Iraq Casualties

This article highlights the great efforts we make to make sure that wounded American soldiers and Marines survive their wounds. From devices to evacuation practices and medical procedures, we demonstrate our concern for our troops in battle. The result is the lowest death rate for those wounded in action in any of our wars.

But what really struck me was this:

After two years, the U.S. death toll is rising toward 1,700, far lower than the 3,000-plus deaths estimated for the initial invasion.

I know that assumptions were that the fight might last six months until we defeated Saddam's regime, but this estimate is way high. Although I never blogged my casualty thoughts, when asked, I said that I expected no more than 250 killed in action during the war. I thought we would hit 500 KIA only if there was significant city fighting in Baghdad by hard core resisters and/or chemical weapons use. And I didn't assume the Baathists would be able to pull a Berlin 1945 defense, I figured the Special Republican Guards could easily be thugs who would fold when confronted with real troops. As it turns out, there was no chemical weapons use and no last ditch defense of Baghdad. Our casualties were less that half of what I expected in the invasion.

I have no idea what programs the military uses for casualty projections, but 3,000 dead just to conquer Iraq seems ridiculous given the results of the Persian Gulf War of 1991. I'd be really interested to know what the assumptions were.

Still, the main point is that we are taking extraordinary efforts to save our wounded troops.