Death toll in Iraq down
Deaths among U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians fell in September to their lowest levels in more than a year. The U.S. military credited the newly implemented Petraeus’ strategy which includes 30,000 additional troops.
These figures are for a single month and, while not conclusive, demonstrate signs of success.
This letter has not been edited.
When will you be signing up James?
Posted by on October 15, 2007 02:55 PMNever; it's the chickenhawk way!!
Posted by on October 15, 2007 03:27 PMI hope that this development is a sign of progress rather than a reflection of the Holy Month of Ramadan.
Posted by Stan B on October 15, 2007 03:29 PMDoes the word "Ramadan" ring a bell?
Posted by Romulus on October 15, 2007 03:30 PMHopefully it is progress due to the surge and maybe their running out of virgins in Paradise.
Usually their holy month they step up the violence. We shall wait and see but I hope most of our troops are out of there before they regroup. Let them wipe themselves out. That's what the deserve.
It falls every year about this time due to the holidays. There were 3 less troop deaths in Sept a year ago.
Excuse me if I don't kiss the sky.
Draft enough folks to give our soldiers the resources necessary for success in Iraq or let them redeploy home or to positions of secure support. The other option of keeping them in harm's way while refusing to give them a chance at success is simply not an option to the folks who put our troops' interests above political hubris.
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 04:27 PMWell Jay, I can only hope. I know, it doesn't look great. But it doesn't matter. We're only pawns in the game.
Posted by Stan B on October 15, 2007 06:35 PMJJ:
You're hopeless little buddy...
We're winning!
Hahah.
Posted by Charles B. on October 15, 2007 07:12 PMWell the Pentagon, the GAO and the Iraqi Gov't disagree with you Chucky.
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 08:11 PMThat the deaths are down is always a good thing. But whether that is a sign that the surge is working is quite debatable. If 30,000 more police were to be dumped into any American city, of course the crime rate would drop. The question is, would the crime rate stay down after they left? Even in an American city with a viable government and police department, it would surely go up. There seems to be a unanimous view that the surge improvement is only short term unless there is a dramatic improvement in the political sphere and I haven't heard of anything in that sphere that offers much.
Posted by Truth on October 15, 2007 08:32 PMPut a Cop on the front porch of a wife beater, and eventually he'll stop. Until the Cop is gone.
Posted by rick on October 15, 2007 08:51 PMWhere is the pro-life crowd on this issue? Are they "pro-life" for Iraqi babies? FDR used the atom bomb on Japanese. LBJ used "white phosphrous-Willy Peter", on Vietnamese. It burned through their skin and bones. Saddam used chemical weapons on Kurds. "W" used Willy-Peter on unsuspecting Iraqi citizens in their residential neighborhoods, rooting-out "insurgents". WAR CRIMES. "W" is also Rx drugging our Iraq-NAM troops (sitting ducks and targets), and giving them PTSD suppressors and other mind-altering medications. When these drugged and crazed troops murder innocent Iraqi citizens, "W" rewards them with court martials, facing the death penalty. WAR CRIMES.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on October 15, 2007 10:06 PMIf true, that's nice. But everywhere I look there are conflicting numbers, and since you dind't cite any sources I take that with a grain of salt.
That's not winning, by the way. In early December 1944 deaths in the ETO were WAY down - then came the Battle of the Bulge. Took quite a bit more work to actually win after that.
Glad to hear even nonconclusive reports that casualties--for the time being--are down, but how does that compensate or console the families and loved ones of the soliders who have been killed?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 16, 2007 11:37 AMThere is something particularly sad and pathetic when the bar for “signs of success” dwindles to include when a dismal picture is ever so slightly less dismal than before.
However, it does show that Jimmy Jeezus is a truly committed patriot to his ideological masters. Obedience is a virtue of sorts, so all in all, this is all good news.
Hooray.
Deaths are down therefore the occupation is a success.
Deaths are up therefore the occupation is a success.
It must be great to be a war lover. Every situation can be spun to justify continuing to spend lives and treasures so that the war lovers can continue their war dance.
JJ forgets to mention that ethnic cleansing of Baghdad neighborhoods has also created fewer vulnerable areas for the extremists to attack. It is also going to be harder to get the different sectarian factions to reconcile and build a unity government but hey "we're winning" aren't we Jimmy boy?
We're winning. We're winning. Just ask JJ.
Posted by Wes on October 16, 2007 02:40 PMWhen the Iraq government issues accounts of civilians killed by our troops, we are told to dismiss these numbers, if the same government says numbers of civilians killed by other Iraqis is down we are told to respect these numbers.
then there are all those deaths from contaminated food and water, and other miscellaneous sources, all caused by the invasion and sectarian violence.
Are those deaths counted or not? What agency issues the final numbers that James uses? Our government or theirs?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 16, 2007 04:50 PMI submitted this letter to offset the front page stream of bad news with a bit of good news that I knew would not be reported.
I'm not charging leftist bias here - I understand that bad new sells more newspapers than good.
I expected that the Great Moral Thinkers who frequent this page would blow the conclusion out of proportion to anything in my text. So I was careful not to make much of a conclusion based on the data. But of course the GMT's never disappoint. We got the standard pedestrian stuff from the usual suspects;
We're winning! Hahah (You missed the last "a" Charles - that's pretty sloppy)
Hooray.
We're winning. We're winning. Just ask JJ.
