U.S. Troop & Iraqi Civilian Deaths Drop Sharply
Friday, July 27, 2007 at 09:55PM Bottom Line Up Front: The surge in Baghdad is producing many encouraging signs, including a drop in death tolls for both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi Civilians.
This is not the news Democrats need if they are to win the White House in 2008. Army LT GEN Ray Odierno told reporters today that U.S. troop deaths have declined sharply in July. (chart)
This is the fewest U.S. military deaths in Iraq since July 2006, despite the fact that the surge has increased troop presence. The highest U.S. casualty months were in November and April of 2004.
Meanwhile, Iraqi civilian deaths declined by 36% last month.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1170386
Amy Proctor
Briefing on reduction of US and Iraqi deaths also included:
LT GEN Aboud Ganbar, commander of Baghdad Operations Center, reports:
- Civil War will not happen in Iraq
- Level of crimes have decreased
- Unidentified bodies found have decreased by 90%
- 40% IEDs killings of civilians
- Car bombs decreased by 15%
- Commerce is increasing
- Life in Baghdad normalizing
- Healthcare usage has increased by 300%
- Iraqis are rejecting terrorist groups now that they feel Iraqi security forces can protect them
- Terrorism has no religion and is an enemy of all humanity
LTC Ray Odierno, Commanding General Multi-National Corps-Iraq, reports that Coalition and Iraqi forces continue in successfully providing security.
Contribute successes to three factors:
- Surge has denied al-Qaeda sanctuary
- Iraqi security is growing professionally in terms of competency and number.
- Reconciliation efforts are working.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (30)
Wow, you call that good news, and ignore the total?! And are blind to the fact that there were other dips in the graph?
New lows for you.
Wow.
As for the total, that's why you don't need to join the military. Americans are willing to do the fighting while you armchair quarterback.
And yes, it is good, or are you suggesting a higher fatality rate would be better? I'm disappointed as an Army wife that you don't find a decrease in troop deaths positive. That speaks volumes.
Amy, I just want to give you a heads up. I don't know the whole story behind it yet, but on the Fox News Channel, earlier this evening, there was a news crawl across the bottom of the screen that stated that one of the top leaders of the Iraqi government is demanding that the U.S. replace Gen. Petraeus. I think it has something to do with Petraeus being too outspoken for them.Like I said, I didn't get the whole story as I was getting ready for evening prayers. Perhaps you can check into it and see what you can find out.
Rev.,
I think you're referring to this:
Baghdad, top U.S. commander downplay reported tensions
Etc.
If I had to side with anyone it'd be Petraeus. There has been tension between Maliki and Petraues, mostly becuase Maliki is uncomfortable (and understandably so) with arming Sunni militias to fight al-Qaeda. The U.S. is training them and they are becoming Iraqi security/police, going through a series of checks and balances, but remember that Maliki exiled himself from Iraq under Saddam because of the Sunnis. He's terrified once the U.S. leaves, and we all know there's been talk of that, the armed Sunnis will take him out.
If the Democrats in DC would shut up and lend to the effort rather than trying to undermine it, Maliki would feel more secure.
Over the past three months there has not been a steady decrease which may establish a positive trend.
If an increase in violence is no metric of success then one months reduction can not be used as a measure of positive progress.
There is no verifiable way to establish the accuracy of these figures concerning civilian deaths. From other sources an increase in death tolls can also be shown making it impossible to reach definitive conclusions.
This month’s death toll is equal to last years total of the same month, so perhaps the low figure has more to do with operational time tables or Iraq's Hottest month.
Nice try Amy, but I'de wait for next months figures, before you declare the new world order..
Amy has offered ample evidence, Simon. You just can't admit to it. The real test is the morale and resiliency of the Iraqi people. There is NO wide-spread call in Iraq for the withdrawal of CF and even the UN is against a US withdrawal.
Oh, how it pains the left that peace and order is breaking out in Anbar Province and is spreading east. LOL!!!!
Please keep in mind that measuring violence is a factor that thoes with dogs in the act can change by provoking their dogs to create mischief, so numbers will rise and fall. Sides will gain ground and lose ground. It is the long-term that makes the difference and the long-term takes time.
Iran has been working overtime to create mischief. Iran has many regional nations worried, so they will be taking steps to slow the Iranian nonsense in the future. Iran is over-confident, over-arrogant and over-zealous -- the result is they are making more mistakes, and getting caught doing it.
Iran's links to Sunni terrorists are being documented more and more. Iran is expert at burning the candle from both ends, but sooner or later the hand holding the candle will get burned.
Johnny, its boiling in Iraq right now, people do not go out too much which accounts for the drop in violence. Same as last year, give it a couple of weeks, normal services will resume.
