This is good news:
Deaths among American forces and Iraqi civilians fell dramatically last month to their lowest levels in more than a year, according to figures compiled by the U.S. military, the Iraqi government and The Associated Press.
The decline signaled a U.S. success in bringing down violence in Baghdad and surrounding regions since Washington completed its infusion of 30,000 more troops on June 15.
A total of 64 American forces died in September — the lowest monthly toll since July 2006.
The decline in Iraqi civilian deaths was even more dramatic, falling from 1,975 in August to 922 last month, a decline of 53.3 percent. The breakdown in September was 844 civilians and 78 police and Iraqi soldiers, according to Iraq’s ministries of Health, Interior and Defense.
I am not going to quibble with whether the civilian deaths are down because the ethnic cleansing is complete, or whether the violence has just been pushed to other regions, etc.
This is good news, and it is nice to see. Still entirely too many, but fewer dead soldiers is good news any way you slice it.
Dug Jay
Yes, that is good news although every death is one too many.The PBS series by Ken Burns on World War II puts some perspective on the awful casualties from Iraq; total US casualties were almost 1.1 million with a little over 400,000 deaths on the battlefield and in non-theatre accidents.
The Other Steve
If the surge has worked, this decline should continue over the next friedman unit. If so, then I think it’s clear we can safely withdrawl.
The Other Steve
American lives are cheap, and a small price to pay for attaining what we have attained.
Er, uhh… The Ken Burns documentary put something into perspective, but that wasn’t it.
Jake
Great, can we GtFo now? Please?
The Stranger
I am not going to quibble with whether the civilian deaths are down because the ethnic cleansing is complete, or whether the violence has just been pushed to other regions, etc.
Oh, you’d have heard about it alright. The MSM would have taken any figures of civilain deaths and exagerated them by a factor of at least five.
Wilfred
A good deal of the reduction in sectarian violence and reduced number of attacks on US troops has to do with Ramadan (which started 13 September) and its physical and psychological proscriptions. Less killing is always something to be grateful for but attributing cause and effect should wait until Ramadan is over.
Zifnab
Isn’t there a chart that shows troop casualty trends in Iraq? Oh yeah. http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
Seriously, this isn’t particularly good or bad news, it’s just another data point on the trend table. Read the graph from a month-to-month perspective, and we’ve seen epic success followed by catastrophic failure. But, ultimately, the casualty figures aren’t going down over the long term.
Iraqi casualties, much like Iraqi budget reports, aren’t any more encouraging because they’re slightly less than expected. 64 people died this September who shouldn’t have died, wouldn’t have died, if we hadn’t invaded in ’03. 64 more soldiers who got killed because Democrats were too chickenshit to hold the line against Bush’s $90 billion political ransom note in May and end this war.
I guess it’s better than having 65 people dead in September, but its a cold comfort.
scarshapedstar
Alright, now that we’ve declared victory, can we get out?
mightygodking
The PBS series by Ken Burns on World War II puts some perspective on the awful casualties from Iraq; total US casualties were almost 1.1 million with a little over 400,000 deaths on the battlefield and in non-theatre accidents.
My god, it’s almost like in one case the United States was at war against the deadliest military machine in Europe, and in the other case they’re fighting a bunch of civilians with Kalashnikovs.
Pb
Heh, here’s a headline…
Hey, works for me. Way better than this one:
The Other Steve
Iraq is just like Germany!
Only now with a great meaty taste.
whippoorwill
unequivocally
RSA
Yes. The difficulty, I think, is that if someone on the left were to say, “If we bring everyone home, that will bring down the number of dead American soldiers in Iraq to zero,” someone on the right will respond, “But then Iraq will descend into chaos.” This hypothetical exchange tells me that raw numbers aren’t really suggestive of much, as Zifnab writes. Has Iraq started on a path to stability this past month? Who knows, without some measure of the political situation?
TenguPhule
John, I gotta call Bullshit on this one.
The other side just took a brief break due to the heat, we’re heading into the real bloody months now.
Punchy
Anyone wanna bet this is not the Official Report 2-3 days from today?
Anyone wanna bet that the Offical Report will say…pretty much the opposite?
Soverign nation, bitches.
