Killed in Action: Survivors of War Stories of Valor and Sacrifice

By Fouad Sabry

What is Killed in Action

Killed in action (KIA) is a casualty classification generally used by militaries to describe the deaths of their own personnel at the hands of enemy or hostile forces at the moment of action. The United States Department of Defense, for example, says that those declared KIA did not need to have fired their weapons, but only to have been killed due to hostile attack. KIAs include those killed by friendly fire in the midst of combat, but not from incidents such as accidental vehicle crashes, murder or other non-hostile events or terrorism. KIA can be applied both to front-line combat troops and to naval, air and support troops.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: Killed in action

Chapter 2: Battle of Peleliu

Chapter 3: Purple Heart

Chapter 4: World War I casualties

Chapter 5: United States military casualties of war

Chapter 6: Commandos Marine

Chapter 7: Missing in action

Chapter 8: Wounded in action

Chapter 9: Coalition casualties in Afghanistan

Chapter 10: Vietnam War casualties

(II) Answering the public top questions about killed in action.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of Killed in Action.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: Jun 17, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: Killed in action

Killed in action, sometimes known as KIA, is a classification of casualties that is typically utilized by militaries to indicate the deaths of their own people that occurred at the hands of hostile or adversarial forces during the operational phase of the conflict. In the United States Department of Defense, for instance, it is stated that individuals who were deemed dead in action did not have to have fired their weapons; rather, they were only required to have been killed as a result of an aggressive attack. Killed in action (KIAs) include people who were killed by friendly fire in the midst of war; however, they do not include deaths that occurred as a result of accidents involving vehicles, murder, or other non-hostile occurrences or acts of terrorism. There are two types of forces that can be affected by KIA: front-line combat troops and naval, air, and support troops.

It is also important to clarify that the term killed in action (KIA) refers to a person who has been killed in action on the battlefield, whereas the term died of wounds (DOW) refers to a person who has lived to reach a medical care facility. died of wounds received in action is a term that is used by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) instead of deceased of wounds received in action..

A believed killed in action is abbreviated as PKIA. This is the word that is used when personnel are lost in combat, initially recorded as missing in action (MIA), but after not being discovered, it is later considered that they did not survive.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) describes a combatant as a killed in action or a battle casualty if they are either killed in action or die as a result of wounds or other injuries before reaching a medical care facility or receiving assistance from their fellow soldiers.

Killed in Action (KIA) is a term that resonates deeply within the lexicon of military and civilian communities alike. It represents the ultimate sacrifice made by soldiers in the line of duty, encapsulating both the honor and tragedy of warfare. This term is not merely a statistic or a bureaucratic designation; it is a stark reminder of the human cost of conflict, bearing the weight of countless personal stories of bravery, loss, and enduring impact on families and nations.

The concept of being killed in action has been intrinsic to military history since the dawn of organized combat. From the phalanxes of ancient Greece and Rome to the trench warfare of World War I and the modern conflicts in the Middle East, the term has evolved but the essence remains the same. Soldiers who are KIA are those who have died while engaging with the enemy, often in the heat of battle, and their deaths are a testament to their dedication and valor.

Behind every KIA statistic is a story. These are individuals who had dreams, families, and aspirations beyond the battlefield. They are someone's child, sibling, spouse, or parent. Their loss reverberates through their communities, leaving an indelible mark on those who knew them. The personal narratives of these soldiers often highlight extraordinary acts of heroism and selflessness, painting a vivid picture of courage in the face of overwhelming odds.

For instance, consider the story of Corporal Jason Dunham, a U.S. Marine who posthumously received the Medal of Honor for his actions in Iraq. Corporal Dunham covered a grenade with his helmet and body to protect his fellow Marines, sacrificing his own life to save others. His story is but one of many that illustrate the profound bravery encapsulated by the term KIA.

The death of a soldier in action is a devastating event for their family and loved ones. The immediate aftermath is often characterized by a whirlwind of emotions—grief, pride, anger, and sorrow. Families are left to navigate a future without their loved one, a journey that is often supported by military and veteran organizations aimed at providing emotional and financial assistance.

Communities, too, feel the impact of these losses. Memorials and monuments are erected to honor those who have been KIA, serving as places of remembrance and reflection. Annual ceremonies and parades ensure that these sacrifices are not forgotten, fostering a sense of collective memory and respect for those who gave their lives in service to their country.