The White House has claimed the civilian death toll is falling in Iraq. There are no definitive figures to back this up, and assessments of the number of Iraqis killed since the 2003 invasion are highly disputed. Below are estimates from two monitoring sources.
Iraqi civilian death toll, November 2006-June 2007
Jun 07: 2,600
May 07: 3,000
Apr 07: 2,890
Mar 07: 2,750
Feb 07: 2,500
Jan 07: 3,000
Dec 06: 3,000
Nov 06: 3,500
Source: The Brookings Institution Iraq Index
Iraqi death toll, November 2006-June 2007, including civilians and security forces
Jun 07: 1,345
May 07: 1,980
Apr 07: 1,821
Mar 07: 2,977
Feb 07: 3,014
Jan 07: 1,802
Dec 06: 1,752
Nov 06: 1,864
Source: Iraq Coalition Casualties website
Simon, if you look at the stats you yourself provided, 1335 deaths for June '07 is the lowest in over a year. In fact, comparing it to either citation it's clear they are decreasing. So I'm confused by your point.
I'd be interested to see the URLs for your citations. The top figures appear way too high.
PS... those "highly disputed" Iraqi and DOD sources are nutcakes like Rosie O'Donnell. She claimed 650,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed yet credible sources are about 100,000 less.
But if you're saying you hate the idea of more Iraqi casualities, you have to be against a withdrawal.
Amy, today I wrote, "Is the War in Iraq Really a Big Success?" http://independencelost.blogspot.com/2007/07/is-war-in-iraq-really-big-success.html
I believe you may like it :) -- feel free link to it if you think it merits a mention.
AIMS: "This is not the news Democrats need if they are to win the White House in 2008."
SG: Not the newz (D) need!? Have you not heard the (R)z running away from Bush's wa(R) too!?
Regarding the decrease in deaths in Iraq ... good newz in anyone's book, except the terrorists ... July usually sees a decrease in killing, according to your own graghs. Anywayz, maybe the decrease is due to the fact the Iraqi Parliament is not sitting in the 100 degree plus heat ... 'Only Mad Dogs and Englishmen', are ...
Snerd
Bottom line up front: it's just plain too many, period - be it on a low month, or a high month.
Amy, as an army wife, you're just as much the armchair quarterback: sure they could send hubby again someday I guess, but they'll never send you...there's a very big physical difference, and it's safe in Fort Leavenworth....
Rocks: "... Sides will gain ground and lose ground. It is the long-term that makes the difference and the long-term takes time.
SG: Ah! ... 'Til September '07, thakes how long. Just ask any (R) facing re-election. And you are 'right', it has been a long time coming ...
Rocks: "...Iran has been working overtime to create mischief.
SG: WHY!? The don't have to ... the US Fo(R)eign Policy is doing it for them
Rocks: "... Iran has many regional nations worried, so they will be taking steps to slow the Iranian nonsense in the future.
SG: ... So you admit, Iran is the big winner in the Bush Wa(R) of Choice
Rocks: "... Iran is over-confident, over-arrogant and over-zealous -- the result is they are making more mistakes, and getting caught doing it.
SG: Tell me you see the i(R)ony is this statement ... and it's intentional ... and that you know all this from 'you(R)' own experience
Rocks: "...Iran's links to Sunni terrorists are being documented more and more.
SG: What ... mo(R)e Bush Admin Intel?
Rocks: Iran is expert at burning the candle from both ends, but sooner or later the hand holding the candle will get burned...."
SG: What ... Is Iran going to invade Iraq against all reasonable advise, fire generals who disagree with incompetent implementation of outrageously bad policy and they're going to get caught in the middle of an intractable civil war?
Snerd
(R)ockz-of-unspecified-location: today I wrote, "Is the War in Iraq Really a Big Success?"
SG: Most definitely is has ... for Iran ... for Haliburton ... for the Islamist recruitment ... for Dick's share options .... for the Iranian aligned Iraqi Shia in power in Iraq ... for al-Sadr ... ... for the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan ... for those in the USA who would use the wa(R) to roll back civil liberties ...for Blackwate(R) ... did I mention Dick's share options? ... for the opium producers in Afghanistan ...
Snerd
The point is that no reports agree, at this stage, and no two will supports a conclusion that death rates are dramatically falling or steadily decreasing and therefore these reports can not be used to establish a trend.
A BBC report offered an explanation of recent deaths in football related incidents as being caused by the returning bullets from guns fired by fans into the air. There was no mention of terrorist attacks, just stray bullets.
The reports on death tolls are estimates, based purely on press coverage of the attacks, someone is actually paid to sift through the press and count the deaths reported. We have to accept or question the accuracy of reporters whose own success and story depends on the attention a report might attract.
