You won’t see it trumpeted in the press, but as we start the presidential election process tomorrow, has any notice that we haven’t had a hostile fatality among our troops in over a week? Or only one in nearly two weeks.
Someone please tell me again why we need to abandon to AQ the active battlefield in which they are being thoroughly defeated. John Edwards latest “plan” is to lose in 10 months after taking office. Can someone tell me why?
Matt, you never did give me that web site with the latest spin on cherry picked Iraq fatality statistics. Can you let me know the latest Iraq fatality talking points since your last one of comparing quarterly military fatalities by quarter over the four years is not telling the story you might like. Do you think you might be able to upgrade your prior summary that things in Iraq are not as f*&cked up as they used to be?
Is that the extent of your ability to discuss events completely at odds with your template?
Maybe you should take a baby step to expand your horizon. Something like: Bush was right all along, we are prevailing over AQ in Iraq, and we should do what we can to help him. Nothing major. You can start with that. We can go on from there.
It’s fantastic that the mortality rate for our troops has fallen - seriously great stuff; I have friends over there.
One question, though: how in the world did this statistic turn into a metric for success or failure in this campaign?
It’s indisputably a great thing that fewer troops are winding up in body bags, but much like the body count metric employed in the Vietnam era, how in the world does this tell us anything useful in regard to the overall state of the campaign?
I heard an interesting interview the other day, in which a person on the ground In Iraq was discussing the state of large capital infrastructure, public health resources, and agriculture, and predicting a short-term, nearly imminent collapse of much of the same.
Low American casualty rates is a wonderful development, but what are the civilian death rates looking like? Infant mortality? Is the rebuilding effort still at complete standstill? Is infrastructure replacement still such a low priority (or still so dangerous…) that the large capital, public health, and agricultural infrastructure is not merely still far below pre-war levels, but actually in danger of flatlining?
The answers I have seen to these (largely rhetorical) questions are not encouraging, unfortunately…
(…and to answer your Edwards question, the “why” may well be that he’s honest, or at least pragmatic. The Pentagon doesn’t seem to believe that the surge can be maintained any longer than the Edwards timeline, and the Bush doctrine at this point seems to be “don’t worry about the fact that we can’t maintain these troop levels - that’s something for the next president to deal with…”)
"Doesn’t this show that there should have been more boots on the ground at the beginning? "
You can certainly make a strong argument for that. I can’t logically refute the statement that Bush should have sent in the 300,000 troops he didn’t have in addition to the 200,000 he did have, except of course by saying that he didn’t have them.
Even so, I am not convinced. All protracted wars are trial and error processes, and the “errors” are not necessarily avoidable. You need look no further than our Revolutionary War, our Civil War and either World War. Individual “errors” in each of those wars cost more combat fatalities than this entire war. I have repeatedly asked on this forum for examples of protracted wars that were fought without such “errors” and I never do get a response.
"I sincerely hope that the reduced fatality rate continues. "
“Low American casualty rates is a wonderful development, but what are the civilian death rates looking like?”
They are way down as well. Go to icasualties.org for details.
“Infant mortality?”
Greatly reduced from what I have read, but I haven’t seen numbers lately. I agree this is a good metric however.
"Is the rebuilding effort still at complete standstill? Is infrastructure replacement still such a low priority (or still so dangerous…) that the large capital, public health, and agricultural infrastructure is not merely still far below pre-war levels, but actually in danger of flatlining? "
As I understand, the results here are very mixed. Infrastructure is in bad shape though I haven’t lately read things are worse than before the war. Serious problems in these areas remain intractable, and such issues could certainly trigger backsliding. Things are looking good right now, but no one is suggesting the improvements are necessarily permanent.
It is important to understand that the pottery barn rule doesn’t really apply to Iraq since the country was already broken before we got there.
Edwards isn’t talking about reverting to maintainable troop levels in Iraq. He is advocating abandoning the hard won gains by a nearly complete withdrawal. I just find it amazing to observe how the supporting facts for an opinion can completely change, yet people simply charge forward with their opinions regardless.
Bush was right all along, we are prevailing over AQ in Iraq, and we should do what we can to help him.
I am a little out of touch but didn’t realize there was a political solution in Iraq?
That’s great and we should congratulate Bush and then immediately thank him for bringing all the troops home. No need staying if AQ is defeated, after all, that was the purpose of the surge, right?
I know everyone is probably busy getting ready for all the victory parades when the troops start flooding home. I wish I was there to see it.
Casey, your sarcasm would be better appreciated if you would first admit you were completely wrong about the surge and its anticipated results and that Bush was completely right.
Spare me the effort of again quoting your completely wrong predictions.
The facts fundamentally change, but Casey never varies.
I’m sorry but the purpose of the surge was to create stability for a political resolution to the problems. Since there is no polititcal resolution, you just can’t say the surge has been successful. Well, you can but most can’t.