The military has a long-standing tradition of honoring those who are killed in action. Ceremonies, medals, and other forms of recognition are integral to this process. The repatriation of the fallen is conducted with great reverence, often accompanied by ceremonies that reflect the highest military honors, such as the playing of Taps, the folding of the national flag, and the presentation of the flag to the next of kin.

Memorials, both large and small, serve as poignant reminders of the cost of freedom. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., for example, lists over 58,000 names of service members who were killed in action or went missing in action during the Vietnam War. Such memorials provide a place for reflection and healing, ensuring that the sacrifices made by these individuals are forever etched in the nation's collective memory.

The loss of a fellow soldier in action leaves a profound psychological impact on their comrades. Those who serve together often form bonds akin to family, forged through shared experiences and mutual reliance in life-threatening situations. The death of a comrade can lead to feelings of survivor's guilt, profound grief, and in some cases, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Military units often have protocols in place to support soldiers through these difficult times, including counseling services and support groups. The importance of mental health support within the military cannot be overstated, as it helps service members cope with the loss and continue their duties with resilience and strength.

The nature of warfare has changed dramatically over the centuries, influenced by technological advancements and shifts in geopolitical dynamics. These changes have also affected the circumstances under which soldiers are killed in action. Modern warfare, with its emphasis on precision strikes, drones, and cyber capabilities, presents different risks compared to the large-scale, conventional battles of the past.

Despite these changes, the reality remains that soldiers continue to face life-threatening situations. The ever-present threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), suicide bombings, and guerrilla tactics in asymmetric warfare environments underscores the persistent danger faced by military personnel.

Contemporary conflicts, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, have highlighted the continued relevance of the term KIA. These wars have produced numerous casualties, drawing attention to the ongoing sacrifices made by military personnel around the world. The media coverage of these conflicts often brings the harsh realities of war into the public eye, fostering a greater appreciation for the bravery and sacrifices of those who serve.

In recent years, efforts to minimize casualties through improved training, equipment, and tactics have been a focus for military organizations. However, the inherent risks of military service ensure that the term KIA will remain a poignant and significant part of the military vocabulary.

Killed in Action is more than just a military term; it is a powerful reminder of the human cost of war. It speaks to the bravery, sacrifice, and dedication of those who have given their lives in service to their country. As we honor and remember those who have been killed in action, we acknowledge the profound impact of their sacrifice on families, communities, and nations. Their stories of heroism and selflessness continue to inspire and remind us of the true price of freedom.

{End Chapter 1}

Chapter 2: Battle of Peleliu

The United States and Japan fought the Battle of Peleliu, codenamed Operation Stalemate II, on the island of Peleliu from September 15 to November 27, 1944, during the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign of World War II.

Marines from the 1st Marine Division and infantrymen from the 81st Infantry Division of the US Army fought to seize an airstrip on the small coral island of Peleliu. The engagement was part of Operation Forager, a broader offensive campaign that occurred from June to November 1944 in the Pacific Theater.

The commander of the 1st Marine Division, Major General William Rupertus, estimated that the island would be secured within four days.

In 1944, American wins in the Southwest and Central Pacific drew the battle closer to Japan, allowing American bombers to hit Japanese main islands from air bases acquired during the Mariana Islands campaign (June–August 1944). The U.S. Joint Chiefs were divided over two potential plans to fight the Japanese Empire. General Douglas MacArthur's suggested strategy aimed for the liberation of the Philippines, the seizure of Okinawa, and finally an assault on the Japanese home islands. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz proposed a more direct strategy consisting of bypassing the Philippines and conquering Okinawa and Taiwan as staging locations for an attack on the Japanese mainland, followed by an invasion of Japan's southernmost islands. The invasion of Peleliu was part of both strategies, but for different reasons.

The 1st Marine Division had been selected to conduct the assault. Franklin D. Roosevelt came to Pearl Harbor to personally see and hear the arguments of both commanders. The tactic of MacArthur was chosen. Before MacArthur could recover the Philippines, he had to subdue the Palau Islands, notably Peleliu and Angaur, and construct an airport to protect his left flank.

By 1944, approximately 11,000 Japanese of the 14th Infantry Division and a few Korean laborers seized Peleliu.

Following their defeats in the Solomons, Gilberts, Marshalls, and Marianas, the Imperial Army formed a research team to create new island-defense strategies. They decided to forgo the old tactic of attempting to stop the enemy on the beaches, where they would be vulnerable to naval bombardment. The new strategy would merely hinder landings at the water's edge and rely on a strong defense further inland. Colonel Nakagawa utilized the rugged terrain to his advantage