DND_3.JPG

The table above lists the annual number of soldiers injured, wounded and killed from the beginning of the Canadian military deployment to Afghanistan in April 2002 to December 31, 2009.

Sharp increase in injuries

The figures, released to the Coast by the Department of National Defence, show that a total of 1,580 Canadian soldiers had been injured and killed in Afghanistan by the end of December. The 2009 total was 505 higher than the 1,075 soldiers injured and killed by the end of 2008.

Non-battle injuries, defined as those injured as a result of traffic accidents, the accidental discharge of a weapon and any other accidental injuries not related to combat, accounted for the largest single increase in 2009. Non-battle injuries also included soldiers reported ill and those sent home for compassionate or medical reasons.

Total deaths and injuries

The number killed in Afghanistan reached 138 in 2009. (So far in 2010, one soldier has died, bringing the total so far, to 139.)

The total number of Canadian soldiers injured and wounded in nearly seven years of war reached 1,442 by the end of December.

Military withholds info on injuries and wounds

The Canadian military releases information on injuries and wounds only at the end of each calendar year. Officials claim they withhold current-year figures for security reasons.

The Department of National Defence also does not disclose the nature or severity of injuries or wounds.

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

  1. Beerad: There’s no precise answer to your question. It’s not in the interests of the powers-that-be to count Afghan casualties. It’s clear though, that tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed and many thousands more injured as the war grinds on and on and on.

    The late US historian Howard Zinn pointed out that in the First World War, there were 10 military deaths for every civilian killed; in the Second World War it was 50-50; but in Vietnam 70 percent of the dead were civilians. In the wars since, the proportion of civilian deaths has increased again to between 80 and 85 percent. That means that for every thousand who die in war, up to 850 are innocent bystanders.

    So, if you apply Zinn’s ratio of 80 to 1, the 139 Canadian soldiers killed so far in this latest Afghan war would equal about 11,120 dead civilians.

    On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, I wrote a Coast editorial quoting Ahmed Rashid’s book, “Descent Into Chaos” which described the effects of the initial American bombing of Afghanistan. (Keep in mind, that Rashid himself supported the post 9/11 American invasion of Afghanistan):

    “The bombing caused massive dislocation as thousands fled their homes, the distribution of food aid to drought-stricken areas was halted and there were widespread revenge killings,” Rashid writes. “Up to 20,000 Afghans may have died indirectly as a result of drought, hunger and displacement. In the months to come, US aircraft were to cause hundreds more civilian casualties by targeting the wrong villages.”

    Western journalists have not been able to convey the fury of the war in Afghanistan. Here is an excerpt from a piece by Howard Zinn in the Progressive magazine in December, 2001 less than two months after the US air assault began:

    Zinn writes: A New York Times report: “The Pentagon acknowledged that a Navy F/A-18 dropped a 1,000-pound bomb on Sunday near what officials called a center for the elderly. . . . The United Nations said the building was a military hospital. . . . Several hours later, a Navy F-14 dropped two 500-pound bombs on a residential area northwest of Kabul.” A U.N. official told a New York Times reporter that an American bombing raid on the city of Herat had used cluster bombs, which spread deadly “bomblets” over an area of twenty football fields. This, the Times reporter wrote,”was the latest of a growing number of accounts of American bombs going astray and causing civilian casualties.”

    An A.P. reporter was brought to Karam, a small mountain village hit by American bombs, and saw houses reduced to rubble. “In the hospital in Jalalabad, twenty-five miles to the east, doctors treated what they said were twenty-three victims of bombing at Karam, one a child barely two months old, swathed in bloody bandages,” according to the account. “Another child, neighbors said, was in the hospital because the bombing raid had killed her entire family. At least eighteen fresh graves were scattered around the village.”

    The city of Kandahar, attacked for seventeen straight days, was reported to be a ghost town, with more than half of its 500,000 people fleeing the bombs. The city’s electrical grid had been knocked out. The city was deprived of water, since the electrical pumps could not operate. A sixty-year-old farmer told the A.P. reporter, “We left in fear of our lives. Every day and every night, we hear the roaring and roaring of planes, we see the smoke, the fire. . . . I curse them both–the Taliban and America.”

    A New York Times report from Pakistan two weeks into the bombing campaign told of wounded civilians coming across the border. “Every half-hour or so throughout the day, someone was brought across on a stretcher. . . . Most were bomb victims, missing limbs or punctured by shrapnel. . . . A young boy, his head and one leg wrapped in bloodied bandages, clung to his father’s back as the old man trudged back to Afghanistan.”

