The ratio of WIA/KIA would be much higher for the US than for the insurgency or even the Iraqi Army.
The US has many wounded with horrific wounds that would have died in previous wars, but battlefield medical care, rapid evacuation to well staffed and equipped medical units save many lives.
The Iraqi army has no medics, no evac helicopters no state of the art facilities to treat the wounded, it's up to the other members of a unit to take a wounded Iraqi soldier either to a hospital or a US medical facility. The insurgency would be even worse off, as they would lack access to even the Iraqi hospitals.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Could you explain the method you (or your source) used to produce that ridiculous estimation/guess?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These stats are meaningless. The vast majority of U.S. casualties are from non-combat accidents and IED's. The estimates on enemy casualties are just that, estimates. It's all meaningless bunk.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist

The criteria you used for judging the number of US personnel WIA is a pretty high number... Purple Hearts are awarded (signifying a WIA, and probably the basis for the number wikipedia uses) if the skin is broken, yet I don't think that would be considered 'wounded' in the traditional sense that would employ your 1:2 ratio. So a more accurate number of wounded US personnel would be those wounded and not able to return to duty within 72 hours (13,xxx according to wikipedia) or maybe even those just medically evacuated (8,xxx). I don't think medal chasing or concern for more benefits applies to the Iraqi insurgency, so that would eliminate a good number of the US casualties in the 29,xxx figure you used. This obviously doesn't apply to everyone, but it's certainly behooves you to have an injury recorded in your record book if you ever want to get treatment, compensation, or recognition for it.

Also, I think the terrorist number of WIA/KIA might be higher if they actually went to hospitals to be treated (and thus recorded). Hospitals being an apparatus of the gov't (which you certainly don't support). According to the U.S. military, the number of insurgents killed is closer to 23,000 as of June 2008. This is probably inflated too, because body counts in general are pretty vague, especially when they involve explosions, and indiscriminate numbers of people.

Another thing - terrorists aren't rational about life and death. Most are poor, probably single, without families... while the U.S. military is rich by comparison, have families, and generally want to live. It's just a job for most of us...

Your numbers are skewed, every source I could find said that insurgent death totals could not be relied upon. So, unless you have reliable numbers your ratio is meaningless.

But by all standards this war has seen fewer US casualties and wounded than any other war.