Soldiers Celebrate Safest Christmas Ever in Iraq
Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 03:35PM Soldiers celebrated the safest Christmas ever in Iraq since the war began with a low of 16 total U.S. casualties in December 2007. Excluding non-hostile deaths (self-inflicted, sickness or accidents), the total of U.S. casualties falls to only 11:
Iraqi civilian deaths have declined dramatically as well with 371, which are lower than last month, which were lower than the month before, which were lower than the month before, and the trends look encouraging:
Iraqi Security Forces (police and military) are experiencing the lowest casualty rate on record since the invasion with only 60 deaths so far:
While this is a gift, it was hard earned. Both Americans and Iraqis worked hard to implement the counterinsurgency plan led by GEN David Petraeus. They deserve our respect and gratitude.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1448959
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
Great. I love the fact that the body counts on all sides of the conflict are down. One couldn't ask for a better Christmas present.
And in April, when the draw down for the temporary surge takes place? With Turkey clashing with Kurdish rebels in the North, an ineffectual government asserting its desire to disband American funded and, at least partially, armed, the Sunni militias? With Pakistan under martial law, and the Taliban resurgent and reorganized in the border regions AND the the more populous areas of Pakistan?
I would say that the reduced body count is temporary, much like the surge that brought it about. The political gains paid for with all those lives did not materialize. With a fair amount of the extended and deployed soldiers about to rotate home, for however short a while the Pentagon permits.
All that aside, the premature exultation over only 16 deaths in December, when compared to the hundreds that died this year, or last year, or the year before, or the year before that, for a cause that turned out to have little grounding in reality, well...
As a Construction Manager that deals with job costs and productivity levels on multi million dollar projects, without charts, those aspects of the project would be ambiguous and nearly impossible to understand. Putting numbers however, in chart form creates a picture that allows one to forecast performance and expenditures based on past performance and makes my job as the manager far easier to accomplish.
What I find stunning is there are people who will see the chart simply as the glass half empty and will attempt to argue to justify their past positions on the war. I think that is simply retarded. A refusal to see facts that are this clear is nothing more than Ostrich Politics.
I've also read recently that there are some who disagree whole heartedly with the concept of the surge because they are of the opinion we should have annihilated the enemy at the beginning of the war, killing all in harms way. That is absurd for many reasons not the least of which the world is made up of more than just our country and the enemy’s. There are far more aspects to world politics than just killing ones enemy. I hate the fact that we lose men and women, but I am thankful for the men and women who have made the choice to put themselves in harms way, and have subjected themselves to the leadership currently in power.
I am also thankful a successful strategy has been employed, and the current status will positively affect the future of our military in country. You are correct Amy in that our success is hard fought and appreciation for the troops must continually be expressed.
Officious seems to have forgotten - opponents of the surge said that it would only make things worse. The opposite has happened. So why should we believe opponents when they have been proven wrong so many times before?
Officious also incorrectly claims that there has been no political progress in Iraq. Here is yet more evidence of the progress he claims does not exist.
Contrast these actions of the Iraqi government with our own 100% dysfunctional Congress. Rather than more towards reconciliation, Democrats are running one political witch hunt after another in their efforts to overthrow a Constitutionally-elected President. This is the model Iraqis are supposed to follow?
Offensive, I mean, Officious, has absolutely no way to predict that things will get worse with a drawdown. The fact is that drawdowns are contingent with circumstances on the ground. No drawdown will happen if things 1) will deteriorate or 2) are predicted to deteriorate.
He also hasn't followed the progress/strategy in Iraq over the past year, I'd assume. What made the difference is a growing Iraqi security/military force growing more and more capable (we have friends training Iraqi security in Iraq as we speak) and Muslim Clerics putting their support behind Coalition efforts. If al-Qaeda is rejected by the people, they cannot take back their terrority. Officious doesn't seem to realize that we're not talking about a total withdrawal like Harry Reid dreams about; we're talking about doing a Basra: withdrawing as Iraqi forces are able to replace Coalition Forces.
I can only assume by his last paragraph that a reduction in death doesn't make him happy. What a humanitarian.
Amy -
Your chart highlights what I've been saying from day 1 - why the hell did it take until now for this "surge" to be implemented? Why did 137 need to die in November 2004? Why did 112 need to die last December?
You praise and praise the surge but you never seem to wonder why it was not implemented earlier so more lives could have been saved.
Why, only after losing the House and the Senate did President Bush change his war strategy?