  2. Sneer all you want about antiseptic terms such as “Collateral Damage” and “Rules of Engagement” it tends to be only western militaries that even acknowledge the concept. If your knowledge of the U.S. military was based on anything deeper than M.A.S.H. reruns and Country Joe and the Fish you would realize that no military on the planet works harder at, or spends more on avoiding civilian casualties because they are so very counterproductive. That may be why Kabul for all its squalor does not resemble Grozny. Want to cry about the quantum leap in civilian casualties in the last century you’d better also be prepared to recognize a similar leap in the concept of the civilian as willing combatant. For that you may thank such luminaries as Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Ho , Che and of course the most famous Soviet of them all, Mikhail Kalashnikov.

  3. Ah, yes, Mr. Sonofabitch — the “blame Trotsky” argument. Next thing you know, you’ll be blaming feminism for everything. No–wait—the National Post already did that.

  4. Aside from ruining the Porn Biz, i don’t blame feminism for anything. But I have heard too many lectures on the evils of child soldiers and landmines from silly twats wearing Che Guevera T-shirts. I know us Right-Wing nutjobs are not renowned for our sense of humor, but Jesus H., the left just do not get irony at all.

  5. “” Want to cry about the quantum leap in civilian casualties in the last century you’d better also be prepared to recognize a similar leap in the concept of the civilian as willing combatant.”‘

    What are you saying here, that the ‘civilians’ reported slain in Iraq by the US coalition, and in Afghanistan by Canadians et al, are actually secretly soldiers? Even the women and small children?

    Do you have any proof of this, or does it just make it easier to accept that innocents are dying at FAR to high a rate, given the supposed ability of modern military to make “surgical” strikes, act on good intelligence etc etc?

    Sounds like spin to me, Ivan.

  6. The deaths of civilians are always to be regretted for reasons of simple humanity let alone the fact they they are extremely counterproductive in the strategic sense. It does not matter much to the victims or their families whether they were killed accidentally or deliberately; they are still dead and maimed. My point is that the “American Way” of making war from WW 2 onward has been geared completely toward the minimalization of such casualties. Whereas the revolutionary and religious ideologies that have flourished in the same time frame are not merely comfortable with civilian casualties, they actively encourage them.
    If an American pilot or Canadian artilleryman wind up killing or injuring civilians, their superiors may not publicly crucify them with wood and nails, but they don’t declare them shaheed, either. The citizens of Houston or Lethbridge don’t flock into the streets , firing off their weapons and shouting “Praise the Lord”
    It may be spin, but the simple fact is that the world has never seen the American army let off it’s leash, not since Sherman’s “March To The Sea” at any rate.

  7. I’d like to hear from somebody who is completely unbiased, and not from either side of this conflict; somebody who has actually BEEN to these areas being discussed. If you do not fit this description, then every comment you make here is hearsay and makes for a crappy basis for argument. Don’t help the disemination of information that you do not PERSONALLY KNOW to be factual, it is harmful, irresponsible, and only deminishes your personal integrity.

  8. Toothpick, you are absolutely correct. The irony is not lost on me that every time I say “I stand behind our soldiers” the reality is I’m standing behind them to the tune of 3000 miles perfectly safe with my flatscreen, my Starbucks and my high cholesterol. My bias will always be in favor of those who serve; I give them my unconditional respect. But, I also owe them humility in the face of their service. Thank you for reminding me of that.

  9. To Toothpick. I’m not sure if I qualify but right after 9/11 I was in the hunt for whoever was responsible.Big time bombing which nobody could see. Still not sure who the enemy was but I began to see a pattern.Fear. but what never gets mentioned is that many pined for the Soviets. Under them there were bars, karaoke, but most importantly, no rig for the girls, especially no veils.The collective death wish of these guys is intimidating.When you hear that the Taliban are 90 miles from Islamabad where the launch codes for 96 long range nukes are ,you start checking the status of your RRSP. Peace

  10. Canada

    When men/women set out to oversee construction of a nation ‘shit happens’ Few understand why mere ideology causes others early death. Most nation leaders do not know ‘what happens next’ people worldwide seek the ease and comfort of ‘flags’ offerings because ‘they know not what they do’

    It is always sad to see souls die pit fighting. The human condition (nul and void) of grace moves from killing field – killing field of heavy burden mad made.

    Canada is just a small part of early deals – pursue ‘scratch and sniff’ vows and each personel death is known to god.

    Natural resourse and plights in need of temporary shelters (brick houses) to nest birth pangs.

    Each ‘flag’ offers the same old same old as they are all ‘stuck on stupid’ rob peter pay paul and when the dust settle take it up with …………that schooled son.

    War is just a part of the empty vocations provided by mere and wayward plights. If they had ‘salt’ they feed it too four horses.

    As we are all aware over 7 billion people share our earth and there are many more on route.

    Within the next few years another army will start to show ‘its’ face. Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to who will lead.

    Today’s wars are ‘cute’ at best driven as all by mere false kingdom needs.

    Glenn

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *