British Casualty Monitor: Tracking the war in Afghanistan

Duration of war: 7 years, 11 months
Troops in theatre: 9,000
UK military fatalities: 230
Casualty data analysed to: August 31st
UK military casualties in 2007: 1442
UK military casualties in 2008: 1857
UK military casualties in 2009: 1751*
Total UK casualties: not released by MOD

The graphs below are compiled from official Ministry of Defence data and aim to illustrate the current situation and recent trends in British casualties in Afghanistan. They are updated every month when data becomes available. We are fully aware of the limitations in the data released by the MOD, its potential to mislead and its incompleteness. Nevertheless, the official data does provide the best available measure of the cost of war to British forces and is useful for following trends in the conflict.

*The figures for British casualties in 2007-2009 are the sum of fatalities, field hospital admissions and medical evacuations up to the end of the analysis period.

NB To enlarge the graphs for easier reading click on the images. All Casualty Monitor graphics can also be accessed here.



The first chart provides a monthly breakdown of casualties officially recorded by the MOD as being due to direct action, i.e. fighting. The 3 month moving average indicates the trend in combat casualties. As information was only made available on a monthly basis by the MOD from April 2006, the figures are shown from this date onwards.


The second chart shows the figures for total casualties reported by the MOD. Due to the way the figures are presented in the MOD reports, it is impossible to be sure whether, and to what extent, double counting may be occurring. For example, soldiers admitted to field hospitals may also be classified as serious or very seriously injured, and could also, in principle, be counted in the aero-medical evacuation figures. However, from the publicly available data it is just not possible to know and we therefore present the sum of the different categories. As such, the figures represent the upper range of the official total casualty count. Nonetheless, the data illustrate that from since the beginning of 2006 until now, total casualties may now be approaching 6,000.

The third chart summarises the available data on fatalities and serious injuries since the war began in October 2001. A very low level of casualties is seen following the invasion until 2006, when the conflict and British involvement significantly escalates. The last column of the chart shows the casualties projected for the current year. This extrapolation is simply based on the average number of casualties suffered each week so far this year, multiplied by fifty-two.

The analysis and format used here is similar to the Iraq casualty monitoring page.

How Many UK Troops are there in Afghanistan?

For some time the media has been reporting a figure of about 9,000 for the number of British troops in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, up until today the MOD web site has continued of report the presence of only 8,300. This lower figure of 8,300 is the one we have been using in our casualty monitoring statistics, in spite of concerns about its accuracy.

Today we hear of government plans to increase the number of UK troops to 9,500. Wonder how long it will take the MOD web site will catch up with this latest increase?

Iraq Bomb Attacks Indicate War is Far from Over

During August, hundreds of people were killed in indiscriminate attacks in many parts of the Iraq. The hundreds of civilian casualties, in addition to major property losses, illustrated that the war in Iraq is far from over for the people who live there and the many foreign troops and mercenaries still fighting there more than six years after the invasion.

"The level of insecurity in Iraq remains high and should not be accepted as somehow 'normal' or unavoidable," said Juan-Pedro Schaerer, head of the ICRC delegation for Iraq. In the governorates of Baghdad, Ninewa and Diyala, many Iraqis live in constant fear for their lives whenever they leave their houses, as anyone could be hit simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. [ICRC]

As United States Vice-President Joe Biden visited Baghdad on Tuesday mortars or rockets landed near the US embassy inside the Green Zone. While the US still has 130,000 troops in Iraq, almost twice the number in Afghanistan, US troop levels are due to be reduced to about 50,000 by this time next year. [BBC]

British Casualties in Afghanistan - Analysis up to August 31st 2009

Analysis of casualty data up to the end of August 30th 2009 has now been published for British forces in Afghanistan.

The analysis shows the continued elevation of British casualties despite the end of operation Panthers Claw on the 27th July. While there has been some reduction from the peak of British casualties seen during the operation, the August casualty levels are the second highest monthly totals since the start of the war in 2001.

Undercounting of Casualties by Omission and Exclusion

The military death tolls generally reported for in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are notable for two omissions. Firstly, the casualty burden suffered by the large number of combatants fighting against the US/UK/NATO presence are never fully considered. Secondly, the toll exacted on mercenaries working for private companies is usually excluded.

Bernd Debusmann, in a column for Reuters reports, for example, that the US military death toll in the two wars stood at 5,157 in the second week of September. However, to get the true picture he argues that at least 1,360 private contractors working for the U.S. should be added to this figure. There is a growing dependence on private contractors in the conduct of both these wars and mercenaries now outnumber the number of US troops in Afghanistan.