Bubblegum Tate
And then you say, “So then what’s been going on in Iraq this whole time?” And the winger will say, “Definitely not chaos. Freedom. Why do you hate America?”
And your eyes will damn near roll out of your head.
The Stranger
A good deal of the reduction in sectarian violence and reduced number of attacks on US troops has to do with Ramadan (which started 13 September) and its physical and psychological proscriptions. Less killing is always something to be grateful for but attributing cause and effect should wait until Ramadan is over.
Ummm….Skippy:
This year, for the first time since our troops have been in Iraq, the Ramadan Spike has failed to materialize. Few events in Iraq were as predictable as the yearly rise in causalities it signified. In 2004, 2005, and 2006, shortly before and during the autumn months in which Ramadan has recently occurred, violence against US forces escalated significantly,
Wilfred
Umm…Asshole:
I was mainly referring to the decrease in sectarian, Iraqi on Iraqi, Muslim on Muslim violence, the point of the surge. The decrease in US casualties has also to do with the cooperation of tribal sheiks in Anbar, which has lowered the number of attacks.
Further, as Ramadan is lunar, this is also the hottest one since the occupation began (in 2004, Ramadan started on October 16), the ramifications of which are obvious.
As for the yearly rise in ‘causalities‘ I advise again to not draw cause and effect relationships with the surge.
Pb
The Stranger,
What are you talking about, what spike? See here for the numbers (scroll down to “U.S. Deaths By Month/Year:”).
whippoorwill
stranger,
If US casualties continue to go down for another 6 months there might be something positive going on that is sustainable. 64 deaths of American GI’s is still too many to draw conclusions after one month. And if you believe in the Iraqi’s statistics on civilian deaths, then I got a bridge to sell you, skippy.
Meanwhile, as John said in this thread, fewer deaths are a good thing regardless of what it means or doesn’t mean for the situation in Iraq.
Wilfred
Cue General Petraeus:
The Stranger
You said this:
reduced number of attacks on US troops has to do with Ramadan (which started 13 September)
Before saying this:
I was mainly referring to the decrease in sectarian, Iraqi on Iraqi, Muslim on Muslim violence,
A real John Kerry moment, ain’t it?
Bruce Moomaw
Yup. Let’s keep in mind that the bizarre clash between Petraeus’ graph showing a supposed dramatic drop in civilian deaths after the Surge started and the Pentagon’s own figures — which actually showed a pre-Surge death count bigger than Petraeus’ pre-Surge figures for civilian DEAD AND WOUNDED COMBINED — turned out to be due to the fact that he himself, for his testimony, used the Iraqi government’s casualty figures, which are about as accurate as Baghdad Bob’s press conferences.
As for the drop in US casualties: I’d like to know how it’s distributed — and thus how much it’s due to the fact that the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad is mostly complete. I imagine we’ll find out within the next few months, however (assuming that an equally half-baked Cheney-designed Iran war hasn’t drowned out the figures by then).
Wilfred
Well, Stranger, you know what they say: أسمع جعجعة ولا أرى طحناً”
Bruce Moomaw
I believe I’ve just won the Nobel Prize for Typos, although the point I intended to make remains untouched and in fact further bolstered. It was PETRAEUS’ pre-Surge civilian death count that was higher than the Pentagon’s count of dead and wounded combined — because, as the Pentagon then explained, Petraeus had been using the Iraq government’s data rather than the US military’s own. He also used the Iraq government’s data, rather than the Pentagon’s, to declare that supposed sudden dramatic post-Surge drop in casualities. (See the Sept. 24 Washington Post.) And now, lo and behold, we learn that the Pentagon has now suddenly also switched to using the Iraq government’s civilian-death data as well. Gotta keep making the General look good, regardless of the fact that the current Iraqi government is about as reliable an information source as Professor Marvel.
Downtown Lad
Actually, Patreus is smart. Gets the press release out. Now they’ll be a flood of deaths – that they’ll just pile into September. They did this for July too, when they piled about 8 deaths into July once the press release was out.
The death toll is already at 66. So it’s no longer the lowest since July of 2006. It’s now the lowest since August of 2006.
They also held off on announcing deaths until after he spoke to Congress.
Bombadil
The Stranger has to be Darrell.