quote:

---

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.

---

NATO casualty rate is approaching that of the former Soviet Union

quote:

---

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. ....

Five of the approximately 18,500 soldiers in the NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) have been killed every week since May, she said.

That's more than twice the level during the battles to control Iraq, Bird calculated. ....

Bird says in the article that she suspects the casualty figures issued by the U.S., British 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."

---

They're lying even more than we thought they were. What a surprise.

[ 14 September 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

The winter is soon and military operations are going to be nearly halted, giving the Taliban and their allies of convienece plenty of time to rearm and rebolster their numbers for a new spring of escalated attacks. Nato is very much running out of time within Afghanistan... But by my read it's too late anyway. However, this doesn't mean Nato commanders will make the same read and I expect them to escalate their efforts to try to 'deliver a fatal blow' to the Taliban (whatever that may be)... So the casualty count coming home is going to spike shortly in the next month as operations get a bit more desperate ^^

Mobilzing the three local amigos!

[ 14 September 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

she suspects the casualty figures issued by the U.S., British 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."

---

quote:

---

Bird says in the article that she suspects the casualty figures issued by the U.S., British 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."

---

I'll probably be unpopular for pointing out that this is a really stupid way to measure the relative danger of the two countries.

Of course, an appropriate method of measurement can't be established unless you can first describe what the purpose of the comparison is. I haven't heard anyone doing that.

I would suggest that if Iraq needs 10 times the number of troops to keep things together, it must be more dangerous than Afghanistan. The objection that it has 10 times the number of troops but doesn't suffer 10 times the number of casualties is neither here nor there, it's just a cherry-picked statistic to serve an agenda.

If as many troops were in Afghanistan as are in Iraq, the casualty rate would be an order of magnitude lower.

There have been nearly 40 deaths this year alone due to helicopter crashes.

I would agree that the Brits Paras are having a difficult time in Helmand province that is however due to the equipment they are using. They are using unarmoured land rovers which have no or limited protection against mines or IEDs.

Nearly have of the Canadian deaths have been due to friendly fire or accidents. Some of the deaths resulting from enemy action could have been prevented if the proper equipment was issued in Afghanistan.

As I said in the other thread, it's all nonsense; an attempt to manipulate statistics to make phony comparisons between the fierceness of the fighting in Afghanistan and that in Iraq.