Similar data for British forces seems hard to obtain but these exclusions from official statistics must be born in mind when assessing the human cost of wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Reuters]

Fighters and Civilians Burned to Death in NATO Airstrike

A NATO air strike in northern Kunduz is reported to have led to the deaths of dozens of combatants and civilians. A death toll of 90 has been reported with controversy remaining over the what proportion of these were civilians. NATO planes targeted two oil tankers that had previously been seized by Taliban fighters but may have been surrounded by civilians at the time of the strikes. [Reuters, AP, NATO]

Government Minister's Aide Resigns over British Strategy in Afghanistan

Labour MP Eric Joyce has resigned from his job as parliamentary private secretary to Bob Ainsworth, the Minister for Defence. He said the UK could no longer justify the growing casualty toll in Afghanistan by saying the war would prevent terrorism back home. He also said the UK government was failing to empathise sufficiently with the military. [BBC]

Britain at War in Afghanistan: The Historical Context

Is History Bunk or Simply Repeating Itself?

As the milestone of 200 British fatalities rapidly passes it must surely be important to note the historical context of British military involvement in Afghanistan. This is, of course, the 4th Anglo-Afghan war. Previous conflicts have all been started by the British with the same basic motivation; a desire to exert influence by ensuring a friendly government is put in place and maintained in Kabul.

The beginning of modern Afghanistan can be dated to 1747 but it was not until the next century when super power interest began to focus on the country, with the British Empire on one side and the Russians on the other. The Kipling ‘Great Game’ of rivalry between the British and Russian Empires was played out in large parts of central Asia and involved the first three British incursions into Afghanistan.

These Anglo-Afghan wars took place in 1838-1842, 1878-81, and 1919. The first war was instigated by the British to displace the ruler in Kabul, Dost Mohammed, who was seen as being too close to Russia. Attempts to replace him with a British nominated ruler failed and the British were forced to retreat from Kabul in 1842 with the loss of thousands of lives. Dost Mohammed regained the throne.

The second war was instigated by the British against Dost Mohamed’s third son, Sher Ali. The British achieved their immediate objectives and, following the death of Sher Ali, signed a treaty with his son in 1879. Later the same year however the British envoy and his entire staff were killed and Britain eventually had to accept the leadership of Abdurrahman Khan, a popular choice of the Afghan tribes.

The most recent war occurred in 1919 after the leader of the day demanded international recognition of Afghanistan’s full independence. After a brief conflict, the British again failed to meet their policy objective and ended up signing an agreement recognising the independence of Afghanistan.

The current war, which started in October 2001 when the US, UK and their allies removed the government in Kabul, has been running for longer than any of the previous conflicts. The conflict has escalated greatly in the last three years and British casualties are now running at the highest level during this 4th Anglo-Afghan war. Despite the forthcoming Afghan elections there appears to be little prospect of a reduction in fighting unless serious negotiations on power sharing are undertaken.

There are of course important differences between the current war and its predecessors; the decline of the British Empire and the rise of the US for one, the new strategic importance of a potential pipeline route through Afghanistan being another; the emergence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) as a regional alliance to counter balance NATO/US influence; and the association of some parts of the Afghan resistance with international terrorism. The renewed interest in Afghanistan is, according to some, part of 'The New Great Game'.

Given the legacy of previous failure, an examination of history is surely an essential prerequisite for any policy maker contemplating the future of British involvement in Afghanistan.

Sources:
‘History of Afghanistan’
historyworld.net
‘The Great Game’
wikipedia.org
‘Will history repeat itself in Afghanistan?’
news.bbc.co.uk
‘Central Asia pipeline deal signed’
news.bbc.co.uk

British Casualties in Afghanistan - Analysis up to July 31st 2009

Analysis of casualty data up to the end of July 30th 2009 has now been published for British forces in Afghanistan.

This analysis confirms the sharp up surge in British casualties associated with operation Panthers Claw, with the highest level of casualties seen so far in the war.

Civilian Casualties Continue to Rise in Afghanistan

The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan released a report last Friday illustrating the continued rise in Afghan civilian casualties in the first half of 2009, and the prospect of further escalation.

"As the conflict intensifies and spreads, it is taking an increasingly heavy toll on civilians, as the growing civilian death toll registered by UNAMA Human Rights each year since 2007 indicates. In the first six months of 2009, UNAMA recorded 1013 civilian deaths, compared with 818 for the same period in 2008, and 684 in 2007 ... ...This represents an increase of 24% of civilian casualties in the first six months of 2009 as compared to the same period in 2008. Both Anti-Government Elements and pro-government forces are responsible for the increase in civilian casualties. UNAMA Human Right figures indicate that more civilians are being killed by AGEs than by PGF. In the first six months of 2009, 59% of civilians were killed by AGEs and 30.5% by PGF. This represents a significant shift from 2007 when PGF were responsible for 41% and AGEs for 46% of civilian deaths...

