Don't cite nonhostile fatalities when opposing U.S. hostilities in Iraq

I have a good discussion going on Talkback Lancaster.

Many people out there are writing editorials or other columns in the newspapers about Iraq War fatalities. Why? Often these people don't personally know anyone that has died in the Iraq War. Yet they go around boasting numbers as high as 2,000 men and women that died in the Iraq War. They often use these figures to excuse their opposition to the Iraq War.

What they neglect to tell you is that roughly 400-500 of that figure includes non-hostile fatalities, which could be as simple as a soldier choking to death in the mess hall. Yes, it's sad whenever a soldier loses their life. But this example is not a good reason to oppose the Iraq War, is it?

ICasualties.org provides the distinction in their data (drawn from several sources including Centcomm and DoD). Their number is about 1,447 U.S. soldier deaths whose deaths were accountable to hostility in Iraq.

Most people haven't been informed of that.

Why use non-hostile fatality statistics for your reason against hostile U.S. action?

I believe the numbers are being misused in a way that exploits (in a political manner) the deaths of some of our soldiers.

If you cite the number, that's fine. Just don't misrepresent it as a total of hostile U.S. fatalities in Iraq. That number is significantly lower.