2003 American troops killed in Afghanistan, that is nothing to be proud of. We are proud of these brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for us, and morn and pray for their families and friends who are so devastated by the loss of someone they love. I have no idea of the depth of grief, of the anger, of the pain and heartbreak they have and are experiencing. I do know it is time for us to get out of Afghanistan before we loose too many others for a nation that is so corrupt and so untrustworthy as an ally. Nothing in or about Afghanistan can justify the death of another American. That country, with it's two-faced, back-stabbing, corrupt leadership will lead their people on the path to Hell whether we leave now or at the the end of 2014. Our troops are to precious to be sacrificed for the profit margins of the American military-industrial complex and the profits of any American company that decides to risk doing business in Afghanistan. It is time for Pres Obama and Congress to bring our troops home now!
They have often come in the form of a bright flash, a deafening
thunderclap and a concussive blast wave that leaves the survivors dazed
or unconscious and the wounded and dead sprawled in the wreckage caused
by a roadside bomb, or Improvised Explosive Device, the main cause of
American casualties in Afghanistan.
But whether caused by IED, or rocket-propelled grenade, or automatic
rifle fire, the casualties are mounting toward a grim milestone.
According to a count by the Associated Press, two thousand Americans
have given their lives in Afghanistan during a war that has lasted
almost 11 years.
The Pentagon announced the latest casualty Sunday: Sgt. 1st Class
Riley G. Stephens, a 39-year-old from Tolar, in north central Texas.
Assigned to the 1st Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group out of Fort
Bragg, N.C., he was killed by enemy small arms fire, the Pentagon said.
American battle casualties have mounted steadily despite a frenetic,
decade-long effort by the Pentagon to defeat or defend against the
deadly IEDs, often primitive devices made of homemade explosives buried
in a plastic bucket, wired to detonation cord with two cast-off
flashlight batteries.
Just over 40 percent of American battle casualties in Afghanistan have been caused by IEDs, according to a count by the Brookings Institution.
Until recently, the Defense Department had routinely published similar
data on the causes of battlefield casualties, but the data was taken off
its website because of its sensitive nature, an official told The
Huffington Post.
While the official Defense Department count of American deaths in
Afghanistan, currently at 1,657, lags behind the AP count, both vastly
understate the tragedy and the true human cost of war.
American battle casualties, including dead and wounded, have mounted
to 55,216 since the United States launched a war in Afghanistan 11 years
ago and then initiated eight years of deadly fighting in Iraq by
invading in 2003.
The roster of American wounded -- over 17,000 in Afghanistan and
32,000 in Iraq -- include some 17,000 young Americans with multiple
severe wounds. Through July 2012, the Defense Department recorded 1,655
amputations due to battle injuries, acording to data drawn up for The
Huffington Post by the U.S. Army Surgeon General. The wounds include
those with disabling genital wounds.
But the carnage spreads far beyond physical wounds. According to the Armed Forces Health Survillance Center,
3,299 American troops who served in Iraq or Afghanistan have been diagnosed with Traumatic Brain Injury
since 2003. That data almost certainly understates the number suffering
from mild, moderate or severe brain injury because the military didn't
begin testing for TBI on the battlefield until 2007. Even now, precise
diagnosis of TBI is not possible, according to the Defense Department's senior TBI specialist.
In cold cash, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost American taxpayers $1.4 trillion. But that's only a down payment, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
which estimates that the cost of health care for Iraq and Afghanistan
war veterans will reach between $40 billion and $55 billion.
Other demands for education, housing and pension benefits will drive
the Department of Veterans Affairs' long-term costs into the trillions
of dollars, some officials believe.
But any measure of the war's dead, including some 20,000 Afghan
civilians and perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians, will necessarily fall far
short of the true cost of young lives cut off, of grieving families, of
children without a parent.
Nor can the burden on the survivors, the 2.5 million Americans who
served in Iraq or Afghanistan, be properly weighed. Even senior
officials at the Pentagon and the VA say privately they cannot
accurately describe what life will be like for the severely wounded and
their families, who face decades of complex medical care and uncertain
rehabilitation.
While the technology of prosthetic limbs has advanced dramatically
since 2001, the long-term effects of living with artificial limbs is not
known. Nor are the long-term physical and emotional costs of those who have suffered deep burns in IED explosions and are living with extensive and often painful scarring.
