Iraq war kills more Americans than 9/11

Submitted by brad on Mon, 2006-01-23 13:42
Topic: 
Politics

Last night I was thinking to myself that we would probably see a big political todo when the war military death toll reaches 2749 -- the number of people killed (not including the 10 suicide attackers) in the WTC on 9/11.

To my surprise, a little research showed we are well past the threshold. There have been 2221 U.S. soldiers killed in the Iraq conflict. In addition as of November 1, there had been 428 U.S. civilian contractors killed according to labour dept. statistics. I don't have figures for civilian deaths of the last 3 months or for non-contractor civilian war-related deaths. (On an additional note, 191 U.S. military have died in the Afghan war. I don't have U.S. civilian figures.) Also note 189 died at the Pentagon, and 40 on UA Flight 93.

That puts U.S. dead at around 2840, well over the WTC number and probably over the 2980 9/11 total when other civilians are added.

However, the hidden reality is that number was passed quite some time ago. That's because fewer than 2100 Americans were killed in the WTC disaster. A quick search showed stats putting the number of U.S. dead in the WTC at 2106(back when they thought the total death toll was 2800 so it's a little high.) And that's the right number because all this counting of American dead in the Iraq war is disingenuous to the vastly greater numbers of Iraqi civilians and other nationals killed in the war and war-related violence. So if the focus is on U.S. citizen deaths, the war-on-terror deaths now far exceed the 9/11 deaths.

Now, I haven't made any political comment on what this means, though I am sure others will. I just found it interesting the way the real numbers pan out, in contrary to what we see commonly reported.

Share on:
  • Reddit logo
  • Facebook logo
  • Twitter logo
  • LinkedIn logo

Comments

Anonymous

Mon, 2006-01-23 14:56

all it says is that the US is willing to suffer more casualties in revenge attacks that it suffered in the first place, which isn't a very meaningful cost measure. It's also based on political denial - to most people outside the US (and hopefully many inside) the WTC attacks were an excuse not a reason. The reasons for invading Iraq already existed.

A more meaningful attack is the number of days it took the US to kill more innocent civilians in revenge than died in the WTC attacks. I beleive the number is about 90, but I could be wrong (it also depends on what you count, that one is direct military action rather than the usual starvation and deaths from "sanctions").

Matthew

Sun, 2006-02-19 17:31

What you and several people fail to understand about the Iraq war is that it was well over due. What is being done there was needed for some time and yes our country doesnt make all the right decisions at the right time. This war is about politics, money and the right thing to do. Not only for the Iraqi people but also for America as a super power. You must look close at the politics and less at the number of casualties. Wars are always fought for money in one way or another, thats just the reality of wars in history (it wont change). More deaths occur in our nations capital each month than Iraq and nothing is said. Think about that. There are a myriad of reasons why we are there and none of them are going to help families grieve for their lost ones but we as Marines and Soldiers know the risk. America is number one because how we do business both covert and in the eye of the common world.

R/S
Matthew S.

S

Wed, 2007-08-22 10:54

The right thing to do is to cause over 70,000 civilian deaths in Iraq? (www.iraqbodycount.org) The majority of Iraqi people are NOT happy that the US is there and were HAPPIER under Saddam Hussein. I can't possibly see how that's the right thing to do.

S

Wed, 2007-08-22 10:59

The US is just as bad (if not worse) than the 9/11 terrorists... The US has directly caused WAY MORE civilians deaths in Iraq (over 70,000) than any terrorists (almost all of whom are NOT EVER FROM IRAQ!!!) have caused US civilian deaths! The US are hypocrites! PLAIN AND SIMPLE! The US have bombed civilians in Iraq left, right and center and somehow that's OK!?

Anonymous

Wed, 2008-11-05 17:42

thank you! finally!!!

Nikita

Mon, 2006-01-23 17:45

I don't understand the math: why would you add the 189 people who died at the Pentagon on 9/11 to the Iraq war casualties?

brad

Mon, 2006-01-23 19:20

The 189 at Pentagon are added to 9/11 casualties. The 191 soldiers in Afghanistan are added to "war on terror" casualties which now are close to or exceed all deaths (American and foreign) in 9/11. All Iraq death tolls, even just the 2221 soldiers in Iraq, exceed the U.S. citizen deaths on 9/11. Of course Iraqi civilian death tolls (90,000?) far exceed all these numbers, and Iraqi conscript death tolls have never seen a good estimate.

