iCasualties Maps U.S. Death Toll

by Matt Ball on March 24, 2008

News that the U.S. Iraq death toll reached 4,000, was accompanied by maps from icasualties.org. The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count analyzes military casualties, with a mapping view for a number of key statistics that include wounded and killed by home county, by city, by state, by home base. There are also maps for fatalities by province in Iraq.

In addition to the map search functionality, there’s also the ability to view and query a database. The database has fields for name, rank, age, service branch, unit, cause of death, where killed and home town. Details are updated as information becomes fully available.


The site is set up by amateurs that have no affiliation to government or news sources. They update the site in their spare time, and aim to be timely. They have extensive notes on their methodology, with a goal for unbiased and authoritative coverage of important war-related metrics. The are funded solely by donations.

In addition to U.S. casualties, they also include Iraqi casualties. This group also tracks all coalitions involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The maps that the site displays aren’t great. An Associated Press feature that I read in my home paper has much better map presentation of U.S. casualties, but their source was the icasualties website.

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Mike Belgrove March 24, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I’m a Soldier in the U.S. Army and when I heard news of the 4000 death mark I became sick to my stomach. I’m lucky enough to have been to Iraq and return home to my family but so many of my fellow Soldiers have not been as fortunate. And in my heart i feel like every one of those 4000 deaths our president is to be blamed for.

We’ve opened up a discussion on our blog so I can talk to people and answer their questions and hopefully make people understand that not all military are supporting this war and that every one of those deaths was important and unneeded. I’d like it you’d stop by and toss in your two cents.

I’m all for defending my country but U.S. did not need to be defended from Iraq.

DpB March 24, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Would be interesting to see the same but with deaths per 1000 population. Texas, California and some of the northern states aren’t much of a suprise based on the large populations, not to mention the large Army bases in Tx. NC with Ft Bragg & the USMC bases show up fairly high. Similar things with GA. Just might be interesting.

Jason Birch March 24, 2008 at 9:49 pm

I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but Sean Askay did some really visually-stunning stuff with the casualty stats using KML/Google Earth before he joined the Google Earth Outreach team:



Jim Duffield September 3, 2009 at 10:59 pm

I find the listing by state to be of passing interest only. What is needed is an analysis by initiation of casualty.

I believe that the deployment to the ME was undertaken by a coterie of generals in blind ignorance. How else do you account for the patrolling and transport of service presonnel in modified suburban light trucks and not IED proof/resistant functionally designed vehicles?

Any analysis, I believe, will show that the bulk of allied casualties are not caused by gunshot wounds, but by IED. The generals had a responsibility to advise their commander in chief that they were incapable of any protracted deployment because of the lack of appropriate IED proof assets.

A Churchillian “give us the tools and we’ll finish the job” approach. What we have done in the ME is to, philosophically, repeat the errors of WWI where we put flesh up against the machine gun. Surely our generals can see the time and space displacement and the need to say – NO!

Leave a Comment


{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: