The Pentagon updated its official war casualty database over the weekend, adding more than 140 wounded service members. The Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) also introduced a new casualty category labeled “Overseas Operations” for personnel killed and wounded “starting July 7”.

According to the updated database, the official toll for the earlier phase of the US-Iran war, known as Operation Epic Fury, now stands at 14 service members killed and more than 400 wounded in action.

These figures have been a point of contention after the Pentagon previously reduced the totals from 18 deaths and 482 wounded that had been recorded just days earlier.

The dispute comes after the collapse of the ceasefire with Iran and the resumption of near-daily airstrikes beginning on 6 July. Analysts and officials have questioned whether casualties from the renewed fighting should be counted separately from Operation Epic Fury, a move that would be unprecedented.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
71 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 102 points 3 months ago (7 children)

To put that into perspective, it took the US nearly FOUR YEARS to rack up that many casualties in Afghanistan. The people running the military are incompetent as fuck.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    The people running the military are incompetent as fuck.

    The only good thing about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Except for else everyone involved. A competent command wouldn’t have started this war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    A commander doesn't have much choice either way since it's the political leadership (aka Trump) that starts wars. A competent president would probably not have started this war, but they'd have likely started other wars and ran them competently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    My comment was in response to the “people running the military”.

    Which would include the defense secretary, who could have talked Trump out of this war, or found ways to satiate the dementia riddled moron that didn’t involve killing schoolgirls and closing off oil world wide oil deliveries and crashing its economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    A commander doesn’t have much choice either way

    A number of high ranking officers have already resigned

    A competent president would probably not have started this war, but they’d have likely started other wars and ran them competently.

    Every war is a policy failure

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 56 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    Hegseth: what were their testosterone levels?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Hegseth has been dispatched to your location to test the rigidity of your penis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 3 months ago* (11 children)

    Wow I wish there was a system in which we could have a say as to which nations we wage war against and for what reasons. It doesn’t seem like a good idea for one person to be able to wield the most powerful military ever created.

    Ah well, back to this bowl of Captain Crunch and Family Guy reruns.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    There is supposed to be. AUMF (authorization for use of military force) broke it by delegating to the President the authority to unilaterally engage in military action without Congressional approval.

    AUMF should be repealed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    Ya'll voted for the man to make these decisions for you. People have forgotten that they need to consider the possibility that the person they vote to be president will make these decisions. They thought Trump would be the best choice. They were wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    In the end, voting down binding resolutions ordering the executive branch to cease operations is “voting”. It’s just a loophole that allows the executive branch to wage de-facto wars continuously now.

    I sure as hell didn’t vote for him, and even if I did he’s not supposed to be able to declare war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    And just as important: if you had the chance but didn't vote at all you also helped make that happen. If you didn't vote against Trump you accepted that he'd be president. It's always better to vote against the bigger evil instead of not at all. You don't get "none of the obove" if you don't vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    f you had the chance but didn’t vote at all

    Especially if you didn't vote in a Blue State. Every non-voting blue state resident cost Hillary/Harris a moral victory.

    Also, if you voted in a red state. Because Trump still got the same number of EC votes. So it's your fault he won, because you didn't vote hard enough.

    Also, if you voted any kind of Third Party. Fuck you. A third party vote is a vote for Russia.

    Also, if you voted but you didn't donate. Also if you donated, but didn't canvas. Also, if you voted, donated, and canvased, but didn't do Thoughts And Prayers.

    It's all your fault. Trump is your fault. You have SINNED! Trump is your divine punishment! Repent! REPENT! REPENT!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    HRC won the popular vote in 2016, as awful as she is. Electrical college, delegates and superdelegates noped. But all this is a farce, because they all work for capital, not any other constituents, and the sooner everyone who think they live in a democracy, despite the evidence screaming the truth, the sooner we can work toward governments that do work for everyone but capital.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    Ya’ll voted for the man to make these decisions for you.

    We really didn't.

    Whomever you say you voted for, the real "vote" was via the Electoral College which is winner-take-all. Nobody living today has every voted on the existence of the EC. Nobody living today voted on our form of government, either. We didn't choose an imperial model of presidency. We didn't get a vote in any of the conflicts these Presidents have authorized. There's no recall process for a President either. No functional means of impeachment or material Congressional check on the President's authority. No will to impose it, even if it did exist.

