murders for every 100k people in California every year. In the Iraqi war, we've lost 1319.75 soldiers per 100k sent to Iraq.

"Compare the entire military, civilian and police deathcount in Iraq with automobile deaths in the US in 1 year."

Ok, let's. I wasn't able to find any sites putting all of that info together for Iraq, but as far as civilian casualties go, it's 105.73 civilians out of every 100k dead from the war. Automobile deaths in one year for the US is 14.9 per 100k.

Interesting Stats... thanks for collecting them Post.

[MickeyFinn]

Well, I believe the overall "theme" from the start of this thread, as far as the debatable things go, is whether or not we've paid a considerable price for our occupation of Iraq. To which we're still debating.

For the most part, I was just posting the known facts up to this point to see where things go :)

[Boom]

The point is that in 2003, we were told by the Bush Administration that this would be a cheap, quick operation with low casualties.

Cheney said, "I think [the war will] go relatively quickly."

When he was asked to be more specific he said, "Weeks rather than months."

Rummy said that the war, "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Now conservatives are saying that critics of the administration are stupid for thinking that this war would be quick and easy and wonder where we got this crazy idea. We are totally out of line for saying that the administration was wrong because no one in the administration ever said that this would be a quick and easy operation.

But they did say it, and they were wrong. They thought it would last a few weeks. They didn't plan for an extended war lasting years. They sure as hell didn't prepare us for it, they told us it would be a few weeks.

The point of all those statistics isn't to say that this is the worst war in history, or that more Americans are dying in Iraq than in California. The point is that our administration was wrong and we are not traitors for saying so.

[Kegg OBeer]

Semantics...

The 'war' was actually pretty quick. They were correct in that aspect.

Once the 'war' ended, the 'occupation' began. Nobody said the 'occupation' or the 'transfer of power' would be quick, easy or simple.

So you see, if we're splitting hairs, then they never lied or misrepresented anything. The 'war' was over in less than a week if I remember correctly.