Resolves YES if reliable media publications report that Iranian or Iranian-backed forces exchanged fire or any other "kinetic conflict" (e.g. gunfire, explosives) with US forces in Iraq and caused at least one casualty to the US forces (defined as becoming unavailable for duty due to death, injury, etc, as per the military definition of the word casualty), between March 24 and December 31 (inclusive), local time. Otherwise NO.
Background
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3339691/us-conducts-airstrikes-in-syria-in-response-to-deadly-uav-attack/ - Suspected Iranian UAV attack kills and wounds US personnel in Syria.
From last year:
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard says it targeted what it called terrorist groups in Iraqi Kurdistan; a U.S. warplane shot down one drone as it headed toward a city where American troops are based
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-crisis-update-september-30
A senior Iranian military official, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, threatened to attack US forces in Iraq in retaliation for the US shootdown of an Iranian drone illegally operating in Iraqi airspace near an American military base.[4] Bagheri also suggested that Iran would attack US bases in Iraq for supporting anti-regime Kurdish groups.
Resolution details
The identity of the attackers must be described as Iranian or Iranian-backed forces, or described as asssessed or suspected as such in official US announcements.
If US forces are injured as a result of a cyberattack or other non-kinetic conflict, that would not resolve YES.
As an example, the drone attacks mentioned in the articles above clearly would count if they took place again in the relevant time period in Iraq and caused US causaulties.
US forces will be defined to include US military and US military contractors.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ372 | |
| 2 | Ṁ50 | |
| 3 | Ṁ29 | |
| 4 | Ṁ23 | |
| 5 | Ṁ9 |
@jack Resolves YES, I think, but open to hear if anyone disagrees. According to the US Secretary of Defense, Iran-affiliated forces struck US forces in Iraq today and one service member was "critically injured". This surpasses the previous attacks which were only minor injuries. In my view this is a clear YES.
https://twitter.com/alexsalvinews/status/1739474317602111796
The identity of the attackers must be described as Iranian or Iranian-backed forces, or described as asssessed or suspected as such in official US announcements.
"affiliated" implying "backed" in this case, I suppose.
@chrisjbillington Yes, but also the wording "Iranian-sponsored" was used, which is probably stronger than "affiliated".
These precision strikes are a response to a series of attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-sponsored militias, including an attack by Iran-affiliated Kataib Hezbollah and affiliated groups on Erbil Air Base earlier today
@mint Here's a press release from the white house describing them as "Iranian-backed":
Early this morning in northern Iraq, U.S. military personnel were targeted by a one-way attack drone. The attack wounded three U.S. service-members, one critically. The Iranian-backed militia Kataib Hezbollah and affiliated groups, under an umbrella of Iranian-backed militants, claimed credit for the attack.
I think it's a YES.
This most likely either already happened or didn't happen. There were rocket attacks on US forces in Iraq but it was unclear if they caused casualties. The reporting I saw said that rocket attacks on a variety of locations, both Iraq and Syria, caused some injuries but the injured service members returned to duty, so probably not casualties?
@jack I've seen "minor injuries", but also "traumatic brain injury", including cases (I think) where a person's condition was described as both of these things. ChatGPT tells me "traumatic brain injury" isn't necessarily as severe as it sounds and may or may not be a casualty (i.e. preclude continued service) depending on severity.
I'd bet it lower if not for the possibility some traumatic brain injuries were sufficient to take people out of service, but sounds like we don't know for sure.
Can get some links on the above later when I'm at a computer.
Edit: the "traumatic brain injuries" I don't think were the most recent attack in Iraq. So if you read that the previous servicemembers returned to duty, these brain injuries mustn't have been that bad. I think I have a quote that the injuries in the more recent attack were minor. I'll find it.
@jack Here we go, about the most recent attack:
A U.S. military AC-130J Ghostrider attacked an Iran-backed militant group after the group used a ballistic missile to attack U.S. and coalition forces on Al-Asad Airbase, Iraq, the deputy pentagon press secretary said today.
The ballistic missile attack resulted in non-serious injuries to U.S. and coalition forces, as well as minor damage to infrastructure on the installation, said Sabrina Singh during a briefing at the Pentagon.
So "non-serious injuries" in that one.
@jack do injuries (as a direct result of kinetic attack) count as casualties, or must they explicitly be described as "casualties" to count?
Edit: below your comment is suggestive of injuries counting, so I'm taking a gamble and making a bet, but feel free to clarify otherwise still!
@chrisjbillington Hmm, I have just learned that there are different definitions of "casualty" in military vs civilian contexts: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/casualty, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person)
Seems that the military definition means becoming unavailable for duty, but does not include injuries which do not prevent them from fighting. The civilian usage does include injuries of any sort.
Given the context of the question and how it is written, I suspect that the military definition is the one that makes the most sense. Thoughts?
a
: a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action
The army sustained heavy casualties.
b
: a person or thing injured, lost, or destroyed : VICTIM
the ex-senator was a casualty of the last election
A casualty, as a term in military usage, is a person in military service, combatant or non-combatant, who becomes unavailable for duty due to any of several circumstances, including death, injury, illness, capture or desertion.
In civilian usage, a casualty is a person who is killed, wounded or incapacitated by some event; the term is usually used to describe multiple deaths and injuries due to violent incidents or disasters.
Also "kinetic attack" excludes explosives or missiles with explosives, to my understanding. I'm interpreting that right?
No, explosives are most definitely included in kinetic attack. I thought I had included that in the text, but gunfire or explosives are the most typical examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_military_action "active warfare, including lethal force" -> explosives certainly count.
@jack thanks for the detailed consideration. Yes, I think the military definition makes sense to use in this context. I wasn't aware there were two definitions, and the military one seems most sensible since the victims in this case are military personnel.
I searched about "Kinetic attack" and found specifics about weapons that damage with their kinetic energy only (i.e. bullets, not explosives). But that's a different context I think, talking about the weapons rather than a type of military action. Thanks for the clarification!
@chrisjbillington Sounds good. Question updated with the above clarifications.
FWIW "kinetic attack" was not my phrase, I said "kinetic conflict"
Can you clarify what your definition of causation is? A casualty was incurred as a direct result of a kinetic attack, but it was an alarm-induced heart attack. https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14020728000186/Penagn-US-Cnracr-Dies-Dring-Drne-Aler-n-Irai-Base
@noumena I don't think that counts. I would still consider that an indirect cause of death. The kinetic attack kinetically injuring someone is what would count.