Even less is known about the long-term effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. Recent studies have suggested
that some forms of TBI may subject the wounded to a greater likelihood
of degenerative brain disease later in life. But few long-term studies
have been completed and the Obama administration recently announced a
$100 million boost in research on military brain injury.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/casualties-afghanistan-war_n_1927691.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=100112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
NORTON META TAG
Showing posts with label casualties in Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label casualties in Afghanistan. Show all posts
05 October 2012
15 July 2011
Afghanistan Weekly Digest: Ahmed Wali Karzai. Veterans. NATO. 14JUL11
WE'RE still at war, here is this week's Afghanistan Weekly Digest from SOJO.
[Editors' note: As part of Sojourners' campaign to end the war in Afghanistan, we will run a weekly Afghanistan news digest to educate our readers about the latest news and developments related to the war, the U.S. military's strategy, and the people impacted by our decisions. Read more about our campaign at www.sojo.net/afghanistan.]
Hannah Lythe is policy and outreach associate at Sojourners.
- Afghan president’s half brother killed by a bodyguard: “President Hamid Karzai’s half brother, the most powerful man in southern Afghanistan and a lightning rod for criticism of corruption in the government, was assassinated Tuesday by a close associate.”
- Veterans face high unemployment after military service: “Unemployment among recently returned veterans, already in double digits, is poised to get worse as more soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan. The jobless rate for veterans who served at any time since September 2001 — called Gulf War-era II veterans — was 13.3 percent in June, up from 12.1 percent the month before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In June 2010 it was 11.5 percent.”
- Petraeus confident as he leaves Afghanistan: “Just days away from the end of his tour as the supreme military commander in Afghanistan, and the end of a 37-year military career, Gen. David H. Petraeus said he was leaving in the belief that his plan to turn around the war and hand over security to the Afghans could be achieved.”
- NATO says airstrike in Afghan province killed women and children: “NATO forces said Thursday that they had unwittingly killed several women and children a day earlier during an early morning air attack against militants in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan. The American-led coalition also said it was investigating separate reports of civilian deaths in a nearby province.”
- White House changes policy on condolence letters for military suicides: “For several administrations at least, the White House has declined to send letters of condolence to families of troops who committed suicide, even if those suicides occurred in combat zones. The policy was based on concerns within military circles that recognizing such deaths would encourage more suicides. But it infuriated many of those families, who felt they should have received the same kinds of letters sent to families of every service member killed in action.”
30 June 2010
The Afghanistan Paradox: When the War's Defenders Make the Case for Why We Should Stay, They End Up Making the Case for Why We Should Go 28JUN10
MORE on why we need to get out of Afghanistan now......even the propagandist can't get their story straight! AND TODAY ANOTHER AMERICAN WAS KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN.......59 AMERICAN LIVES THROWN AWAY BY OUR GOVERNMENT THIS MONTH.....OBAMA'S HANDS ARE GETTING AS BLOODY AS GEORGE W BUSH'S!
Well, President Obama has succeeded in bringing at least one soldier home from Afghanistan -- welcome back, Gen. McChrystal. Now if he can just hold true to his plan to begin bringing the other 100,000 or so home next year.
Before the president fired McChrystal, many wondered if he would be bold enough, decisive enough, and tough enough to go through with it. We now know the answer, but the real test of his toughness will come as we approach July 2011, when he has said he will begin to bring the troops home. The pushback will be furious. Indeed, it's already started -- beginning with those inside his own administration. Just days before the Rolling Stone piece broke, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said of the July deadline: "That absolutely has not been decided."
Apparently, McChrystal wasn't the only one off the reservation. In fact, it's a bit hard to make out the borders of the reservation, since Obama's Afghanistan policy has never been clear. And now with the departure of McChrystal, and the arrival of General David Petraeus, it's even less clear. What is clear is that many in Washington will use this personnel switch to try to bring about a policy switch.
On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein was asked what the response should be if Petraeus requests more soldiers over and above those arriving as part of the current troop surge. "I would say give it to him, absolutely," she said, adding that it's Petraeus who "should make the call."
Really, Senator? We just had a showdown in which the idea that we live in a country with civilian control of the military was tested and, fortunately, affirmed. Petraeus wasn't elected, so it's not his call. It's the commander-in-chief's. Sen. Feinstein may be ready to cede the ultimate decision-making power to the military but, thankfully, it's not hers to cede.
