Dept. of Defense Report today has 130 extra US deaths...2,245 total

[meganmonkey]

:wtf:

What's this all about??? It has the total at 2,245 deaths, but they have only 'announced' and 'confirmed' 2,108...They give no explanation for the sudden change/discrepency. Maybe it is an error, but you'd think someone would have fixed it promptly.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

This is also commented on at ICCC: http://icasualties.org/oif/

I wonder what happened. Any ideas??

:(

I hope this isn't a dupe - I didn't see it in this forum on a quick search

[shraby]

1. It probably includes Afghanistan.

[meganmonkey]

6. The chart from the DoD site clearly indicates Operation Iraqi Freedom

and there is a seperate chart for Afghanistan...

[leftchick]

7. nope, they are all from OIF

Latest Coalition Fatality: Nov 26, 2005
Today’s casualty report from the DoD states that the total U.S. deaths for Operation Iraqi Freedom is 2245. This is over 130 more than our count and the total number of DoD death confirmations.
The DoD has given no explanation for the sudden increase in fatality totals and there has been no mention in the press as to why the totals have increased dramatically over the past week.

[tyedyeto]

8. There are separate charts for the two

and the one for Iraq show 2245.

[whatever4]

2. *tin foil*

Offhand, I thought it seemed as if they were holding back the number of daily deaths right before the 2000 number mark. It seemed that total was being "managed", as far as when it would be released. Complete cynical theory, nothing to base this on.

[Beaverhausen]

3. or Total casualties compared to US casualties?

in other words that larger total includes the British and other countries deaths????

[bigscott]

5. afghanistan

has over 200 deaths

[Ian David]

9. Bill Frist has the final say as to whether they are actually dead or not

They send him videotapes of the corpses, and he watches each one for about an hour before giving his medical opinion.

[Lasher]

30. Heeeeee heeeee!!

Good one! I sent Frist a viedo of myself so that I wouldn't have to go in for my annual physical. I haven't heard back from him yet.

[tyedyeto]

12. The total 'coalition' casualties is already above 2300

according to Iraq Coalition Casualties. So, it's not that combination either.

[leftchick]

4. Comment from ICC..... This is bizarre

Latest Coalition Fatality: Nov 26, 2005
Today’s casualty report from the DoD states that the total U.S. deaths for Operation Iraqi Freedom is 2245. This is over 130 more than our count and the total number of DoD death confirmations.
The DoD has given no explanation for the sudden increase in fatality totals and there has been no mention in the press as to why the totals have increased dramatically over the past week.



... and yet not surprising. I wonder how many other deaths will suddenly pop up out of nowhere in the future. Lying bastards. :(

[tyedyeto]

10. Could this be part of the answer?

For a long time here at DU, many people have said the DoD was under-reporting casualties. Think they were about to get caught so they published them?

[meganmonkey]

13. But what difference would 130 deaths make

in the big picture? It would be one thing if they were lying about thousands (which they really couldn't get away with). This is a relatively small number, so I can't imagine whay they would lie about it.

My mind is boggled trying to think of a logical explanation :crazy:

(with all due respect to those who have lost loved ones - every individual lost to this lie of a war is significant)

[tyedyeto]

18. Maybe the DoD is going to ...

up that count little by little until all casualties are finally reported. You do that every few weeks and it could boost those numbers significantly.

(with all due respect to those who have lost loved ones - every individual lost to this lie of a war is significant) So true and yet so sad, too.

[TheWraith]

19. If they were trying to delay/obfuscate the 2000 number, or...

If they were trying to delay the 2000 milestone in order to lessen the backlash, it might make some twisted kind of sense.

The alternative is that there's been a catastrophic spike in casualties for some reason that we know nothing about at the moment.

[sabra]

11. Combat Operations - 19 Mar 03 thru 30 Apr 03 (139 killed)

The 2101 count starts May 1, after "Mission Accomplished"

[TheWraith]

15. Not so, according to ICC

ICasualties' chart includes KIAs for March and April, and they're as baffled as anyone.

