3,000 casualties

January 10, 2007 2:28 PM

Where They Came FromA map depicting the point of origin, of solders killed in Iraq.
posted by nola (34 comments total)

Interesting link. Thanks.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:33 PM on January 10, 2007

This is saddening.

It would interesting to see this chart adjusted for relative population density in order to determine which areas of the country lost more troops per capita.
posted by mecran01 at 2:33 PM on January 10, 2007

Weird. It seems to have some relationship to this.
posted by found missing at 2:35 PM on January 10, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I was thinking the same thing, mecran01... to see if there's a higher per-capita number in less affluent parts of the country (more kids joining up for $$ for college, eg).
posted by tentacle at 2:35 PM on January 10, 2007

Of US soldiers killed in Iraq.
posted by wilful at 2:40 PM on January 10, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

The map itself has a density chart ona per state basis. 3 colors, 3 densities.
posted by Osmanthus at 2:42 PM on January 10, 2007

It is so hard
And it's cold here
And I'm tired of taking orders
And I miss old Rockford town
Up by the Wisconsin border
But I miss you won't believe
Shoveling snow and raking leaves
And my plane will touch tomorrow
On the day after tomorrow

- Tom Waits
posted by davebush at 2:43 PM on January 10, 2007

Somewhat interesting that, except for Texas, the U.S. South is not as represented as much as I would've expected. Slap me for my stereotyping.
posted by frogan at 2:51 PM on January 10, 2007

I didn't see it at first, but the map does categorize the states into three different shades based on deaths per 100,000. Not exactly per capita, but then I clicked the "home of record" link on the bottom, and there it is...

Vermont has 2.89 per 100k and New Jersey has .60 per 100k. The high "contributions" of the various territories is surprising to me.
posted by jaysus chris at 2:54 PM on January 10, 2007

to see if there's a higher per-capita number in less affluent parts of the country (more kids joining up for $$ for college, eg).

Well, looking at New England, the poorer states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont) have a higher per-capita killed than Massachusetts or Connecticut.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:55 PM on January 10, 2007

Wow, Hawaii beats Texas in this dying game. And Samoa is really getting the shaft here too.
posted by Mister_A at 3:13 PM on January 10, 2007

I wish this "where they died" graph had a geographic representation as well.
posted by peeedro at 3:22 PM on January 10, 2007

This is very cool, and sobering. Thanks for the post.

One correction: the map shows casualties from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
posted by thewittyname at 3:23 PM on January 10, 2007

Of US soldiers killed in Iraq.

For info: the map was more effective in getting that point across than your bold tag.
posted by vbfg at 3:32 PM on January 10, 2007

Surprised that the neocons haven't shut this down and accused the the marinecorpstimes/armytimes of offering aid and comfort to the enemy.
posted by spock at 3:32 PM on January 10, 2007

For info: the title wasn't at all effective, and strongly suggested that the only people of any interest in Bush's little war are Americans. British and Canadians (not to mention Iraqis!) have also died in some numbers in this grand little venture.
posted by wilful at 3:46 PM on January 10, 2007

I'd be interested in comparing the per-state capita to a map showing all active duty personnel by their branch of service.

In the Navy it was a running joke (and entirely not true) that everyone was either from Ohio or Texas. It makes me wonder if people from any general geographic area are more inclined to enlist in one service or another - i.e. are people from Hawaii more inclined to join the Army (a "land-locked" service)in part because they're from a "water-rich" environment) and vice versa for people from oh, say Kansas? I know, I know - it's a stretch to find some sort of correlation amongst a bajillion other factors, but it'd still make for an interesting map.
posted by matty at 4:00 PM on January 10, 2007

Here is some enlistment data by state, to compare and contrast. (They don't seem to track the same for active members, presumably because their geographic location is no longer a choice.)
posted by smackfu at 4:01 PM on January 10, 2007

...which says the highest contributing states per capita are Maine, Virginia, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, and Alaska. Lowest is Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Minnesota, D.C., and Utah.
posted by smackfu at 4:05 PM on January 10, 2007

I note that the "blue" states have lost more than the "red" ones. Hmm. Think this will end the media meme about "real" Americans living in "red" states? Don't hold your breath.

Disgusting war, started by hideous people.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:40 PM on January 10, 2007

mecran01: "It would interesting to see this chart adjusted for relative population density in order to determine which areas of the country lost more troops per capita."

tentacle: "I was thinking the same thing, mecran01... to see if there's a higher per-capita number in less affluent parts of the country (more kids joining up for $$ for college, eg)."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you guys, but the map is adjusted for population density. See the gray to light-gray colors on the states? That indicates number of troops per capita.
posted by koeselitz at 4:41 PM on January 10, 2007

There most certainly have been more than 3000 casualties in the US's invasion of Iraq. You should probably say US Military casualties.

Your headline makes it seem as if you are not interested in the fate of anyone who did not come out of their mother on the same side of the same imaginary line as you did.

It doesn't matter what side of what imaginary line your mother was on when you came out of her, you still get counted as a casualty.
posted by d723 at 4:45 PM on January 10, 2007

Oh, one more thing - are these solders lead based?
posted by wilful at 4:48 PM on January 10, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Wilful, the people who most need their nose rubbed in that fact are the ones who are probably willing to write off the American dead as irrelavent as well.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:51 PM on January 10, 2007

Oh, one more thing - are these solders lead based?

Game, set and match to wilful.
posted by spock at 5:30 PM on January 10, 2007

.
posted by furtive at 5:40 PM on January 10, 2007

There have been over 25,000 American military casualties in Iraq. Over 3,000 fatalities and over 22,000 wounded.

Flash map of where they died in Iraq. (Which has been posted here before.)
posted by kirkaracha at 6:04 PM on January 10, 2007

Interesting post, thanks nola.

This 'skin-tone' pie chart of deaths categorized by race is kinda creepy.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:13 PM on January 10, 2007

And so — if you were planning an escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq — where would you step up your recruiting efforts? In states with relatively fewer deaths, more deaths, or across the country in general?
posted by cenoxo at 7:48 PM on January 10, 2007

A map of the dead should be much more compelling:

Chart depicting the successive loss of French Army soldiers during Napoleon's Russian Campaign (1812-1813) [English version].

Unfortunately, there will be time to draw one up later, but where is Charles Joseph Minard when you need him?
posted by cenoxo at 8:16 PM on January 10, 2007

very interesting cenoxo.
posted by nola at 9:07 PM on January 10, 2007

It’s like the whole country is drowning in blood; can’t even imagine what Iraq would look like in one of these?

Thanks for all of those sobering links
posted by hadjiboy at 9:17 PM on January 10, 2007

It’s like the whole country is drowning in blood

Yeah, I was a little surprised they chose the color red for their map.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:44 PM on January 10, 2007

Minard? Booth and Snow
posted by b33j at 5:09 AM on January 11, 2007