    We're given a flavor choice - President Coke or President Pepsi - and we can argue over which one goes down better. But we're all forced to drink this swill one war or another.

    The fact that my personal choice for elected office virtually never wins barely matters, given how the system already operates.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 3 months ago (28 children)

    Because Iran is not bombing girls schools but military bases.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (27 children)

    Yeah, Iran's unmatched in respect for human rights and the laws of war.

    Civilians in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are at grave risk from ongoing Iranian strikes in response to US and Israeli military attacks on Iran, Human Rights Watch said today. Many of the Iranian attacks have struck civilian residential buildings, hotels, civilian airports, and embassies, and have unlawfully targeted civilian objects such as financial centers.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/17/iran-unlawful-strikes-across-gulf-endanger-civilians

    “If our security is not ensured, no infrastructure will be safe.” - Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, July 22

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago*

    I mean its definitely leaping over the low bar set by the US as they seem to be intent on only doing it in reprisal but yeah for much of the rest of the world this is probably somewhat of a "let them fight" moment.

    The Iranian dictatorship is brutal, lots of people were killed in the recent protests (2k+). The US government saw this and bombed a children's school. What's that Napoleon quote? "Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake"

    Thats kinda what the US did here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago (22 children)

    Its an important clarification.

    Its easy to get carried away with my hatred of Trump, and think fondly of Iran in an enemy-of-my-enemy kind of way. I have to remind myself that Irans ruling class is also detestable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (21 children)

    The US being a villain doesn't make Iran a hero. It's an all-you-can-eat buffet of villainy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (16 children)

    The thing is though, this is all an optional illegal war to distract from the Epstein files so the US’s child raping ruling class can continue to evade justice.

    The U.S. is absolutely more evil here. It’s not even close.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    I guess I forgot to consult my abacus.

    This isn't a game. We don't have to pick a side. The Iranian government is an oppressive regime that murders homosexuals, imprisons journalists, and represses women. Their citizens live under absolute censorship and face brutal, violent repression for dissent. We're meant to cheer for that now... because Epstein? Cover up their crimes? Pretend they're fighting for justice?

    Whether it's an immoral war of choice or people escaped justice for crimes associated with Epstein, why would we let it turn us into shittier people? Iran are not good guys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    The oppressive “regime” is irrelevant here. They are only being attacked because the real hostile state in the region: Israel wants us to because their blackmail operation got caught and they want to expand their borders.

    The U.S. and Israeli regimes are 100% in the wrong here, and Irans government is irrelevant to those facts. They’re not helping the people of Iran, they’re doing imperialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Counterpoint: the oppressive regime is never irrelevant.

    The Iranian government cannot be irrelevant because the person I replied to initially was writing fiction about their behaviour. It's why we're having a conversation at all.

    Last I checked, no one here is arguing that the US or Israel are helping the Iranian people. But as I said before, the US (or Israel) being bad doesn't make Iran good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Oh you’re right… it’s totally worth spending 37bn+ on a war to protect US child raping ruling class from justice.

    Maybe there’s other countries you deem bad we can indiscriminately bomb on behalf of Israel?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It seems like you may be malfunctioning. That's a wild non-sequitur.

    Who are you having that conversation with? And why are you replying to me?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You seem intent on pointing out Iran is bad, in spite of the fact that the reason it’s in the spotlight is mainly as a distraction from punishment at home.

    “Iran bad” is irrelevant to you. You are clearly not Iranian; it literally doesn’t matter what you think about Iranians government to compare them to the two governments that almost certainly relevant to you. They can deal with their own problems internally, and the imperialist two shithead governments deserve the full weight of criticism.

    So yeah, welcome to conversations online clearly you are new to them as people can discuss things, and reply to your comments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Reply to me, not the argument you wish I was making.

    I'll simplify for you: Fuck the US. Fuck Iran. Fuck this war.

    If you want to talk to someone saying something different than that, go find them and talk to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • The point being made is that it’s not a zero sum equation, though. That’s not a defense of the US. It’s pointing out a flaw in the logical and moral argument that’s being made.

    Personally, I’m on the side of Iranian civilians, but I have very, very little sympathy for the Iranian regime.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I don't think that's true at all.

