Casualty Rates

With thanks to Nick Beaudrot, a chart shedding a bit more light on the casualty rate issue. "As measured by coalition deaths per day, we are now in the most violent twelve-month stretch of the four year occupation of Iraq," he comments, "However, as measured by injuries per day, things are not quite as bad as the were for the period between April of 2004 and March of 2005, a period that includes the intial outrage at Abu Gharib, rising violence before the '04 election, and the post-election flattening of Fallujah."

Comments

The killed/injured ratio, which had been stable, has begun to change. Since the surge began, injuries are more likely to be fatal.

Posted by K | May 13, 2007 5:16 PM

The legend on the graph is a bit confusing. What are the numbers being tracked? L and R? "Killed + Wounded" less than "Killed" for at least half the period? Maybe "TTM" explains it all, but I don't know what that means either.

Posted by RSA | May 13, 2007 5:23 PM

L = left-hand axis
R = right-hand axis

Posted by Barbar | May 13, 2007 5:57 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/us/30wound.html?ex=1327813200&en=d2702dd0edfb0b43&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

January 30, 2007

Agency Says Higher Casualty Total Was Posted in Error
By DENISE GRADY

For the last few months, anyone who consulted the Veterans Affairs Department's Web site to learn how many American troops had been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan would have found this number: 50,508.

But on Jan. 10, without explanation, the figure plummeted to 21,649.

Which number is correct? The answer depends on a larger question, the definition of wounded. If the term includes combat or "hostile" injuries inflicted by the enemy, the definition the Pentagon uses, the smaller number would be right.

But if it also applies to injuries from accidents like vehicle crashes and to mental and physical illnesses that developed in the war zone, the meaning that veterans' groups favor, 50,508 would be accurate.

A spokesman for the veterans' department, Matt Burns, said the change in the count was made simply to correct an error. Mr. Burns said the department posted the higher figure by mistake in November, when an employee who was updating the site inadvertently added noncombat injuries listed by the Defense Department. The Pentagon Web site had the correct total all along.

The previous total on the Web site was 18,586, strictly for combat injuries. Apparently, no one noticed the sudden leap.

The 50,508 figure caught the attention of the Pentagon when Prof. Linda Bilmes of Harvard mentioned it in an opinion article on Jan. 5 in The Los Angeles Times. A few days later, said Professor Bilmes, who teaches public finance, she had a call from Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, challenging the number.

Professor Bilmes explained that she had used the government tally, the one on the "America's Wars" page of the veterans' department Web site. She faxed him a copy.

A few days later, the number on the Web site was changed....

Posted by anne | May 13, 2007 6:58 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bilmes5jan05,0,3457599,print.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

January 5, 2007

The Battle of Iraq's Wounded: The U.S. is poorly equipped to care for the tens of thousands of soldiers injured in Iraq.
By Linda Bilmes - Los Angeles Times

THE NEW YEAR brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what's equally alarming — and far less well known — is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. That's an unprecedented casualty level. In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two.

That means we now have more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers. In one sense, this reflects positive change: Better medical care and stronger body armor are enabling many more soldiers to survive injuries that might have led, in earlier generations, to death. But like so much else about this war, the Bush administration failed to foresee what it would mean, failed to plan for the growing tide of veterans who would be in urgent need of medical and disability care. The result is that as the Iraq war approaches its fourth anniversary, the Department of Veterans Affairs is buckling under a growing volume of disability claims and rising demand for medical attention.

So far, more than 200,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated at VA medical facilities — three times what the VA projected, according to a Government Accountability Office analysis. More than one-third of them have been diagnosed with mental health conditions....

Posted by anne | May 13, 2007 7:04 PM

There were more than 100,000 disability grants for returned veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan by October 2006, with a projection of 400,000 by the Veterans Administration.

Army medical researchers in Colorado in recent weeks have found 17.8% of returned soldiers suffering from various traumatic brain injuries.

Posted by anne | May 13, 2007 7:09 PM

The 400,000 estimate for eventual disability grant application comes from Veterans for America....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/washington/11veterans.html?ex=1318219200&en=57988c04bbbbd7d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

October 11, 2006

Data Suggests Vast Costs Loom in Disability Claims
By SCOTT SHANE

Nearly one in five soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been at least partly disabled as a result of service, according to documents of the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained by a Washington research group.

