# Canadians killed at 'disproportionately' higher rate than NATO allies: report



## 1Good_Woman (18 Sep 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/18/report-soldiers.html

Canadians killed at 'disproportionately' higher rate than NATO allies: report
Last Updated Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:43:49 EDT
CBC News
Canadian troops in Afghanistan are three times more likely to be killed by hostile activities than a British counterpart and 4½ times more likely than an American, a study says.

"Canadian Forces are incurring a disproportionately heavy burden of casualties among coalition forces in Afghanistan," said a news release that accompanied the release of the report on Monday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The study from the non-profit research organization also suggests that Canadian troops are six times more likely to be killed than U.S. troops in Iraq.

The report finds that apart from the United States, more Canadians have been died in hostile action than any of the other 46 countries that have contributed to the NATO force.

From the time Canada began the mission in early 2001 to Sept. 8, 2006, it had suffered 27 military deaths from hostile action out of a total of 71 non-U.S. deaths — a ratio of two Canadians for every five deaths.

Further, the researchers calculate that since February, Canadian troops accounted for 43 per cent of the non-American deaths on the Afghan mission: 20 of 47 deaths.

In comparison, Germany — which, like Canada, has slightly more than 2,000 troops in Afghanistan — has suffered no deaths from hostile action since February and only six since 2001.

Is government ignoring dangers, researchers ask

The report's researchers, Bill Robinson and Steven Staples, repeatedly criticize the federal government's decision to have the Canadian troops shift their focus from reconstruction around Kabul to counterinsurgency efforts in and around the southern city of Kandahar.

The redefined mission was approved by the Liberal government under Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2005 and then extended by the Tory government under Stephen Harper in 2006.

"As we examined the troubling data, the question arose as to whether the Liberals misjudged the danger, and if the Conservatives ignored it," Staples said in the news release that accompanied the report, Canada's Fallen: Understanding Canadian Military Deaths in Afghanistan.

108 more Canadians will die, report predicts

The study also averages the number of casualties incurred and projects that average over the remainder of the mission to January 2009.

It predicts there will be another 108 deaths during that timeframe.

The researchers used to a formula to calculate the death rate per soldier.

It takes the number of soldiers who were killed serving in Afghanistan from Feb. 24, 2006 — the day major military operations began in the Kandahar region — to Sept. 8.

It then divides that by the number of soldiers who were deployed by the country, multiplies it by the days they've spent on the mission and divides it by the number of days in a year.

The Canadian study echoes some of the findings of a similar British report that came out earlier in the month.


----------



## darmil (18 Sep 2006)

> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060918/cdn_afghan_update_060918/20060918/


----------



## KevinB (18 Sep 2006)

: Well since the Germans sit on their ass in Kabul its not a shock at all.

Similarily Edward Campbell (and others) have pointed out that the Kandahar AOR was due to our apathy and tardiness.


Furthermore as one who has served in Afghan as both CF and PMC, that Staples 108 number is retarded.  This article is written by fools for fools.


----------



## COBRA-6 (18 Sep 2006)

apples and oranges, the germans are not in Kandahar...

more trash from the same source, serving no other purpose than shit disturbing...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2006)

Study Link
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/Reports/2006/09/CanadasFallen/index.cfm?pa=BB736455

News Rls
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&call=1435&pa=BB736455&do=Article

"CANADA’S FALLEN:  Understanding Canadian Military Deaths in Afghanistan"
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2006/Canadas_Fallen.pdf

Summary:

• After the United States, Canada has sustained the highest number of military deaths as a result of hostile actions in Afghanistan since the original invasion in 2001 (27 of 244).
• Since February 2006, when our troops began operations in Kandahar, Canada has sustained 43% of all military deaths among U.S. allies in the coalition (20 of 47 non-U.S. deaths).
• When adjusted for the relative size of troop commitments, a Canadian soldier in Kandahar is nearly three times more likely to be killed in hostile action than a British soldier, and four-and-a-half times more likely than an American soldier in Afghanistan. 
• A Canadian soldier in Kandahar is still nearly six times more likely to die in hostilities than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq.
• If the current rate of military deaths since February 2006 were to remain unchanged until the end of the mission in January 2009, the Canadian military would sustain another 108 military deaths, bringing the total number of military deaths for Afghanistan to 140, or
four times higher than what is today.

