Military Deaths in Iraq Reach 2,000

Death of Army Sergeant From Roadside Bomb Raises Toll

Washington Post staff writer Josh White was online Wednesday, Oct. 25, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the 2000th U.S. military fatality in Iraq, which came Tuesday with the death of an Army sergeant after a roadside bomb north of Baghdad. The toll reflects those killed since March 2003.

Military Has Lost 2,000 In Iraq. (Josh White and Ann Scott Tyson, Oct. 26, 2005

Gallery: Faces of the Fallen: U.S. Fatalities in Iraq.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Josh White: Good morning everyone, and thanks for joining me here. I'm already getting some great questions, so I'll just dive in.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is there a number, a total body count, to which you think the American public will react? Is there a parallel number which the Arab states will react with Iraqi deaths? Have we become too jaded in this year of natural disasters to value the lives in Iraq?

Josh White: That's very hard to tell. There are certainly people across the country who have been reacting to every death, and I think it's fair to say that any soldier lost in any war is a great tragedy. The 2,000th death wasn't so much a milestone as it was an opportunity to look back at the war so far, and its toll on America. The difficulty in measuring the casualties in Iraq is that there is really no reliable count. The Defense Department has estimated that somewhere in the arena of 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by insurgent attacks, but I haven't seen a reliable estimate as far as collateral deaths or insurgents killed.

_______________________

Henderson, Nev.: What is the total of all American servicemen killed and wounded in Iraq including non-combat deaths? What is the breakdown? How many Iraqis have been killed and wounded?

Josh White: The total number of American troops killed and wounded in Iraq is as follows: 2,000 dead; more than 15,000 wounded. Non-hostile causes account for a little less than 19 percent of the total fatalities, including accidents, illnesses, etc.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: There were single day death tolls much higher than 2,000 in WWII. Is anyone calling that war a failure for America?

Josh White: This is a very good point, and as we mentioned in today's story, the deaths in Iraq are far, far less than America has experienced in previous wars. The world wars claimed more than half a million American lives, and Vietnam claimed 58,000. An important fact to remember is that the U.S. military fights very differently now than it did a half century ago, and the advanced weapons, protections such as body armor, and modern operational tactics the U.S. uses are keeping the number of U.S. casualties down.

_______________________

Jackson, N.J.: Hello, after 2000 deaths and who knows how many serious injuries, is it really believable that none of our troops have ever been captured in Iraq?

Josh White: There have been cases of U.S. troops getting captured in Iraq, including the very notable case of PFC Jessica Lynch, which I'm sure most people remember. Part of the reason there have been relatively few soldiers and marines captured is the way in which this fight is playing out. U.S. troops who are out on missions and are out on patrols can win a firefight with insurgents relatively easily, and there is little opportunity for insurgents to get up close to such patrols. As my colleagues reported in a very good piece today, the improvised roadside bombs that are being left by insurgents -- and detonated remotely in many cases -- are the cause of many U.S. casualties. Here's that story: Bigger, Stronger Homemade Bombs Now to Blame for Half of U.S. Deaths

_______________________

Emerson, N.J.: My son died in Iraq. Why is there so much emphasis on the number and not on the individual's sacrifice and the individual's life, service and family. Why is 2000 more important than 1461 or 1 or 536 or any number?

Josh White: First, let me offer my heartfelt condolences on your loss. And you're absolutely right, every loss is important, and the number 2,000 is no more or less important or relevant than every other soldier, marine, airman, or sailor who is lost. We are doing our best to focus on each individual's sacrifice, and the impact of each tragedy. We saw 2,000 as an opportunity to look at the toll on America and to remind people that each and every one of those people died in service to this country.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: I find it difficult to understand how the American public avoids being impacted by even small numbers of casualties ("The daily casualty tolls are not usually big enough to jar the American public as a whole"). Who do people think is dying--not to mention Iraqi civilian deaths? I find these events personally disturbing even though I have not had anyone close to me involved.

One of the questions I feel supporters of our invasion of Iraq are obligated to ask is "is this action worth the death of one of my family members (spouse, child)?" If the answer is yes, I guess their support of the policy is justified. If the answer is no, maybe the policy needs to be rethought.

Comments?