"We need to understand that we have to get the [Afghan] military trained," Feinstein said, "get the government... secure and stabilized, and I think do away with the drugs to a great extent, because the drugs are now fueling the Taliban."
Oh, is that all? Talk about moving the goalposts. And how exactly are we suddenly going to do what we haven't been able to do during the nine years we've been trying?
Through the magic of General Petraeus, of course. "I think we put all of our eggs in the Petraeus basket," Feinstein added. How about we put our eggs in the truth basket, instead? Ignoring it hasn't been working out very well. Nor has mission creep.
According to the president, the reason we're in Afghanistan is the "clear and focused goal" to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda." By that standard, we should be pulling out right now. On ABC's This Week, CIA Director Leon Panetta was asked by Jake Tapper how many al Qaeda are left in Afghanistan. "I think the estimate on the number of al Qaeda is actually relatively small," said Panetta. "At most, we're looking at 50 to 100, maybe less."
Fifty! That means there are more Kardashians in Los Angeles than al Qaeda in Afghanistan. According to Panetta's figures, we now have 1,000 to 2,000 soldiers for each and every al Qaeda fighter who didn't get the change of address cards bin Laden sent out -- and we're spending $1 billion to $2 billion per terrorist this year.
It's a lousy bang for our buck, but at least we've accomplished our mission, right? Wrong. "Our purpose, our whole mission there, is to make sure that al Qaeda never finds another safe haven from which to attack this country," Panetta said, while moving the goalposts even further. "That's the fundamental goal of why the United States is there. And the measure of success for us is: do you have an Afghanistan that is stable enough to make sure that never happens?"
But Pakistan is far more stable than Afghanistan and has proven a relatively safe haven for all sorts of bad guys. Or as Duncan Black put it: "The stability of the state of Afghanistan and its willingness to house bad actors are completely unrelated to each other. More than that, potential bad actors can, roughly, find a 'safe haven' just about anywhere they want."
It's a curious thing about Afghanistan: every time a politician makes a case for why we need to stay, he or she ends up making the case for why we should leave. "It's harder, it's slower than I think anyone anticipated -- but at the same time, we are seeing increasing violence," said Panetta. "We're dealing with a country that has problems with governance, problems with corruption, problems with narcotics trafficking, problems with a Taliban insurgency." Other than that, it's going great.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, appearing on CNN's State of the Union, was asked, when does the U.S. look at the situation in Afghanistan and decide we've done what we can and that it's time to leave? "You have the most corrupt government that we have ever dealt with from a conflict standpoint," said Chambliss. "And until you provide some stability and some confidence in the Afghan people about the way forward from a governing standpoint, then I think that statement probably has some truth to it, that we could win militarily and still have a very ugly victory." And he thinks he's making a case for staying!
And later on he did it again: "In the areas where we have really concentrated militarily, we've done well," said Chambliss. "But you have to give up something when you do that, and certain other areas, the Taliban probably has gained in strength because they've moved troops there." So even when we're succeeding, we're failing.
It's truly bizarre how many in Washington are describing the situation in Afghanistan accurately, but then fail to draw the most obvious conclusion based on what they've just said.
It's unfortunate that it was Gen. McChrystal's petty comments about Obama and his inner circle that grabbed all the headlines from Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone piece, because the real, and much more important, aspect of the story was the dark picture it painted of what's going on in Afghanistan. Several soldiers and aides to McChrystal had no trouble connecting the dots that seem to be eluding those within the Beltway.
Staff Sergeant Kennith Hicks put it very succinctly: "We're f***ing losing this thing," he said.
"If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular," said a senior advisor to General McChrystal.
As Frank Rich noted this weekend, "until last week, Obama's only real ally in making his case was public apathy."
And now comes Gen. Petraeus, buttressed by his credulous chorus in Washington, so willing to abdicate the responsibility of making the hard choices we elected them to make. What will the General decide once he's looked over his new portfolio? We don't know. But it's important that, whatever it is, Obama shows the same boldness and leadership he showed with McChrystal and sticks to his plan to withdraw.