Questions
• Why are Canadian troops suffering a disproportionately higher number of military deaths than our NATO allies?
• Were casualty estimates provided by the Department of National Defence to the Liberal government of Paul Martin, as suggested by Senator Colin Kenny and Colonel Steve Noonan, and were new estimates provided to the current Conservative government of Stephen Harper? If so, what was the estimated number of deaths?


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Sep 2006)

This "research organization" has an agenda and in one article I saw is described as being leftist. That said Canadians do not have a 43% higher chance of getting killed than a US soldier in Iraq. Why not compare combat deaths to US losses in Afghanistan ? In Iraq we have lost 39 soldiers/marines/navy so far this month.
The purpose of this article is to scare Canadians into forcing the government to withdraw from Afghanistan.


----------



## Remius (18 Sep 2006)

My guess would be that based on numbers, the proportions are higher.  Also we are engaging in more combat than before.  casualties were always expected.  This kind of reporting and assessment can be dangerous though, to overall morale and especially for the families back home.


----------



## Juvat (18 Sep 2006)

Only a matter of time before Jack and the NDP get a hold of this report written by experts as a "justification" for their party's stance on the conflict.

Wait for it......wait for it.....


----------



## Reccesoldier (18 Sep 2006)

Yawn...

More of what can only be described as fun with statistics.  

Scare tactics from the left, plain and simple.


----------



## Sheerin (18 Sep 2006)

There are three types of lies:  Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Steven Staples is a name that i've grown to loathe.  The guy is a wrong.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Sep 2006)

Body counts are poor indicators (especially a counterinsurgency) and bad for planning strategy, no matter what said strategy is.  Stephen Staples, being an analyst, should know better.  :tsktsk:


----------



## paracowboy (18 Sep 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Stephen Staples, being an analyst, should know better.


Stephen Staples, having an agenda, does know better but chooses to ignore unfortunate facts.


----------



## rw4th (18 Sep 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> There are three types of lies:  Lies, damned lies and statistics.



I was just about to post this. 

The numbers are manipulated statistics and the article is sensationalistic bullshit. Oh, and I love the "108 more will die" line. With his prescient predictive abilities, this guy should be playing the lottery not writing for newspapers  :


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2006)

More fun with numbers from the left...

When a country like Canada steps up to the challenge and takes on a greater share of the 'fighting' and actually going outside the wire of our camps than,*ahem* some European coalition contributors, they take on a greater share of casualties one could assume.

All of which was pointed out to the Canadian Public by Gen Hiller in the pre-Tory days.

Nothing's changed here, statisticlly speaking, only the way they play with the numbers. Lots of coalition countries over there don't leave their wire, unless of course 'for defensive roles' as per their ROEs (not the soldier's choice but rather a political one)....perhaps the authors of the latest statistics should refrain from using those nations in their counts. What a way to skew the stats of casualties...

Now for those brave Canadian men and women who proudly wear this Nation's uniform and honourably and bravely leave the comfort of their wire each day to go out and get the job done at great risk to themselves...

I say BRAVO. You are the heros. You are the ones who deserve our whole-hearted support. You have mine.


----------



## Trinity (18 Sep 2006)

http://antiwar.com/casualties/

338 American Deaths in the sandbox

uh huh...  compared to our 38?


----------



## Lost_Warrior (18 Sep 2006)

> Well since the Germans sit on their *** in Kabul its not a shock at all.



Funny you should say that.  I was speaking with a German soldier last week about Afghanistan.  He was under the impression that the only reason the North was safe was because of the "fear" the German soldiers inflicted on the Taliban..


----------



## paracowboy (18 Sep 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> Funny you should say that.  I was speaking with a German soldier last week about Afghanistan.  He was under the impression that the only reason the North was safe was because of the "fear" the German soldiers inflicted on the Taliban..


Funniest. Post. Ever.


----------



## big bad john (18 Sep 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> Funny you should say that.  I was speaking with a German soldier last week about Afghanistan.  He was under the impression that the only reason the North was safe was because of the "fear" the German soldiers inflicted on the Taliban..