[sabra]

16. ah, you're right.

When I opened up the date list, I saw 05/01/03, and thought that was the earliest in the list.

Weird?

[TheWraith]

17. *Extremely* weird. NT.

[Horse with no Name]

14. I am quite sure that there are many deaths that we don't know about

That will just be added in from time to time...hopefully unnoticed...until we actually have an accurate number. My guess is that there are troops scheduled to come home that they will be unable to explain otherwise. It seems there are always a few stories of "he was due to come home next week", etc.
With all the bombs,etc, 2100+ seems rather low to me.
I'm sure we would be horrified to know the actual amount.
Jaded? You betcherass.

[Jara sang]

20. Cryptome's numbers were always about a hundred or so higher.

http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm

I didn't know why.

[meganmonkey]

23. Hmm...it looks like they include the deaths in Afghanistan

from the Iraq War time period...so that wouldn't explain it...

[the_real_38]

21. Wow, this is for real - someone's been lying.

I have always gone to ICCC to check out the totals, they're the most reputable source.

[Angry Girl]

22. C'mon! You KNOW these numbers are BULL!

Once they start lying, they can never keep their stories straight.

Anyway, the whole tragedy is way underreported. I mean, who's going to check up if Luis, who was promised U.S. citizenship, dies in Iraq? And what about Greg, some poor, dumb bastard from Alabama? You really think these people's names are making it on "the list"?

[the_real_38]

25. Yeah, we all may have to get involved, there. And ...

... I've been to other web sites that claim a bunch of U.S. soldiers have died in German hospitals, but haven't been counted as casualties in Iraq. I've always chalked that up to conspiracy theory, but I wonder if now they're going to 'phase in' the true fatality count with periodic 'upward adjustments' like today's.

Evil shit.

[meganmonkey]

26. Self-delete

shit, I'm gonna get myself in trouble.

[Angry Girl]

48. I know exactly how you feel, MM

I have to bite my tongue constantly in public. *sigh*

[pecwae]

39. I agree with you

but won't get into specifics why. I don't particularly relish being called a liar on DU or elsewhere. Perhaps when I hit the 1000 mark I can post my experience with DoD, DoA "math" and casualty reporting.

[Angry Girl]

47. Welcome to DU!

Please don't pay attention to any small-minded people who would criticize what you have to say. Nobody has the right to call you a liar, particularly on the prejudiced basis that you're new here!

Anyhow, hi and welcome!
:hi:

[OregonBlue]

24. Anybody send this to the news organizations with a WTF? question?

Maybe Keith can get the answer.

[meganmonkey]

27. That's a good idea

I'm gonna look up his email address

[OregonBlue]

46. Thanks, me too. Maybe if there are enough emails, they'll take a look!

[Jara sang]

28. This story needs to be on the DU front page.

[Nimrod2005]

29. As my 3 year old would say: "oh boy oh boy!"

[MADem]

31. Possible reasons for the discrepancy

1. They are gaming the numbers. Why? Who knows. It just does not make sense.

2. They had an unusual number of deaths all at once from wounds in hospitals at Landschtul, Walter Reed, and elsewhere. Unlikely, but as the total of dead and wounded comes up, what seems like a big number becomes a much smaller "percentage of the total" over time.

3. They've been busy on the Syrian border of late, lost a large number, and held the numbers because families were hither and yon for Thanksgiving, making notification problematic. Not much reporting coming out of "Operation Let's Fuck With Syria" so that would be hard to pin down.

4. A troop transport aircraft has recently crashed, and they haven't released the info pending notification, to avoid a swamp of phone calls to Casualty Assistance over the shorthanded Thanksgiving Day holidays.

5. Some idiot "forgot" to make a large number of entries (either a list of dead, or lists of wounded who died in hospitals) to the central database, or was transferring, and failed to turn over the lists for inclusion to his or her relief. Or they fell behind the filing cabinet. That idiot has since been fired or reassigned and the mistake corrected, quietly, over the holiday weekend (if you think that is an unlikely scenario, it isn't--I've seen screwups like that happen, though not with this grave an import).