    I mean the US has kinda rapidly descended towards being evil. Iran has been evil consistently since the revolution in '79.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    The revolution that was a response to the USA staging a coup two decades earlier to install their oil-company-friendly dictator over their democratically elected leader that thought the oil profits should benefit the people instead of international oil companies?

    America ALWAYS been evil. It’s delusional to think it was “just recent!”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It's delusional to think that Iran is less evil than the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    The pile of corpses of either Israel or the US is many times higher than the pile of corpses of Iran.

    Israel is the closest to the NAZIs there is in behavior, including purposefully targeting children, whilst the US unwaveringly supports them and will themselves not really care enough about what they target with bombs to avoid killing children.

    Comparing the evilness of Iran to that of those two is like comparing the evilness of Somoza in Nicaragua with that of the NAZIs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago*

    I think the US government maybe has less "concentration of evil" but since its it got so many hands in so many pies the mass market scale of evil going on here is pretty brutal.

    Plus like Gaza makes the Saudi government look good by comparison. The Saudi government who regularly murders critics and has a bunch of insane laws to control people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Considering who overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, replacing him with the Shah, which was then overthrown by a popular Islamic revolution that put this bunch in power, the US not being the villain might very well have made Iran a hero.

    This without even considering that the posture of the various governments of the region, including Iran, is probably heavily shaped by over half a century of aggression by America and America-supported Israel in the region: who knows how things would be in Iran nowadays (considering that Persia and it's descendant, Iran, were pretty modern nations for that region) without the interference of America and the indirect pressure its violence all over that region put on even nations not directly bombed or invaded by it.

    Conversely, it's a lot harder to make the case that American posture and actions are the result of purely Iranian choices which were not the direct or indirect result of the choices of others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    It’s basically bad people doing bad things to other bad people. Which, if it were in a vacuum, I’d respond to with “have at it”. But the shitty part is that innocent bystanders are of course getting trapped in the middle and hit with indiscriminate splash damage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • I would say WW2 was fascists trying to empire build and ethnically cleanse as much of the world (though primarily, Europe and east Asia) as they could get their hands on, vs colonial powers who were (for the most part) on the decline, but didn’t like the idea of being subjected to an outright authoritarian fascist regime.

    The Allied powers had plenty of issues between them, and those issues should not be excused, but I would absolutely call them the unambiguous “good guys” in that scenario. And the response of the civilian populace pretty much everywhere outside of German and Japan to being liberated from German or Japanese rule kind of reflects that pretty clearly. Not to mention, the Italian populace was predominantly quite happy when the allies swept in and crushed the fascists, as evidenced by how Mussolini and his wife were very literally publicly lynched by enraged mobs.

    To put a finer point on it: if you’re trying to draw some false equivalence between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and any/all of the allied nations, you should get the fuck out.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    All the targets you named are retaliations for similar targets bombed by those countries. High value economic infrastructure. The US and its proxies bomb a desalination plant in Iran and Iran bombs one on Kuwait. This is simple deterrence.

    As for those "hotels and residential buildings" the US has admitted to shelter their personell inside of civilian infrastructure. Which is a war crime by the way. You do not get to pin that one on Iran but on the US.

    Iran does not bomb random girl schools or commit blatant terror attacks against civilian targets without value in any way like the US and Israel have done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Ah yes, the classic defense of squabbling children in the back seat. "They did it first!" Being the second to massacre a family of four isn't appreciably more awesome than being the first. And it sure wouldn't make a difference to either family.

    First you're writing Iranian fanfic about how noble Iran never targets civilians. Now you're saying, 'Sure, they kill civilians but when they do it it's the good kind of civilian slaughter!' You're twisting yourself into some wild shapes to carry water for a tyrannical dictatorship.

    And talking about the deaths of "random school girls" seems like little more than a propaganda point for you when you've discredited yourself about caring about civilian casualties at all. So long as they were killed by the right people, it seems like you wouldn't think there was anything inherently wrong with it.

    This isn't hard though: when the US targets civilians, it's a war crime; when Iran targets civilians, it's a war crime. I couldn't give a single fuck who did it first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    And how many schoolgirls has Iran killed? None? Interesting, because we killed 175.