Was he serious or drunk?


----------



## Lost_Warrior (18 Sep 2006)

Beats me.  It was on a global armed forces message board.  I can't even confirm if this guy was in the army, let alone deployed or not.  I could only go on what he "said" and quite frankly I wasn't in the mood for an argument, so I just let him talk...  :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Sep 2006)

This is laughable.  Of course, the media, in their all too familiar laziness and quest for a "story", has run with this in a big way - to the point where it is headline news here in Edmonton.

Once again, Staples has succeeded in selling his propaganda as "analysis" to an unquestioning, scandal-hungry media.  I don't blame him so much as I do journalists who publish his tripe without the slightest disclaimer as to his political agenda or his typically abysmal research.


----------



## paracowboy (18 Sep 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I don't blame him so much as I do journalists who publish his tripe without the slightest disclaimer as to his political agenda or his typically abysmal research.


carrion-feeders


----------



## TK Ranch (18 Sep 2006)

There are always thase in this country who think the Military should be only used for floods, ice storms and blizzards in TO. these are the same people who come up with this "study". I dont quite understand where they got there information from but it reaks of NDP pollicy.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Sep 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> Funny you should say that.  I was speaking with a German soldier last week about Afghanistan.  He was under the impression that the only reason the North was safe was because of the "fear" the German soldiers inflicted on the Taliban..



 :rofl:
Remind your "friend" that the Waffen-SS hasn't been around since May, 1945!


----------



## Nieghorn (18 Sep 2006)

I didn't know whether to laugh or be outraged by this story on the local tv news today . . . I really have to stop watching local news . . . their reporter had the nerve to get a comment from a soldier's parents about it.  They were pretty relaxed, and called for other countries to help out, but I'd be pretty pissed off if they came at me with fear-mongering 'stats' like that.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Sep 2006)

You know what kills me?  Statistics like this.  You know the ones.  I'd hasard a bet that if you were to go to a variety of "health" statistics, and you'd probably find that 200 to 300% of the people out there die of a variety of causes!
But, as my bottom message says: never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.  Don't take news like this likely, because Taliban Jack et al see this as justificaiton and/or fodder for their twisted agendas.


----------



## HDE (18 Sep 2006)

I'd love to see how Staples allowed for the massive difference in the size of the the forces involved.  Canada has around 2,000 in Afghanistan while the Yanks have  had hundreds of thousands in Iraq.  It follows that the loss of a Canadian is proportionately more severe than the loss of one American in a far larger organization.  The real story is how "legitimate' news organizations even bother with this phoney "analyst", whatever that means.  It'd be interesting to see Staples actually being tossed a few hardball questions on his "research"


----------



## paracowboy (18 Sep 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> It'd be interesting to see Staples actually being tossed


into a pit full of chimpanzees cranked up on crystal meth and armed with straight razors.


----------



## TCBF (18 Sep 2006)

"into a pit full of chimpanzees cranked up on crystal meth and armed with straight razors."



Can I use that?

Tom


----------



## paracowboy (18 Sep 2006)

feel free. But I get a nickel each time.


----------



## medicineman (18 Sep 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> I'd love to see how Staples allowed for the massive difference in the size of the the forces involved.  Canada has around 2,000 in Afghanistan while the Yanks have  had hundreds of thousands in Iraq.  It follows that the loss of a Canadian is proportionately more severe than the loss of one American in a far larger organization.  The real story is how "legitimate' news organizations even bother with this phoney "analyst", whatever that means.  It'd be interesting to see Staples actually being tossed a few hardball questions on his "research"



As I always say, statistically speaking, 43% of all statistics are statistically useless.  The reason is you can make anything say what you want it to say.  Needless to say, always check your source - something anyone in anything remotely relating to science knows, but not alot of our newsmedia for some reason...

MM


----------



## George Wallace (18 Sep 2006)

I still like the idea of having Stephen Staples pick the winning numbers of the Loto.  If he can predict 108 more deaths, he can predict this Friday's SuperSeven Numbers.


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> feel free. But I get a nickel each time.