In Iraq western reporters cannot safely travel, forcing them to collect information from local sources to fill the papers with guess work fuelled by figures which cannot be verified. Iraqi reporters have simular pressure to ensure they get attention and perhaps receive goodwill from the dangerous organisations their reports reflect upon.
Here Rosie cherry picks the highest figure published to support her argument, just as Washington promotes the lowest figures to support theirs, but the point is no figure can be accurate even though either total is way too high. .
According to the UN in figures released 2000, 2.4 million Iraqis had died due to direct action and sanctions, but I doubt if anyone but Galloway cared.
Amy:
Yes, I believe this is what I was referring to:
BAGHDAD -- U.S. and Iraqi officials acknowledged today that differences existed between Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and the top U.S. commander but denied that the Iraqi leader wanted Gen. David H. Petraeus removed.
"They are working together, even if there are differences," said Sami Askari, one of the prime minister's aides and a member of his Shiite Dawa Party.
Petraeus acknowledged the difficulties of working with Maliki to The Times during a trip to meet with Sunni militants who have begun cooperating with U.S. forces near Taji, 12 miles north of Baghdad. But the top general said the notion that Maliki wouldn't work with him was "ludicrous."
Thanks
Snerd:
1) It isn't Bush's war, it's America's war.
2) If Republicans were truly running away from the war, the MAJORITY Democrats would have more than enough votes to legislate withdrawal from Iraq. They cannot because the MINORITY Republicans aren't joining with them. Oh, there are some renegade Republicans, the usual suspects, but not nearly enough for the Dems to do anything with.
So it looks like enough are staying put, doesn't it.
erasmus:
Goodie! If the only ones who are not armchair QBs are soldiers serving in theater, you lose the argument. They are overwhelmingly reenlisting in Iraq supporting the mission.
And by your standard for judging, which is not based on knowledge by association, my husband's opinion outranks yours and you cannot have an opinion on, say, abortion, since you're not a woman and will never become pregnant. Not a Christian? Than you're just an armchair QB when it comes to opinions on Christianity.
And oh, by the way, soldiers from Leavenworth deploy to Iraq all the time. And my husband helps steer the war, working with GEN Caldwell, who took Petraeus' place just a few weeks ago.
I think it's fair to say I'm more informed about the war than you. But that's just my opinion based on your comments. One of our closest friends is going to Iraq to train Iraqi forces. Another recently returned from doing that. But you're right, it's safe here at Leavenworth!
Ove(R)-(R)eved: "... Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and the top U.S. commander but denied that the Iraqi leader wanted Gen. David H. Petraeus removed."
SG: ADREED!
Stories that Maliki wanted to give Petraeus 'the boot' where entirely off the mark. What really happened was quite the opposite.
Apparently, upon hearing that Patraeus had some pretty big shoes to fill between now and September, Maliki on his way to his month's hokiday, stopped off to give Patraeus a smaller set of boots, as Iraq's contibution to the American struggle to quell violence on behalf of the Iraqi's, who as I said were heading off on their holidayz, now only a month long instead of the two they really wanted but were forsed to give up due to the 'optics'.
Iraqis were outraged at the American media misread of Maliki's offer to 'give Patraeus the boots', and as a symbolic act, all over Baghdad, 'Old Shoes' were found slung over largely non-functioning electrical wires. In fact an old and forgotten farsi rendition of a blues ballad about 'Ole Shoes' ( Old Camel Toes in farsi), was mysteriously found and was being played on a radio station ....
Snerd
AIMS: "1) It isn't Bush's war, it's America's war.
SG: Well its okay ...
It's 27% an American wa(R) and +70% NOT an American war.
It is however 100% a Bush wa(R)
AIMS: 2) If Republicans were truly running away from the war, the MAJORITY Democrats would have more than enough votes to legislate withdrawal from Iraq. "
SG: Seeee youuu ... in Sep-tem-ber ....
Snerd
Wow, that was so factual, Snerd. If polls mean so much to you, what do you think of the fact that the Democratically run Congress has lower approval ratings than Pres. Bush, who is a wartime president??
This is America's War, Not Bush's War
I guess this is Congress' war, too, then, right? Hillary's war, John Edwards' war......
QUIZ: Who said??
Did you guess Bill Clinton?-1998
Reading material to educate yourself with:
Bill Clinton explaining why we needed to go to war with Saddam (Dec. 1998)
It's Bill Clinton's War ...?! He unilaterally, after not being able to get a specific UN vote on the attack, preemptively attacked Iraq? I thought he war killing Vince Foster at the time!
