# Odds Worse for Troops in AFG Than IRQ



## The Bread Guy (7 Sep 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Risk to troops in Afghanistan exposed*
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19125683.100&print=true
New Scientist, 9 Sept 06

The ferocity of the Taliban's assault on coalition forces in Afghanistan has been highlighted by a penetrating statistical analysis of fatality rates among coalition troops. Since May, an average of five coalition soldiers have been killed every week by the Taliban - twice the death rate suffered by coalition forces during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The analysis shows that troops are fighting one of the fiercest campaigns since the Bush administration's "war on terror" began in 2001.

Sheila Bird, vice-president of the UK's Royal Statistical Society, suspected that the casualty figures issued by the US, UK and Canadian governments do not give a true picture of the risks coalition forces face, because they do not reveal fatalities as a proportion of the forces deployed.

Bird found that from 1 May to 12 August, 73 of the 18,500 members of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan were killed, a rate of nearly 14 deaths per 1000 person years. This compares to the 43-day battle for control of Iraq in 2003, in which the UK lost 33 personnel from 46,000 deployed - a rate of 6 deaths per 1000 person years. The ISAF fatality rate of almost five deaths per week shows no sign of falling: in the three weeks since 12 August, 13 more coalition troops have died, and the crash of a British Nimrod aircraft on 2 September added 14 more deaths.

"The commentary we are getting from politicians about this conflict does not do justice to the threat our forces now face in Afghanistan," Bird says.

How the MSM is covering this so far:

NATO soldiers fighting in Afghanistan face a higher risk of being killed than the U.S.-led international forces that invaded Iraq in 2003, a British statistician says.  Sheila Bird, the vice-president of Britain's Royal Statistical Society, said in the Sept. 9 issue of New Scientist magazine that she made the conclusion after analyzing casualty rates and the number of soldiers deployed on each mission . . . .
(CBC Online, http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/07/soldiers-statistics.html )

International forces in Afghanistan are embroiled in the deadliest military campaign since the Bush administration launched its "war on terror" in 2001, an analysis of casualties revealed today.  Attacks by Taliban insurgents have raised the fatality rate among Nato's 18,500-strong International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) to an average of five a week - more than twice the death rate coalition forces sustained during the battle for control of Iraq in 2003, the study found . . . . 
(Guardian (UK), http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1866823,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 )

Three more British soldiers died yesterday in Afghanistan as a study revealed that attacks by the resurgent Taliban have raised the death rate of coalition troops to double that during the invasion of Iraq.  One soldier was killed after a patrol unwittingly strayed on to an unmarked minefield during an operation in the volatile Helmand province . . . .
(The Herald (UK), http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/69613.html )

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1866823,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Sep 2006)

Frankly this article is absurd. Iraq is alot more dangerous. The big difference is the IED threat. Its greater in Iraq.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Sep 2006)

I remember this one about stats from U:  

Stats are like bikinis - what they reveal is interesting, but what they conceal is vital.

Seriously, I think this is the loophole allowing this to stand, sort-of, is....

"Since May, an average of five coalition soldiers have been killed every week by the Taliban - twice the death rate suffered by coalition forces *during the invasion of Iraq in 2003*."

It would be interesting to see how it compares over the WHOLE Iraq fight....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Sep 2006)

I had heard this before from members of 173rd AB Bde who I served with in AStan.  Absurd?  Methinks not.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Sep 2006)

Ok let me give you some stats. 

October 7, 2001 continuing 5 yr average 56 deaths per year
OEF: 282 deaths [153 KIA and 98 non hostile] and 785 wounded [305 return to duty 72hrs]

March 19, 2003-Continuing 3 year average 881 deaths per year
OIF:2,643 deaths [2,102 KIA and 541 non hostile] and 19,773 wounded [10,782 returned to duty in 72 hrs]

Figure on average for OEF 18,000 troops every year. We figure in combat deaths only and we see .3% chance of getting killed. In OIF 135,000 average with 2102 KIA. A soldier has around .6% chance of becoming a fatality. These are for 3 Sept of this year.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2006)

I think T6 makes a point - the intensity of the last few months shouldn't be taken as an indicator of the whole picture.  It would be like taking the Shi'a Uprising (May 04) or Fallujah (Nov 04) as the norm for Iraq.  Now if what we're seeing now stays steady for a while, that idea could change a bit. 

Here is a good site for info on casualties in the Sandbox (as grim a topic as it is  ).

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/

http://icasualties.org/oif/


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Sep 2006)

DOD has a pdf of casualties that are updated often. It can be had at defenselink. I do not feel that the taliban will be able to sustain this intensity of combat. Also with winter coming the taliban will pull back into Pakistan. Next year they may try another offensive and we will have developed a new strategy to deal with it.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> we will have developed a new strategy to deal with it.



Of course, the flip side is that they may develop a new strategy, no?


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Sep 2006)

Very true.  8)


----------



## Lost_Warrior (8 Sep 2006)

T6 makes a good point with the statistics, but the thing I wonder is, do death tolls really depict the ferocity of the battles?  A lot of the US deaths have been due to IED/hit and run attacks on the troops in Iraq.   A lot of the deaths in Afghanistan are from actual open combat with the Taliban.   One can say that the fighting is more intense in Afghanistan because the enemy is willing to take the fight to coalition troops in open combat, where as Iraq is predominately guerilla warfare.

If I am wrong, please correct me.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Sep 2006)

I guess my position is that Iraq has been more intensive over time, than Afghanistan. The taliban offensive has been their most ambitious since 01/02. It will be interesting to see if they can replicate it next year. The lesson for the taliban is that when they concentrate their forces they will die.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The lesson for the taliban is that when they concentrate their forces they will die.


----------