Para you're almost rich if you charge TCBF interest on that nickle.

Statistically speaking, he already owes you the nickle for using that line when he asked if he could use that line. 

So if you inflate your interest rate numbers, a la Steve, statistically you should be a millionaire at approximately 0600 tomorrow morning.


----------



## Chewie (19 Sep 2006)

LOL...ArmyVern good to see you still have a sharp tongue

Chewie


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Sep 2006)

There is definitely an agenda here. The company who did this "study" dresses to the left and has taken the liberty to read the stats in order to give the numbers the most possible negative impact. In Iraq the US has lost 39 soldiers/marines/navy so far this month.

Note the statement "When adjusted for the relative size of troop commitments" since the US has aproximately 150,000 troops in Iraq and we have 2200 in Afgh, then each casualty suffered by Canada in Afghanistan counts as much as 68 US casualties in Iraq.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (19 Sep 2006)

A commentor over at The Torch also brought up the issue of support staff in a coalition.  If we could deploy our own air support (both CAS and transport), our casualty ratios would most likely go down, since - with some notable exceptions - aircrew aren't going down in the Afghan environment at the same rate as ground troops.  Same goes for any number of support functions Canadian troops use, but don't provide.

It would be an interesting exercise to determine the front-line to support ratio for deployed CF members in Afghanistan and compare that ratio to other coalition members.  Then we'd have some context for the stats that started this discussion.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2006)

Content deleted.


----------



## rz350 (19 Sep 2006)

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> A commentor over at The Torch also brought up the issue of support staff in a coalition.  If we could deploy our own air support (both CAS and transport), our casualty ratios would most likely go down, since - with some notable exceptions - aircrew aren't going down in the Afghan environment at the same rate as ground troops.  Same goes for any number of support functions Canadian troops use, but don't provide.
> 
> It would be an interesting exercise to determine the front-line to support ratio for deployed CF members in Afghanistan and compare that ratio to other coalition members.  Then we'd have some context for the stats that started this discussion.



very true, any way to get that data?

As for bashing the Germans and other allies, I find that in just as poor taste as American bashing, they are our allies, and all have their place. (even if they are "only" doing Combat Support Services, they are still helping make the whole thing work)


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Sep 2006)

rz350 said:
			
		

> As for bashing the Germans and other allies, I find that in just as poor taste as American bashing, they are our allies, and all have their place.



Ahh, young jedi, but you haven't had to deal with them...


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Sep 2006)

+1

as a fellow Camp Warehouse internee, I agree with Teddy  ;D


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2006)

what Teddy said. "Allies"...riiiight :


----------



## AJC (20 Sep 2006)

Homer Simpson said it best. "70% of statistics are made up," or words to that effect.


----------



## odin (20 Sep 2006)

Just sent Mr.Staples a nice bit of feedback , statistically speaking it should take him 26.5 seconds to figure out what a " nation wide demoralizing idiot icon " means.
                                                                                   Odin


----------



## North Star (20 Sep 2006)

Not having read the report myself, I cannot really comment on his number-crunching. Suffice it to say though Mr. Staples has never let the facts get in the way of a political argument, and I have my doubts. 

That being said, has Mr. Staples changed shops? I thought he was with the Polaris Institute. Or, is this a case of various left-wing "think tanks" "sharing" analysts like hippies sharing girlfriends on a Saturday night at a WTO protest? The right wing ones are guilty of the same tactic. It's intentionally done to give the impression large institutions are against/for something, when in reality it's only about 20 isolated analysts. 

Oh well. Good thing we have a government that doesn't care what Mr. Staples says, and an opposition that doesn't have enough guts to actually take a position until they select someone to think for them.


----------



## pbi (20 Sep 2006)

Figures lie and liars figure, etc. I thought I had seen some absolutely mad abuses of statistics, but I guess not.....

How does Stevie boy get away with this crap? Is it because the CF won't answer media calls when they come looking for background commentary, so the media default to people like this? Or are they trying to be "balanced"? ( ;D ) so they aren't accused of being mindless corporate media dupes of the fascist military-industrial warmonger imperialist running dog opressors?