But my personal favorite is
Excuse me if I don't kiss the sky.
I could have a lot of fun with that formulation but Jay is new here so I'll let him off the hook.
Truth and Rick
President Clinton treated terrorism as a crime prior to 9/11. I'm not castigating the former President. I don't think anyone recognized the danger before hand.
But since 9/11 it is very clear that terrorism cannot be responded to as a crime. Acts of terrorism are acts of war.
Your analogies don't work.
Hans,
Your complaint is that the surge will not console the families of troops that have been killed. What policy would you suggest that would console the families? Do you think immediate withdrawal would help?
If you don't have a plan then you have no point. If you have no point then you are using these soldier's deaths as an opportunity to exercise your sanctimony. That is reprehensible.
Mac,
If this trend continues then the news will probably make it's way on to Al Jazeera one day and then you will believe it.
Sharon B
The figures come from the pentagon but you shouldn't worry about that. Instead, look for the new figures when they come out this month.
You want to talk reprehensible, James, let's consider how the deaths of American soldiers have been trivialized over the past few years with impertinent statistics like "More people are killed in auto accidents"; or "They VOLUNTEERED [this either in all caps or italics]," insinuating the desire to serve one's country indicates a death wish. How we're not even supposed to acknowledge their sacrifice and the families' loss, lest that "comfort the enemy" (sort of makes Memorial Day pointless, doesn't it?). Or sweeping the carnage under the rug with smug, glib platitudes like "Freedom isn't free." As I may have said once or twice before, it's interesting how the people who seem to know so much about the so-called "price of freedom" are not the ones paying it, which certainly validates Oscar Wilde's famous definition of a cynic as someone "who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
Your letter wasn't "good news," simply less bad.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 17, 2007 12:54 PMHans,
So your point is that your reprehensible behaviour is authorized by other people's reprehensible behaviour.
Posted by James Jones on October 17, 2007 01:46 PMOf course Hans said nothing even close to what Jones accusing him of. Jones has an overactive imagination and an underactive sense of integrity.
Posted by Truth on October 17, 2007 03:45 PMI didn't say that I didin't believe, JJ. Just said I took your report (like all statistics - part of my business) with a grain of salt. And as I pointed out, even if completely true - which I hope - it doesn't have any bearing on "winning". Believe me, I want to win, not withdraw. But the current policy has no chance.
Posted by Mac on October 17, 2007 06:59 PMTruth,
Of course Hans said nothing even close to what Jones accusing him of
Really? Well let's look at the record.
Hans said:
how does that compensate or console the families and loved ones of the soliders who have been killed?
And I asked,
Your complaint is that the surge will not console the families of troops that have been killed. What policy would you suggest that would console the families? Do you think immediate withdrawal would help?
I'd say that's pretty close Truth. In fact, my comment rises directly from Hans' statement. Hans acknowledged the fact himself by responding to my criticism.
You, on the other hand, make a habit of condemning people for statements you invent and atrribute to them. Having none yourself, you have no business passing judgement on anyone's integrity.
I do understand now how you operate and will make it my business to see that everyone else sees the real Truth.
Posted by James Jones on October 17, 2007 08:35 PMMac,
Figures lie and liars figure - too true.
We have the same goal. I don't know if the surge will work or not. But I do know that if there is any force on earth that can change the conditions on the ground it is the US military.
Posted by James Jones on October 17, 2007 08:43 PM"I do understand now how you operate and will make it my business to see that everyone else sees the real Truth.
Posted by James Jones on October 17, 2007 08:35 PM"
Jones, I didn't realize you had this comedy side to you.
And you showed quite clearly in your post that Hans said nothing close to what you accused him of. You keep making up "facts" so that you can comment on them as though they are true. Not honest.
Posted by Truth on October 18, 2007 07:54 AMTruth,
Are you still trying to nail Jello to the wall?
Certainly, you should know by now that our resident Whiz of a Whiz wouldn't know a REAL "fact" if it came up and bit him on the ass. "Facts" don't exist up there in OZ, or wherever his imagination is flitting about today.
On one line of postings, he tells us that he is not "religious", while at one and the same time blathering away about "morals" - which he claims are NOT a part of "religion". On another line, he goes ballistic when a comparison is made between the long term influnece of a talented genius and a preacher, and the preacher was said not to be the most influential. (Jimmy-Jesus boy took that personally, to the extreme!)
He and his clone . . . or whatever . . . are indeed a comedy act. But slapstick has a very limited audience, at best. And the Renaissance Festival doesn't come back till next year. Besides which the team of "Puke and Snot" do a much better job at it anyway.
But, I guess it'll have to do on the website.
After all, as with Jello, it never can be "nailed down" anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 18, 2007 09:25 AMBoy, see what happens when you miss a meeting around here. But I was out exercising my sanctimony; it was feeling a little flabby lately.
Personally I don't see the need for a "plan" as a requirement for expressing regret over the loss of life in any endeavor as morally dubious or ill-thought-out as this war, but James Jones said it was "reprehensible" if I didn't have one, to which I responded with my own idea of what was reprehensible. If JJ sees that as "acknowledgement of fact," whatever gets him through the night, okay?
And I still don't see how a report--particularly an unconfirmed one--of reduced troop losses will much cheer those who have already suffered loss. Okay, sanctimony, let's take it once more around the block.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 18, 2007 01:31 PM