U.S. Fatalities In Iraq Drop 50%+ Since May
Sunday, September 2, 2007 at 04:09PM Bottom Line Up Front: Progress may be slow in Iraq, but it is sure. U.S. troop deaths have been consistently falling since the start of the surge despite the enemy's promise for a bloody summer.
Since the buildup to the surge in May of this year, U.S. casualties in Iraq have dropped by 50% and have been on a steady decline. August marks the lowest fatality rate in Iraq in over a year (July 2006). The worst month for casualties was November 2004 with 137 troops losing their lives.
2007 (U.S. Troop Casualties)
- January: 78
- February: 71
- March: 71
- April: 96
- May: 120
- June: 93
- July: 67
The U.S. initially took high casualties in May as the surge buildup under GEN David Petraeus materialized, but with its strategic full implementation, U.S. deaths continue to decrease.
If this story gets any press coverage, liberals will of course point to the level of Iraqi civilian casualties as proof that the war is not "going well." Points to remember:
- Democrats consistently point toward American deaths in Iraq as being a sole reason to bring troops home, not Iraqi deaths.
- Democrats are willing to allow Iraqi civilian deaths to increase with a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and have therefore forfeited their compassion card concerning Iraqi civilians.
- Despite the fact that Democrats point to slow political progress (the hypocrites) as a sign that Iraqis do not care about fighting the war themselves, Iraqi military/police/security are taking much higher casualties than U.S. troops. Iraqi forces and civilians are investing more in this war effort than we.
Iraqi Security Force deaths are on the decline along with U.S. troops:
2007 (ISF Casualties)
- April: 300
- May: 198
- June: 197
- July: 232 (implementation of surge complete)
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1237806
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (24)
Amy, are you aware there are more people killed by illegal aliens here in the U.S. than Americans killed in the Iraq war? On an average, 2,158 murders are committed in the U.S. by illegal aliens every year! Wonder why the Democrats aren't screaming about that!
Like Hillary Clintoons criminal friends who donate, this story will get little press. It is already fading into obscurity.Sad. Loks like the surge is in fact working.
I didn't know that, Gayle. Of course the population of the U.S. is greater than Iraq's so that evens out the stats but it's very disingenious to point to American fatalities in Iraq (servicemen who volunteer for war) and not be outraged by the murders of innocent Americans at the hands of illegals when we're turning a blind eye to the immigration issue, treating illegals like Rosa Parks.
Amy:
You're comparing apples and oranges. Casualties always drop during the summer months. Here's this years' casualties vs last year, by month (h/t icasualties.org).
Month/year/qty
8-2007 77 8-2006 65
7-2007 79 7-2006 43
6-2007 101 6-2006 61
5-2007 126 5-2006 69
4-2007 104 4-2006 76
3-2007 81 3-2006 31
2-2007 81 2-2006 55
1-2007 83 1-2006 62
As you can see, our losses are increasing, not decreasing.
Hi Amy,
I linked to your fine article and graph at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com We're a Pro-Defense libertarian site.
We'd love to have you on as a guest some time for our Blog Talk Radio show "Libertarian Politics Live"?
Thanks
gregdn, you've copied and pasted the total without doing any analysis. You cannot lump non-combat related fatalities in with KIAs. My calcuation, the author of the article as well as the icasualties.org all have the number around 57 for Aug. You have it as 77, which is incorrect. 20 were non-combat related fatalities which include deaths from accidents, heat stroke, and other odd causes. THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN COMBAT RELATED DEATHS, which is the bottom line.
There's a reason icasualties made a distinction. Here's their figure for Aug. 2007:
Cause of Death: Total Percentage
Hostile fire 55 67.9%
Non-combat related 26 32.1%
Total 81
Where'd you get 77 from???
To make the point, there were more military deaths under Bill Clinton than GWBush for this reason. Accidents in training, suicides, etc. are the reason.
So look at the numbers again. I've done the analysis/breakdown in my entry. They are decreasing steadily because of the surge. Also, if you follow any of the commanders briefings and interviews (I recommend the Pentagon Channel as an excellent source) you'll hear the same analysis from the commanders steering the war strategy.
Amy: icasualties is a pretty well respected site for casualties. I actually got them from Juan Cole's site (which has some pretty good info on Iraq). Most people include non- combat related deaths in these figures for a good reason: It's hard to believe that Private Smith would've died from heat stroke had he stayed in Peoria!
And nice gratuitous swipe at Clinton.
gregdn, that was no gratuitous swipe at Clinton, that was CONTEXT.