Josh White: This is precisely why we report about this issue as we do, to get people talking about this issue. Certainly there are people who believe that this sacrifice is worth it, that the troops who are dying are dying for a noble cause that the U.S. needs to fight. There are obviously others who believe these troops have died for a policy that doesn't make sense. The fact remains that these troops are doing a job, and they are fighting a war to which they have been sent. They have no choice in the matter. Perhaps that's why so many people support the troops, even if they don't support the war. I'm sure this is a debate that will rage on as long as America has troops in Iraq.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: We keep hearing from the administration that we are making great progress in Iraq. What objective measurements is that based on? With regard to D.C.'s question on number of dead it would take to really alarm the country--I don't think anything short of a draft will shake people up enough to write their representatives. It's just too easy to turn the channel when the news gets bad.

Josh White: The administration, and officials at the Pentagon, have repeatedly said that the barometer for success in Iraq is the relative success of the country's new government, and that government's ability to sustain itself and protect itself. The newly approved constitution is by all means a big step, but there is a long way to go before the country will be self-reliant. Every time there is an election or a vote, there is a concern that more attacks will come from the insurgency. Iraqi Security Forces, while making great strides, are still far from taking over the war from the U.S. and its coalition partners. As far as how long it takes for people to be alarmed: I was just up in several small towns in northeastern Pennsylvania, and I can tell you that that National Guard unit's deaths have certainly brought the war home to those communities, and it is causing people to really examine how they feel about the war.

_______________________

Bryn Mawr, Pa.: It's outrageous that you're making something of this 2,000th casualty in Iraq, as though it matters in the economic & geopolitical scheme of things. As President Bush has noted countless times, he voluntarily signed up for this just like every other soldier in the Armed Forces. His job is to serve our President, PERIOD. If investors think we'll pull our soldiers out at the first sign of trouble, they're not going to trust us when we're working out the deals on the pipelines, drilling facilities, and other infrastructure critical to profitably building up Iraq's economy. My MBA class at Wharton could have a field day shredding your rationale for why this "matters".

Josh White: Perhaps the number 2,000 isn't in itself significant in the "economic and geopolitical scheme of things," but it is important for the American people to understand where the war stands at this point. Again, there are people who stand on both sides of the issue here, believing that the continuing sacrifice is well worth it and others alternately feeling that many have died unnecessarily. Yes, the soldiers serve at the will of their commanders, and the President, and having spent time with them in Iraq, I can say that they do this with everything they have, regardless of their views on the war. While this might not "matter" in a clinical view of how business is doing in Iraq -- electric and oil production are both still missing targets set by the U.S. government -- each and every one of these deaths, I can assure you, matters to the families, friends and communities that have lost a loved one.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Kind of a minor point, but isn't it true that the 2000 figure only represents those that actually died in Iraq, and doesn't include those who died of injuries sustained in Iraq after they were evacuated? I remember reading an article that discussed how quick medivac response to injuries in Iraq meant that many soldiers were dying after they'd been medivaced out of Iraq, and hence many more than 2000 soldiers have died from injuries sustained in Iraq.

Josh White: My understanding of the numbers is that the 2,000 figure represents all of the troops who have died as a result of participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom, including people who have died in Kuwait, at locations outside of Iraq, and those who have been removed from the region for medical help and later passed away. In fact, the soldier who died over the weekend, pushing the toll to 2,000, was at Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas trying to recover from injuries he sustained in Iraq when an insurgent bomb exploded near his Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I was wondering if you could comment on the number of servicewomen killed in Iraq. How many have been killed, and is the military reconsidering the role of women in combat? In this particular war, it seems that even non-combat or combat support positions (where women typically serve) are at risk of being killed in action.

Josh White: The latest specific breakdown by gender that I've seen is what we published in the paper, when the count was at 1,987. At that point, 44 of the total number of fatalities were women, or a little bit more than 2 percent. It is true that some non-combat and combat support positions are at risk of being killed in action, and part of it is because there is no true "front line" of this war -- anything outside of a U.S. base is considered the front line. This means that truck drivers, MPs, civil-military affairs soldiers, medical personnel, and many others are put in harm's way whenever they go "outside the wire." This is why the Army recently changed one of its combat badges to honor everyone who has actually been involved in engagements during this war, including soldiers who otherwise would not have been eligible by virtue of their support role.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: If the Iraqi Security Forces are making headway and the situation in Iraq is improving, why have the number of American deaths increased over last year?