The initial signs are not promising. In his speech last week announcing the appointment of Petraeus, the president didn't mention the July 2011 deadline -- an omission that caused Bill Kristol to gush: "Let us now praise Barack Obama... The only thing Obama could have done to more dramatically minimize the significance of the July 2011 date would have been explicitly to repudiate it. He should do that, and in a few months he may." When Bill Kristol is singing hosannas to your war policy, it's past time to rethink it.
Instead, as HuffPost's Sam Stein reports, the president is becoming "increasingly frustrated" with criticism of his Afghan policy and, during his closing press conference at this weekend's G20 summit, lamented that there was "a lot of obsession" over the July 2011 withdrawal date. He should get used to it.
If the president really wants to heed the advice of a conservative, instead of Kristol he should listen to the words of Rory Stewart, an influential Tory Member of Parliament, who this weekend called the war in Afghanistan a "mission impossible," saying: "Even if you put 600,000 troops on the ground, I can't see a credible, legitimate Afghan government emerging."
Rep. Nita Lowey, who chairs the subcommittee that oversees funding for Afghanistan's redevelopment and reconstruction, agrees. As HuffPost's Ryan Grim reported, Lowey said on Monday "that she was stripping money from her foreign aid bill in reaction to pervasive corruption." "I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords, and terrorists," said Lowey.
Obama's decision to replace McChrystal with Petraeus smoothed over one crisis. But it did nothing to solve the one that's been unfolding every day for the last nine years in Afghanistan.
The foes of withdrawal are plainly hoping the arrival of Petraeus will mean the departure of the 2011 withdrawal deadline. But, in making that call, Obama should be guided by the facts on the ground, not the number of politicians who are putting all their eggs in Petraeus' basket.
Well, President Obama has succeeded in bringing at least one soldier home from Afghanistan -- welcome back, Gen. McChrystal. Now if he can just hold true to his plan to begin bringing the other 100,000 or so home next year.
Before the president fired McChrystal, many wondered if he would be bold enough, decisive enough, and tough enough to go through with it. We now know the answer, but the real test of his toughness will come as we approach July 2011, when he has said he will begin to bring the troops home. The pushback will be furious. Indeed, it's already started -- beginning with those inside his own administration. Just days before the Rolling Stone piece broke, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said of the July deadline: "That absolutely has not been decided."
Apparently, McChrystal wasn't the only one off the reservation. In fact, it's a bit hard to make out the borders of the reservation, since Obama's Afghanistan policy has never been clear. And now with the departure of McChrystal, and the arrival of General David Petraeus, it's even less clear. What is clear is that many in Washington will use this personnel switch to try to bring about a policy switch.
On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein was asked what the response should be if Petraeus requests more soldiers over and above those arriving as part of the current troop surge. "I would say give it to him, absolutely," she said, adding that it's Petraeus who "should make the call."
Really, Senator? We just had a showdown in which the idea that we live in a country with civilian control of the military was tested and, fortunately, affirmed. Petraeus wasn't elected, so it's not his call. It's the commander-in-chief's. Sen. Feinstein may be ready to cede the ultimate decision-making power to the military but, thankfully, it's not hers to cede.
"We need to understand that we have to get the [Afghan] military trained," Feinstein said, "get the government... secure and stabilized, and I think do away with the drugs to a great extent, because the drugs are now fueling the Taliban."
Oh, is that all? Talk about moving the goalposts. And how exactly are we suddenly going to do what we haven't been able to do during the nine years we've been trying?
Through the magic of General Petraeus, of course. "I think we put all of our eggs in the Petraeus basket," Feinstein added. How about we put our eggs in the truth basket, instead? Ignoring it hasn't been working out very well. Nor has mission creep.
According to the president, the reason we're in Afghanistan is the "clear and focused goal" to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda." By that standard, we should be pulling out right now. On ABC's This Week, CIA Director Leon Panetta was asked by Jake Tapper how many al Qaeda are left in Afghanistan. "I think the estimate on the number of al Qaeda is actually relatively small," said Panetta. "At most, we're looking at 50 to 100, maybe less."
Fifty! That means there are more Kardashians in Los Angeles than al Qaeda in Afghanistan. According to Panetta's figures, we now have 1,000 to 2,000 soldiers for each and every al Qaeda fighter who didn't get the change of address cards bin Laden sent out -- and we're spending $1 billion to $2 billion per terrorist this year.
It's a lousy bang for our buck, but at least we've accomplished our mission, right? Wrong. "Our purpose, our whole mission there, is to make sure that al Qaeda never finds another safe haven from which to attack this country," Panetta said, while moving the goalposts even further. "That's the fundamental goal of why the United States is there. And the measure of success for us is: do you have an Afghanistan that is stable enough to make sure that never happens?"
But Pakistan is far more stable than Afghanistan and has proven a relatively safe haven for all sorts of bad guys. Or as Duncan Black put it: "The stability of the state of Afghanistan and its willingness to house bad actors are completely unrelated to each other. More than that, potential bad actors can, roughly, find a 'safe haven' just about anywhere they want."
It's a curious thing about Afghanistan: every time a politician makes a case for why we need to stay, he or she ends up making the case for why we should leave. "It's harder, it's slower than I think anyone anticipated -- but at the same time, we are seeing increasing violence," said Panetta. "We're dealing with a country that has problems with governance, problems with corruption, problems with narcotics trafficking, problems with a Taliban insurgency." Other than that, it's going great.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, appearing on CNN's State of the Union, was asked, when does the U.S. look at the situation in Afghanistan and decide we've done what we can and that it's time to leave? "You have the most corrupt government that we have ever dealt with from a conflict standpoint," said Chambliss. "And until you provide some stability and some confidence in the Afghan people about the way forward from a governing standpoint, then I think that statement probably has some truth to it, that we could win militarily and still have a very ugly victory." And he thinks he's making a case for staying!
And later on he did it again: "In the areas where we have really concentrated militarily, we've done well," said Chambliss. "But you have to give up something when you do that, and certain other areas, the Taliban probably has gained in strength because they've moved troops there." So even when we're succeeding, we're failing.
It's truly bizarre how many in Washington are describing the situation in Afghanistan accurately, but then fail to draw the most obvious conclusion based on what they've just said.
It's unfortunate that it was Gen. McChrystal's petty comments about Obama and his inner circle that grabbed all the headlines from Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone piece, because the real, and much more important, aspect of the story was the dark picture it painted of what's going on in Afghanistan. Several soldiers and aides to McChrystal had no trouble connecting the dots that seem to be eluding those within the Beltway.
Staff Sergeant Kennith Hicks put it very succinctly: "We're f***ing losing this thing," he said.
"If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular," said a senior advisor to General McChrystal.
As Frank Rich noted this weekend, "until last week, Obama's only real ally in making his case was public apathy."
And now comes Gen. Petraeus, buttressed by his credulous chorus in Washington, so willing to abdicate the responsibility of making the hard choices we elected them to make. What will the General decide once he's looked over his new portfolio? We don't know. But it's important that, whatever it is, Obama shows the same boldness and leadership he showed with McChrystal and sticks to his plan to withdraw.
The initial signs are not promising. In his speech last week announcing the appointment of Petraeus, the president didn't mention the July 2011 deadline -- an omission that caused Bill Kristol to gush: "Let us now praise Barack Obama... The only thing Obama could have done to more dramatically minimize the significance of the July 2011 date would have been explicitly to repudiate it. He should do that, and in a few months he may." When Bill Kristol is singing hosannas to your war policy, it's past time to rethink it.
Instead, as HuffPost's Sam Stein reports, the president is becoming "increasingly frustrated" with criticism of his Afghan policy and, during his closing press conference at this weekend's G20 summit, lamented that there was "a lot of obsession" over the July 2011 withdrawal date. He should get used to it.
If the president really wants to heed the advice of a conservative, instead of Kristol he should listen to the words of Rory Stewart, an influential Tory Member of Parliament, who this weekend called the war in Afghanistan a "mission impossible," saying: "Even if you put 600,000 troops on the ground, I can't see a credible, legitimate Afghan government emerging."
Rep. Nita Lowey, who chairs the subcommittee that oversees funding for Afghanistan's redevelopment and reconstruction, agrees. As HuffPost's Ryan Grim reported, Lowey said on Monday "that she was stripping money from her foreign aid bill in reaction to pervasive corruption." "I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords, and terrorists," said Lowey.
Obama's decision to replace McChrystal with Petraeus smoothed over one crisis. But it did nothing to solve the one that's been unfolding every day for the last nine years in Afghanistan.
The foes of withdrawal are plainly hoping the arrival of Petraeus will mean the departure of the 2011 withdrawal deadline. But, in making that call, Obama should be guided by the facts on the ground, not the number of politicians who are putting all their eggs in Petraeus' basket.