Who/What is Juan Cole? The source I cited takes stats directly from DOD notifications. Can't get more accurate than that.
No, only unknowing or disingenious people lump together combat deaths with non-combat deaths. There's a reason why every respectable statitician separates the two, including icasualities.org. Last year when we were stationed at Ft. Jackson, SC (basic training TRADOC post), we had soldiers die from heat stroke. In our military experience, there are a good number of non-combat related deaths, training accidents, etc. There are also soldiers who die at U.S. bases in S. Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Quatar, Panama, Britain, etc., etc. These are categorically different from combat deaths. So when these deaths occur in a combat zone they cannot be tallied in the same category.
And I don't blame Clinton for the higher rate of deaths in the military during his administrations, either. But for historical context, why was there no outcry over the military deaths when there are less today in wartime? (Bolded dates are Clinton years)
1993: 1213
2003: 486
1994: 1075
2004: 849
1995: 1040
2005: 846
1996: 974
2006: 822
1997: 817
2007: 704
1998: 827
1999: 796
2000: 758
Keep in mind Clinton boasted a 200,000 reduction in the federal government... THE MILITARY, so these numbers are even more remarkable.
Way to hide the truth with the misuse of the database! Comparable months is critical when you consider the data. We have more Americans killed since May, not fewer! Death statistics from http://icasualties.org/oif/ show that American military deaths for June, July and August of 2007 were far higher than any other June, July and August in any of the four previous years. Ya, the surge is working if you want more Americans dead. DAMN. Misinformation flourishing.
How do you figure I'm hiding the truth and misusing the database? I use DOD casualty figures. In case you cannot read the chart/database, August 2007 is the lowest U.S. troop casualty rate since July 2006.
You obviously haven't facted in that this summer 10's of thousands more soldiers are in Iraq this summer (which is why the summer numbers were higher) meaning the potential for U.S. casualites is higher. BUT they are now at their lowest in over a year because we're killing thousdands of al-Qaeda and winning over the insurgents.
Commanders are surprised the numbers are as low as they are in August since al-Qaeda promised an increasingly bloody August, particulary since the Petraeus report is in a week and a half. Al-Qaeda's promise was to increase Aug. casualties and they failed. Why doesn't that seem like good news to you?
Please, specify the "misinformation". I've been thorough. The trend and numbers speak for themselves. July of this year is lower than July of last, and that's without the extra troops who potentially are targets.
I'd think you'd be glad fewer U.S. troops are dying and that we're winning the war, but why let perfectly good facts get in the way of a political agenda, right?
On an annual basis, we are on pace to exceed 1,100 military deaths in '07. Next highest year was '04 with 849 dead. Numbers are going in the wrong direction.
Any explanation in your ignoring the seasonal variations over 5 years of combat? Or is that just inconvenient to your preconceived conclusion?
Seasonal variations? Why don't you provide analysis and I'll give you my take. I've already described the 30,000 or so extra troops in combat as contributing factor to the casualties this summer.
So, your theory on the number of increased troops is that the point of the Surge was to give Iraqi's more targets, which is what the numbers show? Wasn't more troops supposed to reduce deaths by suppressing violence to begin with?
Mar. thru Aug. 2003 269
Mar. thru Aug. 2004 429
Mar. thru Aug. 2005 384
Mar. thru Aug. 2006 345
Mar. thru Aug. 2007 572
Maybe we were on track before the Surge?
I'll respond in a minute, but first:
1) What's with the March - August?
2) What's your source?
Maybe Sheen would like to reply to the 21,000 American citizens murdered by illegal alians since 2001.Amy it is a waste of your time to argue with these idiots, you won't change their mind and only give them a platform and recognition by allowing them to post and then arguing with them. Instead highlite the 21,000 dead from illegal immigrants and hammer it home!
It is very clear that Sheen has a very limited view of MilOps and what they do .
Maybe Sheen would like to reply to the 21,000 American citizens murdered by illegal alians since 2001.Amy it is a waste of your time to argue with these idiots, you won't change their mind and only give them a platform and recognition by allowing them to post and then arguing with them. Instead highlite the 21,000 dead from illegal immigrants and hammer it home!
As per "seasonal variations", each year of Operation Iraqi Freedom has been so unique in and of itself that they are dubbed OIF-1, OIF-2, etc. After Tommy Frank, GEN Casey commanded the U.S. in Iraq. In retrospect, his strategy was wrong. The U.S. still had some major victories but the "retreat into the super-FOBs" (forward operating base) was what allowed the enemy to continually come back. GEN Petraeus finally has the right counterinsurgency strategy. It's only been underway since this year but even Anbar Province success began late last summer. We're now capitalizing on that.