Hopefully some intrepid member of the 4th Estate will get going and find an answer.

[meganmonkey]

33. Yeah, I was thinking maybe #2

That seemed the most logical. But the strangest part is that they still haven't 'confirmed' any of them, as far as the official announcements that come out. They are on the .pdf file link, but not one their regular lists.

I can't imagine #3 - that is a hell of a lot of casualties for one week :(

Maybe it was literally a typo. I hope we find out though...

I emailed Olbermann (I am not a TV-News watcher, but he seems to be everyone's favorite around here) with the links and my explanation. I don't know how likely it is that he will see my email or act on it, but it's worth a shot.

[NMDemDist2]

45. my first thought was your #3 this Syria border war is heating up and

I'm thinking the DoD hopes it just slides by quietly. I don't think they want to admit they're in a real shooting war again

[catmandu57]

32. I've thought for a long time

that bodies were being hidden away, a few at a time, listed as wia or just hidden.
We know that every branch, twig, and root of this maladministration is corrupt and now they're getting caught again.
They've been caught redhanded
LYING
OBFUSCUTING
SPINNING
IGNORING
DENYING

It's been proven time after time we can't believe or trust these people, they're delusional scary. I for one don't doubt for a minute they've hid casualties, but somebody got wise.

Someone is going to drop another hammer, maybe the military has had enough. Maybe they're tired of being used up, and used as tool to further the manical delusions of a cabal of dangerous freaks.

Maybe they're fucking tired of Americans being snuck into the country on the qt dead and wounded men and women.
I believe they started a war with DoD, just like the one with the CIA, and they're loosing both of them.

[meganmonkey]

34. According to Will Pitt:

"I called the DoD press office and got a nice lady who said the error was personally her fault, and that the report will shortly be revised to remove those 137 soldiers. She said it was a simple clerical error.

My question: Do you buy that explanation?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5467521

[LisaLynne]

35. No, I don't exactly buy it.

I mean, I'm sure she wasn't supposed to add those deaths in, but I'm not convinced they didn't happen.

[MADem]

38. NO!!! And here's why

The PRESS OFFICE does NOT manage that database! It's a personnel/casualty assistance/decedent affairs show!

No one from the press office can modify the thing. They can POST it on these here internets, but they cannot add or subtract the numbers.

[meganmonkey]

40. Yeah, that sounds really fishy to me

Even if it were the same office, how likely is it that the person answering the general phones is the one managing that sort of document? I work in a teeny office of about 10 staff and it wouldn't even happen there.

:shrug:

[MADem]

42. Public Affairs/Public Information is a fairly open environment

(relatively speaking). You have to jump through hoops to get anywhere they keep a secure database...so the locations are NOT the same.

I'm thinking they get a printout from the database keepers, and there was a screwup somewhere along the line...but a typo just seems a bit "off" as an excuse to me. Maybe someone needs glasses????

[sabra]

36. Guess what? The DOD updated the PDF:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

Total count is now 2106

[Hyernel]

37. I can see a clerical error of "1" or "10" or "100"...

But 137 isn't likely an error of that type.

[onenote]

41. its not 137, its 139 and there's a pretty obvious explanation

The DOD reports a current fatality total of 2006. The earlier report was 2245. The difference is 139, not 137. And 139 is exactly the number of fatalities that occurred in the "combat" phase of the war -- March to April 2003. As much as I know folks aren't going to want to believe it, the most likely explanation is that it was in fact a clerical screw up, with someone adding the 139 to the total twice.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

onenote

[Joe for Clark]

43. I think it is just because they have a "creative way" of counting.

For instance, my boys friends died on the way to an engagement, he was never counted as a combat death, since he was only "on the way" and not actually engaged.

The death toll is higher than they report, usually. Looks like they slipped into "reality reporting" here, little.

It is all BS.

Joe

[Toots]

44. Maybe the 130 is American Civilians while the other is American Servicemen

:shrug: