Civil War Looms in Iraq

Anyone here surprised that posting facts would tic off Gershom?

Don't you wonder how we had a 25% reduction in casualties, but virtually no reduction in deaths?

Possible reason:It's a lot harder to hide deaths with creative accounting.

 

Don't believe everything you read and hear in the media.

 

carpro is quite right about the casualty rate (see the link). He just didn't see that the number of deaths is holding steady, about 60 a month.

I suspect some funny business with the casualty figures, which are easier to fudge.

 

A great many people who wish for our failure in Iraq question our own casualty figures, but only when they're low.

No one anywhere has ever been able to provide even remotely credible evidence that our figures are incorrect.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200603\POL20060310b.html


Also, American casualties are declining as U.S. troops are withdrawn and Iraqis step up to defend their country, Gibson said. "According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, U.S. military deaths declined from 714 in 2004 to 673 in 2005. The number of U.S. wounded declined from 7,990 to 5,639. That's a 27 percent decrease in U.S. casualties over a one-year period.

"And this year, U.S. casualties are running 62 percent lower than 2005," he added.

 

Those CNSNews figures don't look correct. What is Gibson's source for his numbers?

This site (linkie) has US & UK military casualties listed by periods, years, months and day (for daily count, click on the period). These figures seem to have come from the US Department of Defense for the most part. They agree with the Galatian's annual figures of 848 for 2004 & 846 for 2005.

In Feb. 2004, we, the US, had less than a soldier a day dying (20 in 29 days). Feb. 2005, we had more than 2 a day (58 in 28 days) and last month, Feb 2006, we were down to just over 2 a day (55 in 28 days). As of today, March 13, we are just under soldier a day (12 in 13 days) which is better than the 3 previous March averages and almost as good as Feb 2004.

However, if we do have less troops there now, then the rate of deaths per troops has worsened.

Are the Iraqi troops armed and armoured anywhere near as well as the US & Coalition troops they're replacing? Who is paying for their salary, their arms and their armour? How does their pay compare to the mercenaries on our side and the other side? If there were other paying jobs available to Iraqi men, would they still choose to be a government soldier or is it a job of last resort and desparation?

 

Regardless of whose figures are correct, this operation has had minimal casualties vs scope of engagement. Although the military doesn't release or perhaps even officially keep casualty ratios, the anecdotal evidence suggests that the enemy is losing alot more than we are.

I am not disminishing the loss of even one son or daughter. However, applying a historical perspective is only fair.

 

It's a grand and glorious that the World's Only Superpower is able to rain death and destruction on a third-world nation with so few deaths of our own. Yep, makes a body proud!

Still, I can't help thinking that we would've kept our body-count even lower, probably theirs as well, had we stuck to diplomacy, economic coercion and occasional punitive bombing instead. Well, I suppose that's just my liberal mindset at work there.

As anyone else noticed that whereas Iraqis used to wear Western clothes they now all seem to have turbans and beards or hijabs? Used to be one could tell the Iranians from the Iraqis by the way they dressed - now they look strangely alike.

If Iraq does not descend into civil war, what are the chances that they will freely & democratically elect their very own version of Hamas?

 

What a grotesque lie about what we are doing and the people who are actually doing the work at the front.

We have minimized collateral casualties to a degree that would have amazed WWII stategists... if they actually thought it was desirable to do so.

The "death and destruction" occurring since Saddam's collapse has been almost exclusively caused by enemies from outside Iraq. Please show any evidence you have that US Forces have killed non-hostiles carelessly or intentionally in any number that compares to Saddam's reign of terror.

Yeah. That was working real well. Saddam had continued to oppress Iraq... and the latest evidence (recordings of his inner circle) demonstrates that he had both an active WMD program and was waiting for the air to clear so he could expand it. (BTW, I gave this possibility before these tapes came out and the anti-Bush crowd here scoffed). He even referred to future WMD terrorism against the US in the context of discussing his own secret capabilities.

So now you stand in hindsight judgment of Bush without applying any sense of perspective. He had a choice. Trust that Saddam was not developing WMD's and that if he did he wouldn't use proxy terrorists to attack the US with them... or take him out. Given that choice and the evidence they had to operate on (which is affirmed by these recent tape releases)- Bush made the ONLY responsible choice.

The net result is that lives, and especially US lives, were saved by his action.

So now a liberal is going to judge someone else's social customs? When we do it... we are called bigots... but then again, liberals always assume they are morally superior to conservatives.

Funny thing about "foisting" freedom on people... they get to do what they like even if it disappoints you in ways.

Moderate to good unless they want to dissolve into continual civil war.

Of course, that is a choice they can actually make now... rather than living under the oppression of Saddam when literally millions of political dissenters as well as innocent bystanders were tortured and murdered.

We gave them the opportunity... what they do with it is now up to them.

 

It seems that liberals can't discern the difference in morality between fighting a war for a cause (liberation and self-defense) and the actions of a ruthless dictator when oppressing a nation. However, why people die is important.

 

Gibson's source for his numbers was clearly stated.

"According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies..."


http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060215_iraqforceupdate.pdf

Adobe Page 3

There is no denying that American casuaslties were down by over 25% in 2005 compared to 2004.

Your suggestion that troop strengths were lower, as the reason, won't fly.

 

It's not a lie that war brings death and destruction. It is not a lie that we instigated this war on a country that posed no plausible threat to us. The reasons for the war have nothing to do with the men and women at work up front - they do not decide those things and they never have.

We could have avoided almost all of it...if they had actually thought it was desirable to do so.

Um, we are enemies from outside Iraq. We're bombing the heck out of them while we rebuild schools and hospitals. We've destroyed civil order and allowed enemies from outside to enter and allowed tribal feudalism to strengthen.

Strawman, but show we haven't.

Yeah, darn tootin' it was.

Has anyone ever argued otherwise? Giant strawman.

Ok, where is that evidence? What kind of WMD program and how active? Wishful thinking and bravado doesn't count, nor does Chalabi testimony.

The air wasn't clearing.

I haven't heard of any verified recordings or read the translated transcripts - could you please provide the links? TIA.

Hindsight & foresight. Although I admit I once thought there was a possibility that Bush might know something he was keeping secret concerning a Saddam-Osama collaboration, I no longer think that is even remotely likely. I had also thought Bush & his administration might have known what that there were actual WMDs and not mere wisps of programmes.

Like I said, I haven't read any transcripts, but that was not the only choice and certainly not a responsible one. The Bush administration claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat. It's been pretty well proven to all but the most, um, obstinate not to be true.

I've seen no evidence whatsoever that even begins to justify that opinion.

Um, first off, where is the judgement that you're accusing me of making? "Liberals always assume...." oh my, my - looks to me that you got that one backwards. The assumption concerning morality is ALL on your part. No doubt this is just a knee-jerk reaction on your part accusing me of something I did not do as you surely would never write such falsity had you been thinking clearly.

My point exactly.

Please explain.

Yay us! And let us see if we allow them a Hamas.

It seems you're terribly wrong. There was virtually no self-defense involved. The "liberation" part was an afterthought - read the chronology of administration speeches. Read up on Wolfowitz, Cheney & Rumsfeld.

Liberals can also smell a false dichotomy, unfortunately for liberal-bashers.

 

*urp*

Oops, pardon me.

 

Thanks for the link and page number, carpro.

The footnote, [4] to the figures states that he got it Rick Jervis, “Attacks in Iraq Jumped in 2005,” USA Today, January 23, 2006. I found the link (here) to that article, and the paragraph:

"In action" seems to be the key here to the discrepency in the numbers.

The lower number of wounded may be at least partially attributed to better armour.