So yes, sheen, operational variations contribute to fatalities. Commanders have been saying for months that they expected higher casuality rates with the surge for obvious reasons... but this dip in casualties in August is unexpected and welcomed.
So reiterating the inital point, the trend is on a downward spiral and this is the fewest casualities in over a year. And there is a 50%+ reduction in fatalities since the surge began. That's great news.
Absolute bogus analysis.The war began in March, thus March to August for all five years as comparable. Yes, it has been 4+ years of this nonsense. And what a crock to suggest that each month has been unique. Graph the years and tell me that. lol. and I'm accused of having an agenda. Data don't lie. Only those interpreting it.
AMY: While you are a very pretty young lady it only proves how youth lends to nieve thinking. You should think twice before lending support for such a travisty of justice as this debacle has become. By posting an article that does not give justice to those that have given so much at the whim of someone as calus as GWB not only shows the lack of forsight but also lifes experiences. I get tired of hearing that were are winning because I have to ask what are we winning? Are we playing a video game? I also get tired of hearing that we are better off fighting them on their own soil rather than having them come over here to fight. Do you support gang-bangers because that mentality describes drive-by shooters! Do you think that we are actually going to stop religious finactics from future travisties? You should a give long hard look at what you support.
Sheen, I can understand then starting in March but why end your analysis in August? Gage it by year if you want, which is fine, but why drop off Sept-Feb? That makes zero sense in the overall picture. Sounds like you’re the one trying to spin here.
I’m sure you’ve read my bio. There’s a lot not included in my bio but I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t know about every month being unique (although there were certainly circumstances within various months that made certain months unique like the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque or implementation of the counterinsurgency), but without a doubt every year has been unique. That’s just a logistical fact. Casey led 2004-2006 as a heavy armor commander leading troops in a counterinsurgency. While there were certainly successes, tankers make for clumsy footmen and what was needed, which has proven successful this year, were light infantry to live in the communities and GEN Petraeus’ counterinsurgency plan is working. Even a slew of Democrats visiting Iraq reluctantly acknowledge that.
“lol”, the graph tells us that indicators are positive and that a month that al-Qaeda claimed would be the bloodiest (because they knew the media would report front and center sensational bombings and murders right before GEN Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) yielded the fewest American combat deaths in over a year. As a wife of a soldier who is very involved in the war and who has both Iraqi friends and soldier/friends in Iraq, I’m offended by your lack of enthusiasm for the decrease.
You simply cannot change the fact that since the buildup to the surge, August, promised to be the most violent months for U.S. troops by al-Qaeda in order to sway public opinion, has yielded the fewest combat casualties. Sadly, it looks like al-Qaeda already has you in the palm of its hand.
Jerry, I'm not that young, but thanks. Just have great skin.
You're tired of hearing we're winning because you're unwilling to follow 30 second sound bytes that include car bombings and suicide explosions in a complicated war. If it's too complicated to follow, please don't formulate an opinion in cement. Don't dimiss facts you don't want to hear just because you don't want to hear them.
I'd also suggest looking at this graph of fatalities beginning with March 2003.
And this might give you some sort of perspective for various levels of violence, including deterents to national elections, etc.
Military Deaths 1980-2006
Casualities in U.S. Wars (Civil War - Iraq)
Let me help explain what the "surge" actually is.
Due to pressure from democrats, the administration raced to put an Iraqi face on this fight by placing immature Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) out on patrol before they were really ready. The strategy also called for Coalition Forces (CF) to pull out of the neighborhoods and villages and into the super FOBs (forward operating bases).
That was our way of doing business until GEN Petraeus took over in 2006. He put us all back on the streets which had been forfieted to the terrorists due to our posture of launching raids and mounted patrols from super FOBs. You cannot fight a counterinsurgency (COIN) from remote bases. You must live among the population to secure the population.
In the SHORT RUN, that is more dangerous - you have to take the streets back. In the LONG RUN, its WAY SAFER than the "safe" life on the FOB. The #1 weapon against CF is the IED (roadside bomb). IEDs have gone way down since we got off the FOBs and are now securing the population we live among. Its not so easy to set IEDs when Joe is on patrol on your street.
Amy's stats need to be seen in this context. The 2004-2006 plan did not really accomplish the long term goals we had hoped for - at least partly due to flawed strategy. The right strategy is in place (COIN Ops). You will see the friendly casualty #s continue to drop if we stay with the surge through '08. I will not prognosticate beyond that - another regime may be in place in the US by then.