Seems to me if this surge is so great and less people are being killed and we are making so much progress that we probably should have had these troop levels and this strategy from the beginning - kind of like Colin Powell and GEN Shinseki wanted BEFORE the war started.
Yes, the surge is having a positive impact in some areas. But to me, it just shows how stubborn the administration was before and how crappy their war planning really was.
SF, your frustration is understandable. At some point casualties would have spiked because of the "surge". I don't think there could have been a "surge" per se years ago anyway. If generals Sanchez-Casey would have run a counterinsurgency strategy, there would still have been several obstacles:
1) Iraqis would not necessarily have turned on al-Qaeda back then. Iraqis brutalized by al-Qaeda really helped them to see our benevolence and the insurgency's evil. We were viewed in large part early in the war as occupiers and "good Iraqis" often felt a loyalty to oppose Coalition Forces. That has all changed.
2) GEN Petraeus hadn't even written the COIN manual early in the war. He was in Mosul helping train Iraqi forces.
3) Iraqi forces would not have been ready any sooner to take over and provide security. It simply takes time for that training to occur. There are now more than 110,000 Iraqi Forces. Imagine how many years it takes to implement their training.
4) Generals in charge of running the war were already in place.
I now believe what I didn't before, which is, Donald Rumsfeld was part of the problem. The Commander in Chief takes direction from his Sec Defense and commanders.
Pressure from politicans in DC have a lot to do in the blame sharing. They politicized KIAs, making commanders feel safe in having a policy that was not counterinsurgency. Troops retreated to the super-FOBs (Forward Operating Bases or compounds) rather than living among the people. While that made it safe for troops, it really didn't. It allowed insurgents and al-Qaeda to carry out strategies like planting IEDs and terrorize locals who were too afraid to work with Coalition Forces. That led to less intelligence and and more U.S. soldiers killed by IEDs.
But living among Iraqis, winning their trust and building relationships, is more dangerous for obvious reasons. So commanders had troops living in the super-FOBs.
I do not embrace the idea that nothing good happened in Iraq between 2004-2006. There were 3 significant Iraqi led elections, the crafting of their own constitution, the killing of key al-Qaeda leaders like Musab al-Zarqawi, who left behind damning information that U.S. and Iraqi troops confiscated and used against al-Qaeda. Continual training of Iraqi forces rolled along and proficiency grew in their ranks. Various governmetnal departments have evolved. Infrustructure was rebuild. Iraqi officials hammered out the Rule of Law and moral codes at the national level. Many good things happened during those years and it's hard to predict how this current strategy would have worked in 2004, although chances are it would have been very successful.
I know the 82nd, my husband's unit, essentially used COIN in Baghdad in 2003-2004 with great success. They met with imams and sheiks, developed relationships, and their sector of Baghdad went from being one of the worst to one of the safest districts.
A lot of the problem was also old Army thinking coupled with bureauocracy and big government red tape. Many training manuals after 2001 were still using 1990's techniques. The Army was/is hard to catch up with the times.
Also remember that our casualty rate, while devastating, is also very low in comparison with other military engagements. In fact, more soldiers died under Bill Clinton's adminstration than the Bush administration.
I really can't blame Bush for the strategy but so much. Military commanders should know better. They advise him. Maybe my mind will be changed on this in the future.
What we should do is honor the sacrifices our fallen have offered up on behalf of a free Iraq and safer America. I fully believe their deaths were NOT in vain.
Amy-
Glad to read that you are willing to admit some mistakes were made. Some are not able to look back and see that mistakes were made and even fewer are able to ADMIT that mistakes were made. Kudos to you on that.
I still do not fully agree with everything you said in your post, but I won't fight with you about it as you were at least able to admit mistakes were made and Rumsfeld was a problem...I'll take that as a small victory :)
SF, I'm interested in believing what is right, not being right at all costs. The truth is that while the strategy (or lack thereof) was being carried out, it was hard to see the error of it because of the positive things that were concurrently occuring (I listed some examples, like the elections, continual training of Iraqi forces, drafting of a constitution, killing of Zaraqawi, etc.). I think this is the same reason Bush probably stuck to the "stay the course" mantra. I still have to blame the enemy, i.e., insurgents and al-Qaeda, more than any military leader or Bush. It is what it is: a strategy that was exploited by evil people.
The GEN Petraeus' strategy has allowed for some reflection and being in the military life makes me have to be real about these things. There's no point in believing something that is wrong just because it suits my theory or political beliefs.
I'm still committed to the effort in Iraq and support the invasion to the transition we're undergoing now in Iraq. It was the right thing to do and we're blessed to have an all volunteer force serving on our behalf.