Matthew

Sun, 2006-02-19 17:51

As far as the numbers of Soldiers being killed in Iraq. First let me say I have first hand knowledge of this and that we all know that we serve in a job that may cost us our lives. Second-revenge is never the root cause of our country going to war. Money and politics are. I addressed this briefly in my last response. We have more killings in Washington DC each month than we do in Iraq each month. We as Marines and Soldiers may not agree on if we should be here or not but we do agree that what we are doing is noble and over the long haul will be good for Iraq and America. Its not the final number that counts though we dont want it to climb but rather that we did the right thing no matter if were late or not in responding.

R/S
Matthew S.

Anonymous

Mon, 2006-01-23 19:17

revenge attacks

Wow, so now it's a "revenge attack?" Good job, Karl/Dubya!

Anonymous

Mon, 2006-01-23 20:25

Your retarded you fucking hippy. Apprently yo forgot the 9/11 people died in 1 day.

War casualtys should exceed that but if more people were fopr this effort and the news media wasnt fuckign it all up this conflict would be over.

Your a goddamn terrorist. You fuel them with this blog.

Retard have some fucking pride.

brad

Tue, 2006-01-24 00:02

Have a nice day!

soapy

Sun, 2006-02-05 06:22

So what you're claiming is that you would cope better if someone immensely powerful killed 20 of your family and freinds off over the course of two years, than if they killed 15 all off at once?

I don't think you would. So why should Iraq? And there was *no* link between Al-Queida (who carried out 9/11/01) and Iraq until long after Bush invaded.

To carry the analogy further, it's like someone killing off 20 of your freinds and family over a few years, because you happen to look a bit like one of the people they killed off beforehand, who ran out of friends after they blew up and shot them all.
But hey, it wasn't all on one day, so deal with it!

Matthew

Sun, 2006-02-19 17:43

Many dont know that there is indeed a connection to the terror cells and Iraq. It gets lost in the liberal media and politics knocking at the Bush cabinet. Many signs have been found like the tunnel to Syria as well asthe chemical attack that was diverted in Jordan and others. Truly you should only have to think about this. If a man lived across the street and tried to kill your father would you not remove him? If that same man had the ability to harm your entire neighborhood with the possibilty of a bomb he gave to others should you not remove him first? We are one of the last Super powers because of how are government does business both in the world eye and out of the world eye. The war in Iraq continues because if Iraq falls to Democracy then all the other countries (Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran) people will see and say "Look it works there they are free, why cant it work here". Once this happens those countries will have to change. Most insurgents in Iraq are of these other countries. I have began to ramble but I believe my point is made.

R/S
Matthew S.

Sean

Tue, 2006-04-25 15:50

Wow. It takes a lot of intelligence to relize a terrorist can be a hippy or that a hippy can be a terrorist. Correct me if I'm wrong, Hippys are pacifist and dont want to hurt anyone, and terrorist do want to hurt everyone. To me it seems like the two are antonyms. I think the point of this blog is to let people know what is going on. Its clear that the blogger wants pacifism to succeed and to stop the bloodshed. Just my $.02

Anonymous

Wed, 2006-02-08 16:53

I do agree for our technolgy 2,221 deaths is pretty high but remember the total death tolls for all countries in WWII,62,214,400! For the US alone it was 418,500 deaths civilians and troops, 11,200 where US civilians. The United kingdom alone was 370,000 deaths, and 61,700 of those UK deaths where civilians. So if you think about it we have changed a dictatorship to a democeracy helped thousands of people captured Sadam thier dictator saved thousands of lives from him and only lost 2221, it's war people people die. Yes we morn for them but they choose to protect our freedom, just think of what the soldiers would think of us not supporting what they are doing. So what would you rather have 62,214,400 dead or 2,221 dead.
Grant

Anonymous

Mon, 2006-02-20 18:38

You know, it just breaks one's heart, reading the above replies and responses. When did it become so painfully obvious that those who paid attention in school are the only ones who are really paying attention in life? If you can barely spell, and have almost no command of grammar, then apparently you're on the side of American Might and Aggression at all costs. Heck, that's okay. If I were painfully unaware of what was actually going on around me, I'm sure I'd be terrified, too.

The Republican Genius--for reducing any legitimate debate to a low-brow bumper-sticker of patriotic zeal--this skill alone seems to have won the day. No amount of honest journalism, good research, obvious geopolitical reality, informed discourse--none of these can even scratch the surface of the average American's spoon-fed reactionary "patriotism". Thinkers beware--the mouth-breathers are distrustful of, and on the lookout for anyone who dares question the Executive. Apparently it's no longer our right, much less our RESPONSIBILITY to do so. We'll need to just fall in line behind the nearly-illiterate Presidential bozo himself, lest the Terrorists Win.