Josh White: Military commanders have addressed this question many times, and they have consistently answered that the insurgents have been adapting. That adaptation has largely been in the areas of roadside bombs and car bombs. These bombs have been getting more powerful, more sophisticated, and more deadly. For example, there have been several recent cases of troops getting killed in Bradley Fighting Vehicles, which are heavily armored, tracked vehicles that are considered safer and sturdier than humvees. The insurgents have figured out a way to construct their bombs, and to place them, that make them more dangerous. The U.S. military is constantly working on ways to detect, defuse and prevent the placement of such bombs. While we don't have the numbers, the Iraqi Security Forces are in the fight, and are reportedly dying at a much higher rate.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: When they say non-combat death is that from illnesses? Does anyone know when the war will end?

Josh White: Non-combat deaths can be a variety of things, and they officially call them "non-hostile" deaths because some are clearly related to combat operations. Examples include vehicle accidents (such as rollovers, non-hostile crashes, etc.), illness (such as heart-attacks), some soldier-on-soldier crimes, or suicides. As for when the war will end, I don't know that that's a question I'm qualified to answer. Clearly, the U.S. government position right now is that officials hope to reduce U.S. forces when the Iraqi government is established and when its security forces are able to fight off the insurgents more independently. I don't know anyone who can credibly say how long that will take.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Do you think we will look back on the Iraq war and be ashamed of how people who talk personally about the casualties in Iraq and question the sacrifice are attacked as unpatriotic or outrageous?

Josh White: I don't know how people will look back at this war. I do know that in talking to soldiers who have served in Iraq, while some don't necessarily agree with Americans who question the war, they believe they are fighting to protect the right to question the war.

_______________________

The real reason we question 2000...: It's not really about the number 2000 or any other death toll number. What this is really about is the public's understanding of why we are now at war. In the beginning, it was WMD's. Once that was proven incorrect, the mood changed. Now we are told the war is for the liberation of Iraq, ousting a Saddam, and the GWOT. All of those other reasons are valid but they weren't the reason the country "signed-up" for this war. The administration hasn't gotten any real traction behind it from the American people for the new reasons why we are at war. Until the country gets behind the new reasons wholeheartedly and understands them, every "milestone" amount like 2000, 2500, 3000 will bring the reasons/questions of this war back into focus. Truth be told, had we found WMDs and the death toll was 2000 or more, we would not be having this conversation.

Josh White: We continue to report on this issue because it is so important to the American public, and it is a debate that has seen significant changes during the course of the war. The war is increasingly unpopular, in part because more and more people are feeling the real human toll of what is happening -- both because of repeated deployments and because of the American deaths. I don't know how the debate would have changed had WMD turned up, but I do know that people will continue to debate this until it's over, and probably long after that.

_______________________

Arlington, Tex.: Will this milestone boost the morale of the insurgents? They know they just have to keep fighting, they don't need clear victory.

Josh White: Any U.S. death on the battlefield boosts the morale of the insurgents, I'm sure. What I'm not sure about is what the insurgents would consider clear victory, or how long they can continue fighting at this pace. The insurgency is stronger and has lasted longer than almost anyone predicted, and as long as it can still attack U.S. forces and Iraqi forces, and Iraqi civilians, it appears they are committed to doing so. Increasingly, the attacks have been on Iraqi Security Forces.

_______________________

Provo, Utah: Do you know if the writers of The Washington Post editorial page have come to regret their advocacy of the war?

Josh White: I honestly don't know. There is a very solid wall between the newsroom and the editorial page, and news reporters work completely independent of them. My best advice would be to look at our editorial page and what our editorial writers have written over the past couple of years.

_______________________

Josh White: Thanks to everyone for sending in your really excellent questions. There were so many I couldn't get to, and I hope I picked a representative sample. And to the Army Officer writing from Baghdad, I'd love to address your question but I don't have time right now in this forum. Could you write to me at whitejs@washpost.com, and I can address it more fully? Thanks, and have a wonderful afternoon.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.