Hiding the bodies: More dieing, US seeing it less.

[Guest guest]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/08/us_casualties/index.html

 

Hiding the bodies

U.S. casualties have spiked in Iraq over the last

three months, but security expert John Pike says the

Bush administration -- with the help of the media --

is succeeding in keeping the carnage out of view.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Jeff Horwitz

 

 

Sept. 8, 2004 | During August, Iraqi insurgents

proved themselves more capable of inflicting

casualties on American troops than ever before.

Sixty-six American soldiers were killed and more than

1,100 were wounded, according to information released

by the Department of Defense. But even with extensive

coverage of the intense conflict in Najaf last month,

the U.S. media was relatively quiet about the cost of

battle to U.S. soldiers.

 

That cost has been steadily rising for months, says

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a think

tank in Washington specializing in military and

international security issues. " The amount of combat

that U.S. soldiers are seeing is going up, but the

amount of combat the American public is seeing is

going down, " he says. " Iraq has almost turned into the

forgotten war -- it's just faded into the background. "

 

The news on Tuesday of crossing the 1,000 marker for

U.S. fatalities in Iraq has brought the conflict back

into the headlines, at least temporarily. But since

the transfer of power to Ayad Allawi's interim Iraqi

government in June, deaths and casualties have risen

every month: August was the bloodiest month in the

conflict so far. A week into September, the situation

looks no calmer; at least 14 soldiers have died in the

last three days.

 

The steady rise in U.S. casualties can't be helpful to

Bush's reelection campaign -- which continues to stick

to its message that the overall situation in Iraq is

improving -- and could have an impact on the

homestretch of the election. To that end, Pike

believes that Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defense

is being " economical with the truth " in order to

downplay the increasing casualties. " The numbers they

release are the smallest possible numbers that cover

the most restricted possible definition, " he says.

" And they are being released as late as possible. "

 

Salon reached Pike by phone on Tuesday at his office

in Washington.

 

What is Global Security's assessment of the rate of

U.S. casualties in Iraq during August?

 

By our calculation, it was the bloodiest month of the

war. And as for why, well, the short answer is that we

just don't know. CENTCOM presumably has a much better

idea, but Secretary Rumsfeld only addressed it in very

general terms on Tuesday. It appears that a

significant chunk of the casualties were from the

siege in Najaf, where the enemy were firing mortar

rounds at our troops, who were out in the open. The

theory is that the shrapnel from those mortar rounds

would produce a lot of wounds, but relatively fewer

fatalities.

 

I think that this substantial increase in the number

of battle injuries is really indicative of how intense

the siege of Najaf was.

 

The media was largely focused on Najaf, but wasn't the

fighting more widespread?

 

Well, things have since cooled down in Najaf, but yes,

they've been heating up pretty good in other

locations. Now Sadr City is looking bad. And the

Marines in Fallujah are really hurting again. They had

a bad day [Tuesday] in Fallujah with another suicide

car bomb.

 

What do you think the impact will be of the news that

more than 1,000 American soldiers have now died in

Iraq?

 

I think it will refocus public attention on the costs

of the war, and I hope it will refocus public

attention on what can be done over the longer run to

reduce this cost to Americans. Because the war has

really receded in the mass media. The amount of

coverage of the war has gone way down in the last

several months.

 

The amount of combat that the soldiers are seeing is

going up, but the amount of combat the American public

is seeing is going down. Iraq has almost turned into

the forgotten war -- it's just faded into the

background.

 

Your new report predicts an even worse month for

casualties in September.

 

Yes, there's been an upward trend in American deaths

in Iraq for each of the last three months; each one's

been worse that the previous one. And it looks like

September's going to be worse that August. The battle

injuries were really bad last month, and it may get

worse before it gets better.

 

We're projecting what the number of fatalities for the

month of September will be based on what we've seen to

date. And as of today, the 7th, we've already had 23

deaths this month. If the rest of the month looks like

the first week, then it looks like we'll have as many

as 100 dead this month, making it the second worst

month of the war.

 

What's your view of how the Bush administration is

currently handling the situation in Iraq?

 

Well, of course the administration is going to try to

highlight the good news that is coming out of Iraq.