Anonymous

Thu, 2006-06-08 07:09

OK Mr. Literacy, since you are so smart in these things, tell us how many more attacks like 9/11, the USS Cole, etc., would need to happen before YOU were smart enough to take the fight to them. It isn't just our "security" measures here that have stopped the attacks so far, it has also been that the terrorists are running and hiding for their lives or dying themselves. That has put a real damper on all their leisure time to sit around plotting, planning and scheming ways that they can destroy us on our own soil. If they weren't busy there they would still be busy killing us here. 9/11 wasn't just making a point to the world it was an escelation from the previous attacks against the U.S. on other soils and with a spineless coward at the helm for eight years before Dubya the terrorist knew we didn't have the back bone for a fight so we would continue to suffer our attacks, make threats of bringing someone to justice, then cower back to our lives of ease, stick our heads in the sand, and say "everything will be OK if we don't face our enemies".

EvilJesus

Mon, 2008-03-24 12:36

I recall a lot of threats made toward this one guy... you may remember him...Osama bin Laden, the guy who "actually" attacked us. Last I checked bin Laden is still at large, what does that tell terrorists?

Anonymous

Tue, 2006-06-20 20:37

It's probably not surprising that a draft dodging President has no clue about military strategy, but as a wily Politician he sure got rid of anyone, including Army Generals, who disagreed with him very early. That's the Hitler strategy isn't it? You know, remove everyone who tells you your strategy won't work and live in denial of the facts.

Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here" with this administration? They always seem to want to blame someone else for their own failures. The failure to stop 911. The failure to catch Osamu bin Laden in Afghanistan through lack of resources on the ground. The failure of US morality in Abu Ghraib. The failure of legality at Guantanamo. The failure of humanity at Haditha.

Attacking a country that hated muslim fundamentalists as much as the US now does, no matter how despicable the ruler was, cannot win the War on Terror. All it can do is increase oil prices and show the world how weak the US is if it cannot control a few terrorists in a desert country of only 20 million people. Terrorists using CIA training methods perhaps, but really only a few of them.

Still, one thing Bush and cronies have been successful at is being responsible for the deaths of more Americans than Al Qaeda. If the wrong country hadn't been invaded, over 2,500 US soldiers would now be alive, and 18,000 would not now be injured, maimed or lving for the rest of their lives as amputees. For nothing. It's not the soldiers' fault though: no, it's the administration's (and the Press Corps who never questioned anything.

Invading Iraq was a PR stunt, but it's gone badly wrong. World stability has been upset, America's image in the world has suffered greatly, the rule of law has been undermined, and Osamu bin Laden has still not been caught.

But hey, Runsfeld and Cheney are still pulling George's puppet strings and their rich Texan frineds are raking in the dollars from high oil prices while their arms manufacturing friends are profiteering off the backs of ordinary Americans. So everything's working out great, yeah?

Err, no.

Anonymous

Mon, 2006-07-10 13:49

BRAVO!

GoocherLee

Thu, 2006-08-10 14:06

So the entire Iraqi campaign is the result of a badly planned PR stunt?

That's rich.

Oh, by the way, you misspelled Osama, Mr. Grammar.

chad

Mon, 2006-07-24 23:49

Well as the death tolls in Iraq grow, we can only ask why the hell are we fighting in a country that did not attack us? The death tolls are US soldiers (2,567), coalition fighters (228), Iraqi soldiers (?? 15,000??) and civilians (??40,000; currently 100 per day), as well as misguided individuals like contract killers and Halliburton employees. To say america was behind the Bush agenda is stupid. Before Bush invaded Iraq, record protests were held throughout the country, 200,000 in NY City, 20,000 in Chicago and 60,000 protesters in San Fran.. WWII and Vietnam or Gulf War I never saw such enormous protests. Spineless democrats and idiot republicans in congress and the senate voted for the Iraq invasion. However,the resolve of the government and the country is now clear. We hate to lose, and Iraq is a classic mistake brought on by a deceitful administration and a corrupt CIA.

Now for the idiots that think an eye for an eye is going to achieve something, well today the US and coalition troops total 2795 dead in Iraq, and this exceeds the revised 9-11 death toll of 2752. Since more than just US citizens died on 9-11, the total US and coalition number of deaths is the best comparison. Also, there are 19,000 wounded US soldiers, and over 8,000 did not return to duty 72 hrs after their injuries. on 9-11 there were ~3,000 wounded. By the measure of an eye for an eye, the US is really losing. We all hate losers.

