Posted on 10/29/2003 7:35:17 AM PST by Happy2BMe
By LISA HOFFMAN and THOMAS HARGROVE - When Army Pvt. Joseph Guerrera, 20, died on patrol after a bomb hit his vehicle in Baghdad Sunday, he exemplified the profile of America's war dead in Iraq. In a pattern as old as war itself, it is the young U.S. enlistees like Guerrera, a paratrooper and former church choir member from Dunn, N. C., who are doing most of the dying in the ongoing war in Iraq. More 20-year-old soldiers have died - 40 - than those of any other age represented in the ranks, according to a Scripps Howard News Service computer analysis of the war dead. And troops 21 and under account for nearly one-third of the 353 troops identified by the Pentagon who have perished in combat or by accidents, disease and suicide since the war began seven months ago. Raise the cutoff age to 25, and young soldiers make up more than half of the war dead. Similarly, it is the enlisted troops who are suffering the highest casualties, according to the Scripps database. Commissioned officers such as Army Lt. Col. Charles Buehring, who was killed Sunday in an enemy rocket assault on a Baghdad hotel, have accounted for just 11 percent of the troops who have died in Iraq and surrounding areas since the war began March 19. They also were about twice as likely to die during the major combat of the war in March and April than in the six following months. Non-commissioned officers such as sergeants have made up 34 percent of the fallen U.S. fighting force, while privates such as Guerrera, specialists and other grunts comprise 55 percent of the toll. That breakdown is more top-heavy than has been typically seen in past conflicts, where non-officers - who commonly make up 85 percent of the force - died in numbers more proportional to their number in the ranks. David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland, says that is because of the nature of the Iraq war, where a mostly urban battlefield dominates, there are no defined front lines, and guerrilla attacks are largely indiscriminate in their choice of victims. "I think it is an equal opportunity situation" for death, Segal said. But the Scripps analysis, which is based on Pentagon-released data about the war dead, also shows that, as the U.S. occupation of Iraq has progressed, reserve and National Guard troops have become three times more likely to die in enemy attacks. Before May 1 - the date President Bush proclaimed the main combat over - only about 9 percent of the battle dead were citizen-soldiers. Since then, reserves and guard troops have accounted for 22 percent of the deaths directly attributable to enemy action. The shift mirrors, in part, the metamorphosis of the 130,000-soldier U.S. force in Iraq from a primarily combat operation, in which active-duty troops predominate, to one with a greater peacekeeping focus. Even so, it is full-time GIs who are the most by far coming home in caskets. Of the war dead, 293 have been active-duty troops, while 59 have been reserve or guard soldiers. The affiliation of one casualty could not be determined. Similarly, it is Army troops who are bearing the bulk of the toll. Since the war began, 258 Army soldiers have died, compared with 82 Marines, seven Navy sailors, and six Air Force airmen.
NATIONAL
Young enlistees have highest death rate in Iraq
Scripps Howard News Service
October 28, 2003
Duh who has the most troops on the ground, kind of hard to get airmen when they are in secure locations.
Duh, when you are the point of the spear you get shot at.
Duh, in the 19th century, most of the cavalry soldiers where in their teens and twenties and had back problems in their 30's, you suppose riding horses day after day, might be the reason why, you suppose that might be why the youngest are getting killed and not the 40 year old colonel.
People take the obvious and turn it into a story.
He is young (26) and an officer in the Guard.
His entire unit was activated.
He'll age five years in the next 18 months.
His unit will recieve extensive training prior to departure (five months). I'm sure they will be thorougly briefed by fellow members who have seen the various types of threat posed in Iraq first-hand.
We need to be fighting this war, and my son and everyone in his unit fully agrees with this and are not grumbling about going over there and doing it.
Emphasis in going over there ~vs~ fighting it on Mainstreet, U.S.A.
But they all deserve our thanks and our donations to organizations that help their families.
And of course, our prayers.
I can't understand why it would be of interest to anyone except military analysts-- except for those with a morbid curiosity or a political agenda. These types of statistics have been well known to everyone who has served in the military for eons. As someone who has spent time in the Reserves, the Guard, and Active Duty Army, as enlisted (both junior and as an NCO) and later as a junior officer briefly-- this is just how these statistics breakdown. The only difference in the numbers is affected by the particular theatre of war that Iraq represents.
Thanks for the history lesson - but in the case of the "here-and-now," the obvious may not be obvious to those having experienced this first-hand, up close and personal like.
I'm retired military, so I have an idea about what's going on.
I prepared my sons (both of whom have now served in the Iraqi war effort) while they were growing up to one day rise up in the defense of this great nation and to know what to expect in terms of personal cost in doing so.
Most don't have a clue.
Let it ride.
Bottom line- This just ain't shocking news. We're at war. Our people killed and injured. It's ugly and I don't like it, but it could be (and has been) a hell of alot uglier. The question ought to be, what kind of casualty rate are we taking to the enemy and how effective are we being in killing those crazy sob's?
I'm only a year older than your son and in the Navy Reserve. Although I hadn't transferred to it at the time, my unit was activated to Guantanamo for six months. An 18 month deployment is a long time. I hope your son gets some really good training and my advice to him (officer-to-officer) would be to make sure his guys stay on their toes and be observant at all times.
I do support the war effort; very much so. My company lost over 100 people on 9-11. I do caution you that people who "fight the war" on Mainstreet USA are very important. W/out homeland supports our efforts in Iraq could fizzle out. I don't want to see car bombs going off in New York City.
I do reserve the right to criticize the way money is spent in the Reserves (and it applies to the Guard). My unit just spent $25,000 on a new carpet and new desks for the office while the members are issued Vietnam era flak jackets. Our unit also does not issue Goretex, but ponchos. It's a travesty that our government spends so much money on bullsh-t while our troops go with substandard gear, especially during a war. Bah!
Better stop now before I start foaming at the mouth. :)
I saw Guardsmen with flak jackets on guarding the 33rd Street PATH station in New York City. Flak Jackets won't stop bullets. They had full length M16s which not only do not deploy very fast, but are not suitable for use in that sort of enviornment. Their weapons were also most likely in condition three so they would have to chamber a round before they could use it. Not smart if there was a threat of terrorist attack.
Perhaps they saved money over cops and perhaps it was a visual deterrent. I'm not sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.