29 May 2010
List of U.S. Fatalities in Afghanistan as of May 28, 2010 from iCasualties.org: Operation Enduring Freedom
Coalition Military Fatalities By Year
| Year | US | UK | Other | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| 2002 | 49 | 3 | 17 | 69 |
| 2003 | 48 | 0 | 9 | 57 |
| 2004 | 52 | 1 | 7 | 60 |
| 2005 | 99 | 1 | 31 | 131 |
| 2006 | 98 | 39 | 54 | 191 |
| 2007 | 117 | 42 | 73 | 232 |
| 2008 | 155 | 51 | 89 | 295 |
| 2009 | 316 | 108 | 96 | 520 |
| 2010 | 140 | 43 | 38 | 221 |
| Total | 1086 | 288 | 414 | 1788 |
Filter Deaths By Year
U.S. Fatalities in and around Afghanistan
| Country of Death | Fatalities |
|---|---|
| Afghanistan | 957 |
| Germany (from wounds in theatre) | 14 |
| Pakistan | 15 |
| USA (from wounds in theatre) | 20 |
| Uzbekistan | 1 |
| Total | 1007 |
IED Fatalities
| Period | IED | Total | Pct |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 0 | 4 | 0.00 |
| 2002 | 4 | 25 | 16.00 |
| 2003 | 3 | 26 | 11.54 |
| 2004 | 12 | 27 | 44.44 |
| 2005 | 20 | 73 | 27.40 |
| 2006 | 41 | 130 | 31.54 |
| 2007 | 78 | 184 | 42.39 |
| 2008 | 152 | 263 | 57.79 |
| 2009 | 275 | 450 | 61.11 |
| 2010 | 114 | 202 | 56.44 |
Coalition Military Fatalities By Year and Month
CoalitionU.S.
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 12 |
| 2002 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 69 |
| 2003 | 4 | 7 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 57 |
| 2004 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 60 |
| 2005 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 19 | 4 | 29 | 2 | 33 | 12 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 131 |
| 2006 | 1 | 17 | 13 | 5 | 17 | 22 | 19 | 29 | 38 | 17 | 9 | 4 | 191 |
| 2007 | 2 | 18 | 10 | 20 | 25 | 24 | 29 | 34 | 24 | 15 | 22 | 9 | 232 |
| 2008 | 14 | 7 | 20 | 14 | 23 | 46 | 30 | 46 | 37 | 19 | 12 | 27 | 295 |
| 2009 | 25 | 25 | 28 | 14 | 27 | 38 | 76 | 77 | 70 | 74 | 32 | 34 | 520 |
| 2010 | 45 | 55 | 39 | 34 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 221 |
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 12 |
| 2002 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 49 |
| 2003 | 4 | 7 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 48 |
| 2004 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 52 |
| 2005 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 18 | 4 | 27 | 2 | 15 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 99 |
| 2006 | 1 | 17 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 18 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 98 |
| 2007 | 0 | 14 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 18 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 6 | 117 |
| 2008 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 5 | 17 | 28 | 20 | 22 | 27 | 16 | 1 | 3 | 155 |
| 2009 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 6 | 12 | 25 | 45 | 51 | 40 | 59 | 18 | 17 | 316 |
| 2010 | 30 | 32 | 26 | 20 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 140 |
Filter Deaths By Month
Fatalities By Country
| Country | Total |
|---|---|
| Australia | 11 |
| Belgium | 1 |
| Canada | 146 |
| Czech | 3 |
| Denmark | 31 |
| Estonia | 7 |
| Finland | 1 |
| France | 42 |
| Germany | 42 |
| Hungary | 2 |
| Italy | 24 |
| Jordan | 1 |
| Latvia | 3 |
| Lithuania | 1 |
| NATO | 3 |
| Netherlands | 24 |
| Norway | 5 |
| Not yet reported | 1 |
| Poland | 16 |
| Portugal | 2 |
| Romania | 13 |
| South Korea | 1 |
| Spain | 28 |
| Sweden | 4 |
| Turkey | 2 |
| UK | 288 |
| US | 1086 |
| Total | 1788 |
View Fatalities By Nationality Details
Fatalities by Province
View Fatalities By Province Details
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)