By the way, in Afghanistan we have lost 321 US soldiers and 93 coalition, 412 total. So, we have lost more soldiers than US civilians killed on 911. Afghanistan is getting worse, just like Iraq. Maybe Bush's idiot, fake patriots owe the US, Iraq and the world an apology. It is these idoiots that have been against us/US, not with us.

Renee

Wed, 2006-09-13 13:03

I am "pro-iraq war" I suppose - but I am hearing what the other side has to say. I have an idea that I think could work. What say we move the whole war to Louisiana, more precisely - New Orleans!
The advantages:

1. Less expensive to move our troops
2. Our guys could go home on the weekends
3. We would not be responsible for the clean up and rebuilding of the area
4. The Sheehans of the US would get what they want - We war mongers would still have something to do.
5. Innocent Iraqi civilians would be out of harms way
6. The Gulf would limit the amount of border we would have to patrol making it easier to maintain the war arena.
7. Terrorist would be able to sneak out and visit some of their favorite spots like Las Vegas and invest in our economy
8. We would only have to fight those truly committed to coming here to kill us
9. Since we are a country made up of giving and kind people - we would have ample opportunities to work together and really unify on the issue.

What do you think? Can it work? I see this as a win - win idea for everyone. Am I missing something? Why hasn't anyone else thought of this?

Anonymous

Thu, 2006-11-30 03:10

Mr Rumsfeld belittled and harrassed the military general who said it would take at least a half million to 800,000 troops on the ground to provide security in Iraq.Now our brave, noble troops are in the middle of a civil war,with not even enough troops to provide enough security to the road to Bagdad airport.Mr Rumsfeld is gone,if he had a ounce of honor he would have committed suicide,for the thousands of brave troops and innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed.In a conflict that will end with Iraq still in a civil war.And with the world a much more dangerous place. The first casualty of war is truth.Read about the murder Of British UNSCOM inspector Dr. David Kelly

Anonymous

Sun, 2008-03-16 21:20

Listen, I know we are in a big mess, but if we pulled out now, don't you think the terrorists would be mad enough by now to attack the country, and then try their hardest to get to us after all we've done over there? After all, their whole point in life is to try and kill us, even if they die in the process, so by pulling out, they would have a chance to kill more and more people each and every day, and to plan something maybe similar to 9/11.

EvilJesus

Mon, 2008-03-24 12:38

I'm just glad I wasn't the only one that noticed that Bush is now the greater threat to America.

wbiro

Sat, 2009-06-20 20:38

Just caught this searching for something else... and I see it was posted a few years ago...

I'm sure you know we can make numbers say whatever we want; but I will give you a few counter numbers anyway, just to give you pause, if you haven't since then...

Counter-Balancing Numbers:

The initial death toll estimate on 9/11 was 50,000 (all who's jobs were not combat-related)... it was a miracle it was only a few thousand...

U.S. demilitarization after WWI and before WWII contributed to the Axis power's aggression. By the time the U.S. rebuilt and won the war, 48,000,000 were dead. (now if you can't see any political implications there, then you're quite obstinate!)

How about Vietnam, and another hush-hush number: After young Western idealists won the war (defeated Capitalism and aided Communism) several million southeast Asians were murdered in Cambodia, S. Vietnam, and Laos... some just for wearing glasses. I'm sure they would all like to thank those who do not take political sides (but who present anti-American numbers)...

The Carrot/Stick Theory:

The problem with a lot of Americans is that they've lived sheltered lives, they just don't know how brutal foreigners think, or how brutal people thought only 50 years ago...

that said, how about this insight that gives 'the sheltered' due credit: right now (July '09) the Iran election is a major issue... so why the Iranian outrage? I have a theory, based on the "Carrot and the Stick"...

Here, Bush was a stick. All Western/Christian hate formulated by the tyrants of the Muslim world over the past several years had been based on that. What happened? America elects Obama, a Carrot. That just shot to hell their mind-control. The peace sign rules again (but not without the partnership of the stick).

So once again a clueless pop culture has done what a might military juggernaut could not- bring down a tyranny... (if the tyrants are toppled)... (and unless the tyrants wise up and use the decadence of a clueless pop culture as their new anti-Western dogma!)...

Well, 'nuff said...

Add new comment