Re: US Casualties Put At Double Official Figures.
Depends what you mean by accurate.
Roughly 150,000 are in Iraq.
5000 dead and 15,000 injured (what i've heard) would be a casualty rate of %13 which is EXTREMELY high for a "mere" insurgency.
In contrast, the German army suffered 500,000 casualties from a 3 million man army in the first year of Operation Barbarossa...the Invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Thats a %16 casualty rate.
This was a war of continuous mobile operations. A VERY brutal and non-stop affair.
The invasion of the beaches of Normandy were expected to produce a casualty rate of %10+...they ended up at the 3-5% rate.
Can you see what I mean?
The numbers actually look reasonable to me at around 13,000 injured and 1600 dead over a period of 3 years. Thats a casualty rate of around %10 unadjusted for the time in theater. More like 3-5% over all. That is what you would expect for an intense counter insurgency.
I have no privelidged knowledge. I think the anti-war movement is barking up a possible non-existent tree here.
Sorry. My numbers are not EXACTLY adding up but you will get the picture. I expect the number of dead to be the figure people are looking for and it would be better to focuss only on those figures but I dont have them for Normandy or Barbarossa.
5000 dead is an awful lot. I dont believe it.
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]