Phil Carter and I have a lot in common.  We both are newly minted attorneys and we both write for blogs, and we both agree that the current statistics on American troops killed in action aren't reflecting the intensity of combat faced by our soldiers.

Early this month, the Iron Mouth featured a short analysis of Iraq causalities compared to those of other wars.  Our look at the numbers attempted to factor in the advances in medical science which allow soldiers who would have died in an earlier era to survive being wounded and even return to the battlefield.  When the effect of medical advances was factored in, American casualty rates were comparable to those in other wars.

Today Phil Carter and Owen West did their own analysis of the effects of medical advances on the casualty numbers in Slate, and came up with a similar result.  Phil also went into more depth on his unrivaled blog, Intel-Dump.

The Iron Mouth's analysis showed that without the effect of advances in medical technology and science, the number of killed in action for the entire Iraq war up to the end of November, 2004 would have been around 5593 soldiers killed in action.  Phil's analysis came up with similar numbers: 2,975 for 2004 alone.  

Now Phil and I aren't alike in every way--he works at a much larger firm than I do, and he also writes for Slate on top of his duties as a first-year associate.  But it is reassuring to see a writer of his caliber applying a similar analysis to the problem of the Iraq casualty numbers and coming up with a similar result.