    How many American passenger planes has Iran "accidentally" shot down over the last 47 years? None? Interesting, because we shot down an Iranian passenger jet in 1988, killing everyone on board, all civilians. Would we have believed Iran if they'd claimed it was an accident?

    How many strictly civilian American targets has Iran hit over the last 47 years? None? Interesting, because we've killed thousands of Iranian citizens in their own country.

    All of Iran's strikes over the past 47 against America have been military targets, which is not terrorism, it's simply war. Calling it terrorism is lame propaganda. OTOH, America routinely bombs Iranian (and Muslim) targets without regard to civilian presence. Iran has never committed a terrorist act in America.

    So tell me again how Iran is the "largest state sponsor of terror in the world." It might be the "largest state sponsor of terror against Israel," but clearly America is "The World's largest state sponsor of Terror."

    We're Number One!

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    I get the sentiment, but Iran did shoot down a passenger plane in 2020. Most of the passengers were Iranian, and 176 people were killed.

    The background is that after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020 Iran responded by striking a NATO base with missiles. The whole thing was telegraphed to the NATO troops so nobody got seriously hurt (lots of concussions though). It was the first time that Iran's missile capabilities was displayed like that, and it shocked a lot of people back then. Iranian media said it was a "proportional response", but of course it really was very careful and underwhelming considering what had just happened.

    It's difficult to imagine now, but back then this was a major escalation and everyone was super tense. Iran did not know how NATO would respond. Apparently an air defense soldier was so nervous that in the coming hours, he misread the radar, and fired two air defense missiles at the passenger aircraft.

    Obviously the plane going down took all of the power out of the messaging that Iran was a force to be reckoned with, owing to it's missiles that had just hit the NATO base, which itself was a highly successful operation. So it really had a massively negative impact on the narrative for Iran.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    Iran is run by the bad guys, and I’m not talking about iranians.

    This was reported in major news a few years ago.

    It is entirely infiltrated by a certain countries intelligence apparatus. No not the cia(but kinda).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    I've checked the article, and the source data (https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/conflictCasualties/oefu/deaths), the article headline is just wrong and since this post is using the article headline, it's wrong too. There have been 14 deaths and 417 wounded. No where does it say 600... Not sure where that number is coming from. Just FYI

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's almost like war is going on or something...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    "Quiet" database update. Everyone paints their words with feelings or slant. Just the facts, please. This is getting tiring already.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Lucky. My dadabase never stops with the Your Mom jokes while updating.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago
    13 comments in c/world view that post
    [–] 25 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Note that casualty doesn't mean death, it includes injured.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 3 months ago

    Technically a "casualty" should be a soldier that is not able to go back to combat, so shouldn't include light injures. It's still an impressive number if we consider there are no boots on the ground.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    It's definitely a thing in the Palestine conflict, as well as Ukraine-Russia, no doubt others. But Iran? Do you have a source?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Tagging you as MAGA, laughing at your inability to read death counts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    I'm reading

    Civilian casualties numbered 1,701 (including at least 254 children), while 714 were unclassified as of 7 April.[5][84][4][10]

    From Wikipedia, that's not the sort of Israeli military ratio that would warrant a callout like this. Let's not discredit ourselves by calling the US out for things they didn't do when valid criticism abound...

    Saying this from an anarchist perspective (the communist kind)

    EDIT : I've checked the Gaza article and children deaths are 20-30% of the deaths from Israeli hands

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You’re defending the US killing. Yes, yes you are. Shame on you. Go away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    No, I just want to be credible when I criticize the US for having concentration camps, state-influenced media, lgbt-phobic policies, general surveillance, election tampering, capitalism, commodified healthcare, housing, water and food, warmongering, imperialism, colonialism and probably a fuckton more things I can't be bothered to list.

    But I'm a US sbire, sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    "Those casualties do not count because clearly those service members were suffering from low T." -- liquor breath Hegseth, probably

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    600 war criminals and pedophile protectors.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 20 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Jfc, that’s a lot of casualties considering they haven’t even stepped foot on Iranian soil.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    I said months ago they were hiding the true casualties and people said I was being ridiculous that they couldn't possibly hide the real numbers.

    But Iran was reporting a lot more u.s casualties. And at this point I believe their number was likely more accurate.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Wasn't it less than 60 like a week ago?

    Edit: it was 14 like 10 days ago.

  • source