Although the Germans are certainly a risk averse lot (or they were when I was there, anyway), let's not forget that they have suffered losses in Afghanistan as well. Be careful not to diss the losses of our allies. They're not "Rommel's Army", that's for sure, but they're on our side.

Cheers


----------



## medicineman (20 Sep 2006)

I kind of wonder how Stevie "Wonder" Stapler would skew our casualty rates in Croatia and Bosnia during the worst of times there.  Oooops, almost forgot, casualties during peacekeeping ops don't count as we're serving a better good - willing to bet if guys started getting hurt or worse in Dharfur the media would barely make a note of it, as would the Boy Wonder.

MM


----------



## armyvern (20 Sep 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I kind of wonder how Stevie "Wonder" Stapler would skew our casualty rates in Croatia and Bosnia during the worst of times there.  Oooops, almost forgot, casualties during peacekeeping ops don't count as we're serving a better good - willing to bet if guys started getting hurt or worse in Dharfur the media would barely make a note of it, as would the Boy Wonder.
> 
> MM



Yeah, I guess you refer to the 126 Peacekeepers this country has lost while they served under the auspices of the blue beret. And you are correct about the media coverage, how many of those 126 repatriation ceremonies were covered on TV? Or even made mention of in the papers? Most certainly none of them had the flag lowered on the Peace Tower. How soon they forget. There are an awful lot of hypocrites out there.


----------



## medicineman (20 Sep 2006)

I remember OJ Simpson pre-empting one of them from my tour - oh, and a Toronto police officer was shot and killed the week before, so his funeral did as well.  What really annoys me is how they start to snivel about casualties when it's convenient for them - they forget that they happened with relative frequency, but noboy cared, because it was "peacekeeping".  Or nobody wanted the public to find out (a likely possibility) that peacekeeping is in fact dangerous.

MM


----------



## HDE (21 Sep 2006)

Staples is probably seen as a reliable source of a quick, and edgy, soundbite.  He's far more useful to the media than someone who'd say "well...there are various things that have to be considered before...".  A reputable analyst would point out the various issues involved in committing troops to, say, Darfur whereas Staples would simply declare that there's absolutely no reason why we can't go.  Which one scores the 30 seconds on the TV news?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Sep 2006)

I love seeing the left use its statistics.  I especially love how they make their comparisons.  Do they compare casualties per combat arms personnel in operation, or total number of soldiers?  We do not deploy all echelons, we rely on our allies to fulfil many of the support operations, and our deployed force is very heavy in the combat arms, and combat engineering.  Were the support personnel included in our numbers, our proportional casualties would drop.  There have been UN missions that we supplied none of the shooters, and our casualties were low, there were other missions where we supplied all the shooters, and thus the bulk of the casualties were ours.  In the US war in Iraq, they supply not only the bulk of the combat force, but almost the entirety of the support echelons and logistics tail, which gives them a huge ratio of tail to point, and thus a low casualty rate.  Were you to count the casualty rates for combat arms soldiers engaged in active counter insurgency operations, you would find that all are running pretty much the same risks.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Sep 2006)

Damn stats. In this week's Army Times they have a two page breakdown of casualties, charts ect. What struck me was this interesting chart.

0 casualty days - 309
1 casualty        -  352
2-5 casualties   -  529
6-10 casualties -  81
11+ casualties  -  20

Its unfortunate that the study was even done in the first place. Our media keeps track of the deaths in a morbid sort of way hoping at some point that the public will throw in the towel. We are pretty close to 3000 war dead - 332 of them in Afghanistan. Over the five year's that we have been fighting in Afghanistan 332 soldiers,sailors, airmen and marines have died. In the 3 years we have been in Iraq we have lost 2664 men and women from the armed forces. Just those numbers should tell a fair minded analyst that Iraq is far more deadly. Another stat to consider is the number of wounded over 20,113 in OIF to 931 in OEF.

Statistics have a place when trying to pinpoint areas where we have control. Like accidental deaths. There were 487 accidental deaths in both OIF and OEF. By stressing safety more we might have kept more people alive. Yet we lose over 40,000 people a year on the nation's highways. How are those deaths less tragic than military losses ?


----------