Snerd
Focus, snerd, focus... I didn't say it was Bill Clinton's war. It's America's war. Bill Clinton made a better case for our current course in the 1990's than Pres. Bush has. The threat and case was made repeatedly by Clinton and Democrats in the '90s.
And don't rewrite history. The United States did not unilaterally do anything and we DID have U.N. mandate to invade. Even Hillary acknowledged that in the 1st Presidential debate. Reread the Joint Resolution for war (which I've posted several times, apparently you don't care to inform yourself) about the reasons we invaded. The U.N. had a lot to do with it.
Hi Amy. Haven't been around for at least a week although probably longer since I had some work the week before, too, lol. It's been pretty messed up here.
However, I'd like to see some more stats that aren't necessarily charted. I notice something really weird in that chart that I'm not sure a lot of people would pick up on. With some other stats, I'm betting on some statistical significance.
If you'll notice, the highest death tolls were in 2004 (an election year when the Dems were fighting tooth and nail to take over D.C.),the latter part of 2006 when they were yelling, "Bush lied, people died!", then again in 2007 right after the newly Democratic Majority put forth their "resolution" on the Iraq War.
So, if you have some other stats that aren't easily quotable, I'd appreciate them. I believe you have my email addy. Let's see if I can put all those old stats formulas to work again since they're stuck in my head. Will have to do it the old-fashioned way with a calculator as my only tool. I don't have any stats software anymore.
As for the dissenters, I have some questions: If the news wasn't always so negatively full of "Bush's War" would any of you really care that there are military personnel over there? What effect does the fact that they are there have on your life?
You are so against war but don't seem to understand that verbal abuse is also assault and that such assaults can lead some to depression and suicide. Wouldn't that make you a murderer if your verbal abuse led to someone committing suicide?
There are other people who read here and appreciate facts other than Harry Reid's, "The war is lost." While this has been a rather long war and will be longer still, I haven't seen anything truly fact based that says we've lost the war. Setbacks, yes, but lost?
Amy does a good service here. There are people, other military spouses,parents of military personnel, and children of those personnel who read here that can and will be affected negatively by the abusive crap you dish out so easily. They are separated from their loved ones over there and all you can do is be nasty. Rather like those idiots who parade their support of the troops while calling them nasty names.
Have you ever thought about the possibility that your abusive rhetoric here might have detrimental effects on the well being of other posters? Not the fact that you disagree but the way you put down anyone who doesn't agree with you? Have you ever thought about the possibility that if you weren't so nasty in your disagreement others might be more willing to listen to your side?
I've asked you before if this is just your way of getting your jollies. You never answered that one, so I expect you won't answer these, either.
At least, by asking them, it gets pointed out what mean, nasty, small minded people you really are which might, perhaps, save some young worried military spouse a little bit of anguish. The fact that most of you doing verbal abuse aren't even in this country (Australia and Canada on this post) only further highlights your meanness.
Actually I think that some of Amy's "rhetoric" (I have too much respect for that ancient skill to use it out of quotation marks in this case) is just as likely to cause depression and possible suicide - whereas the other camp seems to be more educational, more rational, and less propagandist by comparison.
Blogging on the internet is as accessible as any other link through a search engine, and the faint of heart should stay away from google, or from having blogs, for that matter.
If you think existence itself can be reduced to making sure everyone feels OK with what others say or think, then just don't put yourself out there and don't make yourself vulnerable to others' comments: go and bake some brownies and surround yourself with people who say "yes and amen" to everything you say, and keep yourself enclosed within a small, tight circle of like-minded - a military base perhaps (an idyll which can never last, as even one's own children grow up and develop minds and opinions of their own...). A fresh batch of home-made brownies always makes people feel good!
Oh yeah, and just read this morning -
"The number of Americans admitted to Canada last year
hit a 30-year high...That hasn't happened since the early
1970s, when the United States was experiencing political
turmoil...the Vietnam War".
Hmmmm, wonder if there is a connection, and if Australia is experiencing the same thing?
erasmus said: "The number of Americans admitted to Canada last year
hit a 30-year high...That hasn't happened since the early
1970s, when the United States was experiencing political
turmoil...the Vietnam War".
Nice try. Now, why didn't you include the rest of the information? For example:
Oh, yeah. One other thing. You need to learn better math skills or history or possibly both. Vietnam was over by 1977 (2007-30 years). However, you did provide an excellent example of what I meant about nastiness. If the facts don't fit well enough... well... use them anyway as long as you win, right?
Simon,
I completely agree.
because the interesting thin is that there are more Americans going to Canada - Canadians go no matter what
Unfortunately, that number is low by almost 40%. The correct number is 84.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/interactive/
http://icasualties.org/oif/