...Increased AGE activity, including a new “Operation Victory” announced by the Taliban leadership, in response to the troop surge being implemented by the US Administration, and the Presidential and Provincial Council elections scheduled for 20 August, raise the prospect of a further intensification of the conflict in Afghanistan. Given the pattern of the conflict so far, further significant civilian casualties in the coming months are likely...

...UNAMA and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights remind all parties to the conflict of their obligations to protect civilians under international humanitarian law, international human rights law and the national laws of Afghanistan."

British Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq - Analysis up to June 2009

Analysis of casualty data up to the end of June 30th 2009 has now been published for British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This latest analysis confirms the continued low level of British casualties in Iraq while fighting continues to intensify in the Afghan war. Updates to the Iraq graphs are now being made at about 6 month intervals. However, more frequent updates will be made for Afghanistan due to the dynamic nature of the conflict.

British Casualty Monitor: Tracking the war in Iraq

Duration of war: 6 years, 4 months
Number of troops in theatre: 4,100
Casualty data analysed to: June 30th
UK military fatalities: 179
UK military casualties in 2007: 1950
UK military casualties in 2008: 1202
UK military casualties in 2009: 437*
Total UK casualties: not released by MOD

Below, we present a series of graphs that show the available official UK MOD data on casualties in Iraq. We hope that making the data available in this format will aid people in understanding the casualty burden experienced by UK armed forces, provide an indication of the trends in the conflict, and also expose the continuing need for the MOD to improve their performance in providing full and accurate information. Our analysis of casualties in the war in Afghanistan is also available.

During the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) has been reticent in publishing details of British casualties, as well as figures for casualties of other nationalities. Previous efforts to improve transparency and accountability have been documented on this site along with debates in academic journals, and attempts by the mainstream media to ascertain the true extent of the casualty burden. Over the last few years there have been improvements in reporting and the MOD does now publish fortnightly updates of casualties for both Iraq and Afghanistan. However, there are still serious problems with the accuracy and incompleteness of the information they release.

*The figures for British casualties in 2007-2009 are the sum of fatalities, field hospital admissions and medical evacuations up to the end of the latest analysis period.

NB To enlarge the graphs for easier reading click on any of the images. All Casualty Monitor graphics can also be accessed here.

The first chart provides a monthly breakdown of casualties officially recorded by the MOD as being due to direct action, i.e. fighting. We now know that the data provided by the MOD is far from complete, so the absolute figures presented here should be treated with caution. However, what these data are useful for is assessing trends in the conflict. The 3 month moving average indicates a marked and steady increase in the intensity of the conflict from September 2006 up until the ceasefire agreed with the main elements of the resistance in the south, and the withdrawal of British troops from Basra City in September 2007. British casualties rose steadily up until the withdrawal and then fell very sharply as the fighting abruptly diminished with a small peak associated with fighting in early 2008. Since then casualties have remained very low with no combat fatalities reported since March 2008.

As information was only made available on a monthly basis by the MOD from April 2006, the figures are shown from this date onwards.

The second chart shows the figures for total casualties reported by the MOD. Due to the way the figures are presented in the MOD reports, it is impossible to be sure whether, and to what extent, double counting may be occurring. For example, soldiers admitted to field hospitals may also be classified as serious or very seriously injured, and could also, in principle, be counted in the aero-medical evacuation figures. However, from the publicly available data it is just not possible to know and we therefore present the sum of the different categories. As such, the figures represent the upper range of the official total casualty count. Nonetheless, the data illustrate that from since the beginning of 2006 until now, total casualties may now exceed 5,000.

This is not necessarily out of the bounds of possibility - indeed, a figure of 6,700 casualties was previously reported for the period from the invasion up to March 2006. Interestingly, the data on which this earlier assessment was made is no longer available on the MOD web site.

The third chart summarises the available data on fatalities and serious injuries since the war began in March 2003. A marked decline in these casualties is seen following the invasion until 2005. The trend reverses in 2006 and accelerates during 2007. Casualties in 2008 have remained low. The last column of the chart, when included, shows the casualties projected for the current year. This extrapolation is simply based on the average number of casualties suffered each week so far this year, multiplied by fifty-two.

The last graph shows the monthly fatality rate suffered by British troops in Iraq since the invasion in 2003. The risk of death remained under 10 per thousand per year until 2007 when fatality rates climbed sharply, until the troops were withdrawn from Basra. The advantage of viewing the fatality rate, rather than just the absolute number of deaths, is that it represents the actual risk experienced by troops on the ground and is independent of the number of troops deployed. Data on troop deployments in Iraq was compiled from the MOD and Hansards.

The above graphs are updated at around 3 monthly intervals. For more real time information we recommend Coalition Casualty Count.