The good news is that they are starting to spend

reconstruction money, that they are equipping Iraqi

forces, and that those Iraqi forces are standing up.

More and more Iraqi troops are fighting for their own

country so that we don't have to do it for them.

 

But are they being forthright about the rate of U.S.

casualties?

 

I think if you look at the information being released,

you can see all types of information not being

covered. The Army gives out casualty evacuation

numbers; the Marine Corps does not. And there's very

little information being given out on combat stress

casualties. The Army gives out information on how many

psychiatric evaluations they've had from the war

theater, but some significant multiple of that number

must be in the combat stress care system in the

theater. But they'd only evacuate somebody due to

combat stress if all else failed. So we're getting an

extremely incomplete portrait of what the human cost

to American soldiers has been.

 

Why has it been so difficult to get good numbers?

 

Because they're not releasing [clear numbers]. They

can choose what information they release and what

information they withhold. And I think it would be in

their interest to minimize the amount of information

they are releasing, because otherwise it would be bad

for troop morale, it would be bad for morale with the

troops' families -- and it would be bad for the morale

of the American people.

 

It might also be bad, of course, for the president's

reelection efforts. I've gotten some e-mail from

people who support the president's reelection who

accused me of drawing attention to this number in

order to hurt the president's chances. They felt I

came up with the wrong answer.

 

But I think that the Department of Defense is being

economical with the truth. The numbers they release

are the smallest possible numbers that cover the most

restricted possible definition, and they are being

released as late as possible. So I think they're

telling us the truth, but I think they are very far

from telling us the whole truth.

 

While a high number of U.S. casualties occurred in

Najaf in August, the Pentagon news releases suggest

that there were significant casualties in other

regions as well. What does that tell us?

 

It's hard to assess. The problem that you've got with

al Anbar [the region including the notorious Sunni

Triangle] is that it's Marine territory, and the

Marines aren't going to tell you squat. The Army is a

fountain of data compared to the Marines. And if you

look at an Army death announcement, they'll tell you

what unit the deceased was associated with, where it

happened, when it happened, and how it happened. The

Marine death announcement is that a Marine attached to

" First Mar. Div " was killed as a result of enemy

action in al Anbar province. Period. That's all

they're going to tell you. That one of their Marines

got killed. And that's it. And if you look at the

evacuation numbers, the evacuation numbers are just

for Army. The Marines won't release anything like

that.

 

What else do you see that's wrong with the U.S.

military's system of accounting for casualties?

 

No one's really bothered to ask whether U.S. soldiers

have died after they are evacuated. No one's ever

asked that question, or at least, no one's ever gotten

a straight answer for that question.

 

I talked to another reporter who covers the Marines

earlier today, and he said that the Marines just won't

talk about it. They just will not answer the question.

" No comment " is all they'll say. When asked why

they're not releasing medical evacuation numbers, they

say " because we're not. "

 

How did you come up with your report?

 

Basically, we compile the information that the Defense

Department releases. Their news releases announce the

name of somebody who has been killed or died in Iraq.

Central Command or the Marines will put out a news

release when someone has died, but before they have

been named. The Washington headquarters service at the

Pentagon puts out monthly summary statistics. We

compile those. The Army surgeon general puts out

statistics on medical evacuees, and we compile those.

 

We are simply attempting to compile in one place all

of the numbers and information that the military is

putting out. We can see all of the different places

where their numbers don't quite fit together. We can

see all of the different places where one agency is

giving out one set of numbers, and another agency is

giving out a different set of numbers with a different

definition. The picture they present is incomplete,

and at times, difficult to reconcile.

 

There are a dozen deaths from April that still need to

be cleared up.

 

The presidential election is two months away. How much

is partisanship a factor here?

 

What, are you suggesting that there's politics in

Washington?

 

War is an inherently political undertaking, and

politicians are the ones responsible for managing that

undertaking. And they have to take into account what

the American people will think of their stewardship of

that responsibility. And I think the fact that we're

coming up on one of the most hotly contested

presidential elections in living memory has certainly

sharpened everyone's focus on this.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

 

About the writer

Jeff Horwitz is an editorial fellow at Salon.