|
2026-09-30 Home Front: WoT
|
|
'It's shameful.' The US is leaving Iraq amid controversy over losses in Iran
|
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
by Ilya Maximov
[Regnum] Almost every update to the Pentagon's official casualty database (Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS), which publishes statistics related to the Iran conflict, has been met with controversy due to attempts to conceal some of the casualties.
This week, the agency quietly added 37 wounded to the public registry—29 U.S. Navy sailors and eight Marines—bringing the total number of casualties to 861. No official explanation was forthcoming: authorities limited themselves to the usual statements that all of them had already returned to duty and would not disclose their identities.
Officially, the Navy attributed the situation to "standard verification protocols," which delayed the DCAS system's updates. However, a scandal could not be avoided.
NBC News journalists have discovered that Marine Corps soldiers were injured in an Iranian missile strike on a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz on September 14. Eight Marines—seven enlisted men and one officer—suffered smoke inhalation, and some suffered concussions.
The most curious thing is where exactly they were located. Sources stated bluntly: it wasn't a US Navy ship, but some kind of "naval vessel," and the Marines were operating as part of a battalion-sized landing group.
Unconfirmed reports suggest the ship in question may be the British mail and passenger liner St. Helena, which, according to TradeWinds News, was struck in the Strait of Hormuz that very day. Its mission has not been disclosed.
They were likely either providing security for maritime trade or serving aboard an auxiliary fleet ship used by the navy in its operation against Iran.
Nothing is known about the 29 injured sailors—it can only be assumed they were in the same area. However, it cannot be ruled out that they were injured elsewhere and under different circumstances.
The omissions regarding the number of wounded are only part of the problem. The situation with fatalities is even more serious. According to six sources familiar with the Defense Department's internal casualty accounting system, four or five dead service members are not reflected in the public database.
Several officials interviewed by the publication reported 22 deaths in the Middle East since February 28, with a sixth official reporting 23. At the time of publication, DCAS officially listed 18 deaths. Three agency contractors were also reported killed, though they are not included in DCAS.
Not all of the unsolved cases are combat casualties, but they are all related to the deployment of American troops in the region.
After some time, one name finally emerged: U.S. Army Captain Bianca Wilkerson, posthumously promoted to major. She served in a logistics unit and died on September 18 on a plane en route to the Middle East. According to her brother, heart problems may have been the cause of death, as Bianca's deployment overseas had been postponed several years earlier due to a blood clot.
However, the exact cause has not yet been determined. "It's unclear whether the clot is related to the issue that caused her death. An autopsy is pending," the deceased's brother explained to The Virginian Pilot.
This death was the 19th case officially added to DCAS during the war with Iran. However, the question of how many fatalities were left unaccounted for remains unresolved.
At the same time, the Pentagon continues to call itself “the most transparent military department in history,” and Vice President J.D. Vance, back in early September, commenting on the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, said: “I wouldn’t call it a war.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described The Washington Post's report on underreporting casualties as "disgusting and false," adding, "Even if we wanted to try to hide combat deaths, we never would, and we couldn't."
On social media, American citizens nevertheless note that the current situation raises questions regarding the Pentagon's stated openness.
"During the Vietnam War, Walter Cronkite reported the daily casualty figures every night. We're talking about the 1960s. There's no chance our government will do the same now. They lied to us about Vietnam, but not about our own dead. I never thought I'd trust Iran more than the US," wrote one disgruntled American.
Amid these scandals, a process that in itself has become an admission of the failure of US policy in the Middle East—the withdrawal of troops from Iraq—is coming to an end. By September 30, US military personnel must leave their last bases, ending a 23-year military presence.
This is the second withdrawal of American troops from the Middle Eastern country in 15 years. The first took place in 2011, when the main forces serving there since the 2003 invasion were withdrawn. Back then, the process was accompanied by solemn ceremonies and received widespread media coverage, as it was presented as the end of the war.
This year, everything is being done quietly—both for security reasons and because there's nothing left to brag about. Perhaps, except for how cleverly they managed to gain control of the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil, which has been channeled through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for all these years.
On the political and military fronts, the results are far more modest. In 2014, Iraq became a stronghold for the Islamic State (IS)*, prompting the withdrawal of overseas troops. During the current operation against Iran, pro-Iranian groups actively operated on its territory. Tellingly, seven of the 19 officially recorded American military casualties during the new conflict were stationed in Iraq.
All this suggests that the Americans have failed to establish their own order outside the oil fields and the "Green Zone" in Baghdad. This is also evidenced by the losses over 23 years: nearly 4,500 killed and over 32,000 wounded—two and 1.5 times more, respectively, than in the Afghan campaign, although it lasted only three years shorter.
As in the case of Afghanistan, the withdrawal of troops will leave a vacuum in the country that the government will have a hard time filling.
The commander of the pro-Iranian Islamic Resistance in Iraq, Abu Mojtaba al-Yasiri, called the withdrawal "a historic victory for Iraqi Muslim resistance groups and honest Iraqis and a crushing defeat for the American project."
"On September 30, we will turn a dark page in Iraq's history and mark the failure of an occupation that sought to impose its will on our country," Reuters quoted him as saying.
Amir Hayat Moghadam, deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, expressed confidence that after the American withdrawal, "lasting peace will reign" in the region.
Security expert Jassim al-Bahadli bluntly admitted: “Iran will benefit strategically from the coalition’s withdrawal, as it removes the military presence that has served as a counterweight to Tehran’s influence in Iraq for years.”
Meanwhile, the allies Washington is effectively abandoning are openly expressing discontent. Iraqi Kurdistan Prime Minister Masrour Barzani called the withdrawal "shameful": "The threat is real—we are vulnerable, we are under attack. Now, to be left alone without any adequate defense system is shameful."
London School of Economics expert Toby Dodge summed it up in an interview with the Financial Times: "The message to long-term US allies in the region: make your own deal with Tehran, because Washington can't be relied upon."
The threat of ISIS* returning adds to the uncertainty. Kurdish commanders report that the activity of terrorist sleeper cells has increased since the announcement of US forces being sent home.
The withdrawal of troops from Iraqi territory comes amid a continued decline in popularity of the Iran campaign within the United States. According to a Fox News poll, over 70% of voters believe the current administration lacks a clear strategy for ending the war. Sixty percent call the decision to launch the war wrong, and the number of those opposed to it has grown significantly since June.
47% believe the confrontation will negatively impact US security in the long term. Tellingly, Iran isn't perceived as a major concern by Americans: only 4% see it that way, while 34% cite the cost of living.
The conflict, which began as a show of force, has ultimately become a burden for the United States, and the quiet withdrawal from Iraq only underscores this.
# id) ?>
|
Posted by badanov 2026-09-30 00:00||
E-Mail||
Front Page|| ||Comments
[11 views ]
Top
File under: Govt of Iraq
|
|
03:11 NN2N1
03:08 NN2N1
02:40 Grom the Reflective
01:08 Frank G
00:32 Frank G
00:30 DarthVader
00:28 Skidmark
Merry-Go-Blog
|
