Faked Pentagon GI Death Reporting

We recently published a comment from a White House staffer about the deliberate falsification by the Pentagon of the numbers of dead Americans in Iraq.

We are now digging into this via contacts in the Pentagon and elsewhere.

I can assure you that the death tolls are far higher and that many firmly believe that it can be documented and clearly proven. Since our posting on Friday, a number of foreign news agencies have picked this up and have started asking questions. We are going to post the complete DoD casualty lists, in alphabetical order, with a request for anyone knowing about a casualty that is not on these lists to contact us.

Also, the story about the Iraqi murder and mutilation of captured US troops has been more than supported by a number of unhappy GIs and foreign news media.

All it will take is to collate this, codify it and put it up on the internet and to send it out to hundreds of websites, both domestic and foreign.

If correct, this is a very serious matter and one that the administration simply cannot cover up, no matter how many documents they shred.

In the end, the dead will talk,

False Casualty Figures.( Ложные американские иллюстрации Несчастного случая)
January 15, 2005
http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=36636

From the Pentagon as of January 14th 2005,figures have been released at some 1361 U.S personnel killed and just over 10,000 wounded from the Iraq war and occupation. Is this a true reflection of the actual casualties or a manipulation of the figures ? The Iraq war from its inception was domestically and internationally unpopular especially as it went specifically against the will of the United Nations regarding pre-emptive war on the grounds of so called WMDs. The first casualty of war is always the truth. The war itself was instigated by the Neoconservatives in the U.S and it is they who control the Pentagon and military administration, Mr Rumsfield and Mr Wolfowitz themselves have control of the information flow out of Iraq, that will be inclusive of casualty figures released by Centcom. Is it in their interest to manipulate casualty flows ? In my opinion, most definitely, purely on the reasons that the higher the casualties the greater the resolve of Americas domestic population, starting to not only question the Iraq invasion but also the occupation and the reasons why America is still in Iraq, a hardening of public opinion against occupation and grounds to call the troops home. The greater the casualties the louder the voices will become to withdraw. This will in effect foreclose on the PNAC doctrine of pre-emptive wars around the world, which is the Neocons dream. Much is at stake for them. The true casualty figures will only be known by those at the Pentagon and a few selected personnel. Gauging previous articles and statements made from various individuals and organizations since March 2003,casualty figures can be pieced together to give a truer reflection on what the real cost in servicemen’s lives are.

In November 2003 a Surgeon at the Ramstein medical base in Germany stated that it had received 9,500 casualties from Iraq needing surgery including over 3000 amputations. In the same month a chief administrator at Baghdad airport stated that it had shipped out around 22,000 injured servicemen and women. In April 2004 the Veterans association stated that it had received 26,633 disability claims from servicemen returning from Iraq. Two months later on the McLaughlin political show aired by CNN, discussion was on a casualty figure centred around 27,000.That in its own confirms the other statistics given above. From various blogs and articles from surgeons, doctors and medical staff, it seems they were dealing with around 50 casualties a day, somewhere in the region of 1,500 a month. Now here is where I have to start speculating and piece the information together as Sherlock Holmes would do .Since April 2004 Najaf exploded in violence twice and the same can be said for Fallujah each incident taking approximately a month to contain. Both Najaf and Fallujah caused extensive resistance not only too those areas but extended out to other areas in Iraq, so that from that, there would be an increase in casualties, I would put it at double the average, around 3,000 each for these 4 months totaling 12,000 casualties. From April 2004 to today January 2005 is ten months, using the template average of 1,500 casualties per month is 15,000 and adding a further 1,500 casualties per month for those four explosive months in Najaf and Fallujah gives a further 6,000.Therefore that leaves a total of 21,000 casualties from April 2004 to date, add that to the Veterans association figures of 26,633 casualties pre April 2004 giving a total of 48,000 casualties. Using a rough guide of 1 soldier killed for every 8 wounded gives a figure of 6,000 killed.

In my opinion the true casualty figures of Iraq is around 6,000 servicemen killed and 48,000 wounded. Totaling 54,000.If my figures are accurate then the pentagon is only reporting, making public 20% of the casualties. Many people will state this cannot be possible. They cannot hide that amount. Vietnam was a good reflection initially 6,000 Kia were reported later that rose to 58,000 and later a further 40,000 were deemed missing in action .So if Vietnam is anything to judge, then most certainly casualty figures are manipulated for public consumption

Some additional views on falsified US casualty lists

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread112400/pg1 posted on 17-1-2005 at 08:46 AM Post Number: 1096018 (post id: 1117911)

FACT or FICTON suppressing the death toll in IRAQ

”HI as I’m sure most know I don’t post much, more of a voyeur, lol

I have friends and family in the military of both US & UK.

This weekend just passed we had a small celebration for one of these persons who just retired from the military, there was something like 30 guests ranged from a major to me(armchair general.lol). During the course of the night the Iraq war was mentioned many times, after some more brandy lips started to loosen, I was shocked with what I was told next, according to all of them the numbers of wounded and dead, both British and American where pure BS, they went on to explain that its how they count the dead. for example for someone to be a combat dead, he must have to died in a certain way ( IED?) and his body must be identifiable(in words still indicted) his death must also occur in a certain area. If the soldier is blown to bits he didn’t die in combat, if he died in a certain area he also didn’t die in combat. (to say the least, I was shocked)

Also certain deaths are hidden by telling their next of kin, your son/daughter died in the war in terrorism in a special mission, we can’t tell you any more etc, but he/she died a hero.

None of them knew the real numbers per se , but from what they had seen and heard they guessed between 3000 dead (all coalition members including private security) to over 8000 dead. all agreed how ever that the total wounded was over 40,000

I’m sure we all know that given the way of world today(public outcry over large deaths, one could understand why such numbers are suppressed if in fact they are.

I always remember something a close friend of mine always said. " there’re two sides to every story. What makes you think your side is the one speaking the truth?"

Another posting on the same site:

“I agree with Marg, there's no way the gov't can cover this up. They must notify the families as soon as possible after the operation and they release full lists of the KIA so if a family member doesn't see their relative on it, they'd raise hell.”

Comment: This is pure wishful thinking on the part of the writer. Our government has covered up a great deal more than this and gotten away with it. They “must” notify the families? They do notify but at their convenience and they certainly do not release “full lists” of the KIA. The writer is correct about one thing, the families would certainly raise hell if they found out the truth about all of this sick and self-serving business. Bush refuses to attend any military funeral services, Rumsfeld sends out rubber-stamped condolence notices and now it appears that not only the number of wounded but also the number of dead are conveniently papered over to con the American public.

U.S. Suffered Over 20,000 More Military Dead During Vietnam War Than Previously Reported
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
September 1998

The U.S. Veteran Dispatch has uncovered Pentagon records revealing that the United States suffered nearly 20,000 more fatalities during the Vietnam War era than the 58,182 servicemen whose names are engraved on the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.

According to a U.S. Army file called TAGCEN which contains over 293,000 Army casualty records, there are 19,644 U.S. Army servicemen who were killed or died between January 1, 1965 and December 31, 1975 that are not counted as Vietnam war dead because their death certificates were written in other countries, including the United States.

 There are two versions of TAGCEN, one for public use and one for internal government use.

 To verify the information presented in this article, U.S. Army casualty records were cross-referenced between the Pentagon's Combat Area Casualties Current File (CACCF) and the TAGCEN file dating between the years 1965 and 1975.

 There is a difference between the files of approximately 500 Vietnam service records, which means the 19,644 number could be 500 higher.

The CACCF file contains 58,200 plus records of men from all services who are listed as died in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. Those names are chiseled into the National Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C. and the CACCF file is available to the public.

Of the total names in the CACCF file, 37,942 are of Army killed or missing during the time frame January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1975 and are listed on The Wall.

When the 37,942 is subtracted from the 57,586 Army dead or missing the Pentagon has recorded in TAGCEN for 1965 to 1975, there is a difference of 19,644 Army dead.

Casualty records and files which record the Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard killed and wounded outside of the Vietnam War zone during the 1965-75 time frame remain unavailable. The number of servicemen from those branches whose deaths were recorded in other countries is believed to be significantly high.

If casualty files for those branches were made public and added to the Army casualties, it is estimated that the number of fatalities could be as high as 30,000 more than the Vietnam-era dead claimed by the Pentagon.

It has long been known that servicemen who died outside Vietnam as a result of wounds they received in Southeast Asia were not counted as Vietnam war dead, but the exact number of those casualties has never been made public.

Even if a number of the fatalities are not related to the Vietnam combat area, there is no way the United States lost 30,000 servicemen from 1965 to 1975 because of accidents, crime, health problems, etc.

From January 1965 until December 1975, Pentagon records show 57,586 U.S. Army servicemen died in the following countries:

North Vietnam — 11
South Vietnam — 37,259
Cambodia — 421
Czechoslovakia — 14
France — 31
Germany — 2,329
Italy — 36
Japan — 66
Laos — 134
Mexico — 11
Okinawa — 50
Panama — 49
South Korea — 438
Thailand — 167
United States — 16,004
Classified (CIA/Special Forces Operations)— 71
Other Countries such as Albania, Belgium, , Liberia, Venezuela, etc. — 495
Total — 57,586

In June, to help further explore these findings, the U.S. Veteran Dispatch posted the casualty figures on several internet newsgroups which deal with the Vietnam War. There were a number of responses, some which challenged the validity of our sources and some which offered more information.

The list below is an example of the Army casualties by year in South Vietnam and the United States.

Note as the number of Army personnel killed in South Vietnam began to climb in 1965, the Army dead in the United States increased correspondingly until 1971 when more soldiers died in the United States than in Vietnam.

Even though by 1973 the U.S. was backing out of the Vietnam War and U.S. casualties in Vietnam had dropped significantly, Army soldiers continued to die back home in the States.

1965
South Vietnam - 1,080
United States - 0

1966
South Vietnam - 3,770
United States - 714

1967
South Vietnam - 6,470
United States - 1,588

1968
South Vietnam - 10,595
United States - 1,887

1969
South Vietnam - 8,192
United States - 2,068

1970
South Vietnam - 4,643
United States - 1,876

1971
South Vietnam - 2,066
United States - 2,193

1972
South Vietnam - 362
United States - 1,795

1973
South Vietnam - 26
United States - 1,508

1974
South Vietnam - 40
United States - 1,231

1975
South Vietnam - 13
United States - 1,134

What the NYT Death Chart Omitted : The Slaughter of Iraqi Civilians by US Military

http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff01172005.html
by Dave Lindorff 

A horrifying chart and map on the opinion page of Sunday's New York Times graphically displays the carnage caused by the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq. Over a 14-day period during the first two weeks of the new year, Brookings Institution senior research assistant Adriana Lins de Albuquerque shows that 202 people died "as a result of the insurgency."

But the chart is deceptive, leaving out at least as much as it puts in.

First of all, and most importantly, as Lins de Albuquerque notes in her brief explanation, the chart doesn't give any information about the number of Iraqi insurgents killed by U.S. forces over the same period, nor does it give figures for Iraqi civilians "accidentally killed by coalition forces."

As she explains, "because of the limits placed on reporters," such information is not available (she fails to mention that also left out are the numbers of people killed by Iraqi troops and police).

In fact, we know from reports by the U.S.-backed government in Iraq that the U.S. has been "accidentally" killing Iraqi civilians at a prodigious rate--a rate both higher than the rate they are being killed by insurgents and higher than the rate that the U.S. forces have been killing insurgents. If that report, released late last fall, is correct, then a chart displaying the victims of U.S.-led forces would be larger even than the one developed by Ms. Lins de Albuquerque.

If those ratios are correct, the U.S. is probably also killing more civilians on average than the 38 percent or total deaths (76 civilians in the first two weeks of January) caused by the insurgency. For all the media focus on the viciousness of the insurgents, it would appear that they are being much more effective and selective in their attacks--killing primarily Iraqi troops, Iraqi police, and U.S. and "coalition" troops--than is the U.S.

Of course, most of the civilians killed by U.S. and "coalition" forces are killed "accidentally" only by the most strained definition of the term. The truth is that American aircraft are dropping bombs, including anti-personnel weapons and, reportedly, napalm, as well as 500 and 1000 lb. explosives once known in the trade as "block busters," on urban targets all the time. Occasionally one of these weapons will be reported as having hit the wrong target, but even when they hit the right target, it"s safe to say that the so-called "collateral damage" is widespread and horrific.

In addition, there are the helicopter and fixed-wing gunships, which are designed to completely saturate wide areas with deadly fire, killing every living thing in those "dead zones" with projectiles that penetrate even concrete walls. When civilians die at the hands of these genuine weapons of mass destruction, their demise can hardly be termed "accidental."

Little wonder that the Iraqi government report found that a third of U.S.-caused casualties are children under the age of 14.

Finally, U.S. ground troops themselves are popping off civilians at a scandalous rate, thanks to a "spray and pray" policy of firing off everything they've got in a 360-degree radius whenever they come under enemy fire. Little wonder that reporters in Iraq are at least as afraid of being killed "accidentally" by American forces as they are of being attacked by insurgents or of hitting an errant roadside bomb.

Little wonder also that U.S. military authorities have a policy of not reporting civilian or insurgent death totals. The grisly details of their campaign of slaughter would not be popular either in the Middle East or here at home.

Or at the New York Times, where printing such a chart would have taken up not just the entire opinion page, but the whole editorial page, too.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Information about both books and other work by Lindorff can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com