We aligned ourselves with the Sunni militia who are now numbering up to 70,000, the same group that we were originally fighting and labelling as terrorists. That group is gaining in strength and will be troublesome for the majority Shiites down the road. The Sunnis are gaining strength and using us for protection.
I know that doesn’t fit into the 30-second solution we expect but the war in Iraq is far from over.
“I’m sorry but the purpose of the surge was to create stability for a political resolution to the problems. Since there is no polititcal resolution, you just can’t say the surge has been successful.”
True at the top national level, but not true at all at the grass roots level. The reality is oil revenues are being shared and former Saddam loyalists are working and being paid. Agreed that the national government is completely dysfunctional. That summary is accurate not only for Washington, but Baghdad too.
“We aligned ourselves with the Sunni militia who are now numbering up to 70,000, the same group that we were originally fighting and labelling as terrorists. That group is gaining in strength and will be troublesome for the majority Shiites down the road. The Sunnis are gaining strength and using us for protection.”
What part of that is not 100% good news? It is organized Sunnis that are destroying AQ for us in Iraq, with our help. Excuse me, but wasn’t that precisely the plan?
**What part of that is not 100% good news? It is organized Sunnis that are destroying AQ for us in Iraq, with our help. Excuse me, but wasn’t that precisely the plan? **
The part where we leave and you have a large armed militia fighting the Shiites.
My God, you call that a baby step? That’s the Bush-hater’s equivalent of falling on their sword.
And a minor point - if Bush was right all along, the clusterf@ck that was the Rumsfield doctrine would have proven successful and the surge would have never been. Baby steps, Art.
It is fantastic news that no Americans were killed in conflict over that period of time. I found it telling that Olberman’s show last night focused on 10 Iraqis that were killed in a car bombing (with no mention of the good news) and blamed the surge for not preventing it.
I haven’t been able to get these numbers, but I will wager that our fatality rate now in Iraq is lower than our rate in either post war Germany or Japan. Obviously we had essentially zero hostile fatalities after those wars, but I am talking total fatality rates.
Our total military fatalities now are substantially less than during the Carter Administration, and I don’t remember any whining then about how awful it all was.
If saying Bush was right is too much, how about “yeah, I had it completely wrong with my expectations from the surge and the Petreaus strategy. I should know better than to bet against a Princeton man, even if he is trying to bail a Yalie out of his mess.”
I’ve said this before: it’s a battle to lower the expectations so far that things going less badly than before can appear to mean that things are going well. I’m glad that things are going better - or, at least, that’s the sense I get - and hope that continues. But no hostile fatalities could have been achieved by a far simpler means: not invading in the first place. Defeating AQ in Iraq - a creation of this war - only brings things back to where they were. Saddam out of power is good, but now worth this war.
Oh, and for this administration to have been “right in the first place” would have involved finding the wmds, being treated as liberators, beating down those “last throes,” etc. All of the recent developments, it’s just cleaning up the mess.
Our total military fatalities now are substantially less than during the Carter Administration, and I don’t remember any whining then about how awful it all was.
I saw this graphic the other day in some think tank report, what a bunch of crap. It is nonsense arguments like these that erodes positions that have merit, i.e. if the war is beneficial, accept the costs, don’t try to bury them under bullshit data.
Do you honestly believe that there is no difference in a hostile death and an old Sargent dieing of a heart attack while at home with his grandkids? You really think that the only thing that matters is the death itself and not the method/cause?
Couple questions for you, what was the total size of the military during Carter when compared to Bush? How did the demographics of the military under Carter compare to under Bush (most importantly age)? Does this have an effect on total deaths? Here’s a hint, the total military force was larger under Carter, it was older, there were fewer woman, and we now have more advanced medical care. This would lead to fewer total deaths. Since 1980, the deathrate (deaths/total military personnel has gone up 0.8%).
The military cannot prevent “common cause” fatalities of its personnel any more than government can prevent “common cause” fatalities of its citizens. Those deaths should not be part of any data set, supporting, or criticizing the war. Hostile deaths from 1980-2000 were 229. from 2001 to 2006 were 2596. 11x more hostile deaths in 4x less time span. Non-sequitur.
You have something of a point, but you really go off base with your heart attack BS. The data you provide shows that then, as now, most military deaths are due to accidents. This probably has something to do with a job that issues M16’s and handgranades as standard equipment to teenagers. The fatality numbers have nothing to do with old Sargents with heart attacks or demographics, and only somewhat to do with the size of the military. Your own numbers show that the only category that has changed is accidental deaths.
We are being told by the press every day, until things started to go well at least, that the Iraq effort was too hard and not worth it. It is a burden the country can not bear. I am just trying to provide a little historical perspective. When I say military death rates are at historic lows when compared with peace time, that is a fact. When I say that total fatalities in Iraq amount to a bad hour of the Civil War, not even adjusted for vastly different populations size, that too is a fact. These perspectives are important least you let your strategic understanding be driven by the latest headline.
The further you look back, the further ahead you can see. (Rough quote of Winston Churchill.)