The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts. About 567,000 of the 1.5 million American troops who have served so far have been discharged.

"The trend is ominous," said Paul Sullivan, director of programs for Veterans for America, an advocacy group, and a former V.A. analyst.

Mr. Sullivan said that if the current proportions held up over time, 400,000 returning service members could eventually apply for disability benefits when they retired....

Posted by anne | May 13, 2007 7:13 PM

http://www.gazette.com/common/printer/view.php?db=colgazette&id=21097

April 11, 2007

Brain Injuries Plague Soldiers
By CARY LEIDER VOGRIN - GAZETTE

In what may be the largest study of its kind by a military installation, Fort Carson has found that 178 of every 1,000 soldiers returning to the post from the Middle East suffered from at least a mild form of traumatic brain injury.

"As it turns out, TBI may very well be the signature injury of this war," Col. John Cho said Tuesday while announcing the results of a 22-month study that included 13,440 soldiers. The post began screening soldiers for traumatic brain injuries in June 2005.

In all, 2,392 of the soldiers analyzed received a TBI diagnosis.

The injuries being seen among Fort Carson soldiers are overwhelmingly caused by explosions, said Cho, who commands Evans Army Community Hospital on post.

While shock waves from explosions are the leading cause of the injuries, TBI also can be caused by penetrating wounds from bullets or shrapnel....

Posted by anne | May 13, 2007 7:15 PM

There are many issues in knowing what casualties are, and I surely do not understand these issues, but I would suggest simply looking to delays in emerging symptoms and counting changes in the nature of injuries we have a terribly serious problem and there is tragically no reason, especially given the stress soldiers are subjected to and the lengthening field service time, to conclude casualties will be found to have lessened.

Posted by anne | May 13, 2007 7:23 PM

When Linda Bilmes produced her casualty totals in January, complaint was quickly made to the Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School by an Assistant Secretary of Defense. Then, the Veterans Affairs Department's posting of casualty totals was changed. A short time later, the problems at Walter Reed came to attention. I wonder whether the complaints about the data used by Linda Bilmes would have been made after the problems at Walter Reed focused attention. I do not know.

Posted by anne | May 13, 2007 7:31 PM

Matt, can you go back to Nick and get some details on what data he used to generate the graph, and/or what method? Because looking at the month-by-month numbers at icasualties.org, I have a hard time seeing how their data points could ever get fit to his graph. (For example, he has a dip at about April '04, a month when the coilition was suffering about the worst month ever for deaths.)

Posted by Robert Earle | May 14, 2007 12:35 AM

TTM stands for "Trailing Twelve Months". The dip at April '04 is because April '03 was invasion month, which had something like 7 deaths per day. So, in April '04, April '03 falls off the moving average.

All data is from icasualties.org

Also thanks Matt.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 14, 2007 12:51 AM

Nicholas -

Thanks for the answer, it makes more sense now.

I wonder, though, if you considered any other graphs. For instance, if you had done 'trailing six months' (you could call it 'trailing Friedman' :-), I'm pretty sure that the most recent period would exceed even the really bad period ending Feb '05 (3.23 vs. 3.12 per month, if I punch my calculator correctly). Using '12 months' has the just finished period equally the previos high. Six months would have it exceeding. Maybe it would drive the point home a little harder.

(I had been watching the daily average; for the longest time, it had been sitting around 2.31 or 2.33, now its climbed to 2.42. That may not sound like much, but spread over almost 1500 days, that's a lot of dead soldiers.)

Either way, its a graph that should be on the front page of every newspaper in the country tomorrow. (Shall I start holding my breath?) Nice job.

Posted by Robert Earle | May 14, 2007 1:50 AM

Thanks for the explanation, Barbar and Nicholas. It all makes sense now.

Posted by RSA | May 14, 2007 7:44 AM

No; I would suggest with respect and caution that the casualty count does not make sense and we need to better understand the problems with the definitions and data that Linda Bilmes was so criticized for.

Posted by anne | May 14, 2007 7:52 AM

Is there an agency or agencies in the Torrance, California area that would have information on soldiers that currently need Speech Pathology services as part of their recovery from TBI. I am a licensed SLP and would like to donate some of my professional time to their rehabilitation. Thank-you, Suzanne 6-10-2007

Posted by Suzanne Manavian | June 10, 2007 11:00 PM