Why is there not Casuality count on the other side

[FishForLunch]

TIKRIT, Iraq - U.S. forces captured 40 suspected Iraqi guerrillas in a night-long battle near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit after three U.S. soldiers were killed in an ambush, a U.S. commander said on Friday. --SNIP-- "We were involved in direct firefights throughout the night," said [Colonel James] Hickey. "We feel confident we now have under our control the individuals who attacked our patrol."

Text

Puzzling how we never get a body count on the other side in a fire fight,just the one's detained. A night long battle with only U.S. casualities seems odd to me. Only time the media reports an Iraqi killed it is a child or civilian. This is one of the reasons in my opinion, why the democracts are having a field day bashing bush for doing a shitty job in Iraq. Looks like the US side is the only one taking casualities.

What could the reason be for not reporting enemy KIA's and WIA's?

[jacktruth]

I am anti-liberal press, but I don't think it would help Bush to tell everyone how many Iraqis we are killing. It would only add sympathy to thier side.

[Dooby]

I have thought about this. I don't have a good answer. A casualty includes wounded, killed, mia, and captured. I think a lot of this has to do with two things. First, it is very difficut to calculate such things accurately. Second, the military was embarassed in Vietnam as their casualty totals for the other side had no basis in fact (see my first point).

I don't think it is a liberal media point. I think it is in part a lazy point. The media doesn't want to take the time to figure it out for themselves because, as I said before, it be too hard to do and they'd get it wrong anyway. Plus there's no good visual for the networks to shove the camera in the face of the grieving widow and children of the fallen U.S. soldier. You could show an Iraqi mother mourning in arabic, but that just isn't good ratings.

I question its value anyway. I think it would hurt morale if the american people thought we were killing Iraqis at a 20:1 or 10:1 clip.

I remember when Norman Schwartzkof spoke at SMU, there was a protester with a sign that said Schwartzkof had the blood of 500,000 on his hands (I want to say the sign read 5,000,000, but that can't be realistic).

But it is information I want to have.

[mary]

Originally posted by: jacktruth
I am anti-liberal press, but I don't think it would help Bush to tell everyone how many Iraqis we are killing. It would only add sympathy to thier side.

Well, if the truth sheds light on the ramifications of war, then so be it. Regardless of how I feel about out foreign policy, what I resent the most is the shameless marketing campaign that the Iraqi war turned into. I don't want to be spoon-fed half-truths just because they make me FEEL better as an American. I'm an adult for pete's sake.

Obviously, Dooby's right - taking a accurate head count of the opposing side is probably difficult. But I'm sure the State Department has some idea after all this time. I know a few soldiers over there that worked "body detail", so SOMEONE is counting.