usa deaths in Iraq - 2003: 486

usa deaths in Iraq - 2004: 849

usa deaths in Iraq - 2005: 846

usa deaths in Iraq - 2006: 822

usa deaths in Iraq - 2007: 804 (with 3-months to go)

(icasualties.org)

2007 will see the most usa deaths in iraq since the war began...

Ah, Kevin.

Shorter Kevin Drum: Shhh! The surge is working. Let's try not to let anyone know.

I notice, by the way, none of the "MSM" papers had this as front page news. If it had been a higher month of violence, it would have been in big bold letterings.

Dana Perino said something to give one paws yesterday. She said that Saddam had violated something like 17 UN resolutions. Yet you never hear the anti-AMerican left mention this when they complain about the war.

Once September was over I read in various venues of reduced military deaths (see icasualties.org) and the figure of 66 casualties referred to as a positive "trend". I tallied the previous 6 months starting with September since that's a time span seemingly every political figure asks us to consider when weighing progress over there. There were 559 U.S. military casualties in those 6 months. The previous 6 months before that showed 533 deaths. Some positive trend. One month in the last year deaths drop below 70 and suddenly the light can be seen at the end of the tunnel. Bush and the MSM take the public for such a gaggle of rubes. Of course they're correct in their assessment so who am I to quibble with their propaganda?

[/trolling]

Dana Perino said something to give one paws yesterday. Posted by: egbert

Too stupid to live.

I think Kevin is right to note the dangers of over-reading shorter-term data on way or the other and that it is more important to look at the underlying dynamics in Iraq (Engram at BackTalk has done this as well, particularly in trying to understand who is behind the violence in Iraq). Of course part of understanding the longer-term dynamics relies on these snapshots of information and Kevin deserves credit for presenting the data where many other lefty bloggers (or the front page of the Washington Post for that matter) do not.

No DJ, egbert is right. After listening to Perino these last few months I find I need a scratching post. That and I have to shave my fingers. Weird that.

The better story isn't the numbers but the methodology, the complexity of the surge, and the so far outstanding execution.

Good point rdw. A good example of this is the recent killing of senior Al-Qaeda leader Abu Osama al-Tunisi by General Petraeus and the army. I think these trends show a turning of the corner in Iraq.

Glad to see you have gained something, eggie, old chap - With those new paws, enjoy your ALPO.

What did they die for?

Lefty blogs? Well, Informed Comment covered this, as well, this morning.

As for the Washington Times/Post - Glad to see the merger, the moonies with the loonies, such as John Solomen, well...........

Clearly the September casualty figures show that the Surge was a spectacular success and that it's time to withdraw our forces from Iraq.

Right? Right?

I await Bush's impromptu press conference announcing our immiment withdrawal with bated breath.

BTW, if it only took 180,000 troops to pacify the country then why didn't we invade with at least 200,000 or 300,000 per Powell and Shinseki and saves hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars? Isn't that criminal negligence?

At any rate, I'm sure the 4 million displaced Iraqis will be relieved to hear that it's safe to come home now.

The trend line on that graph is also completely unjustified by the actual numbers its tracking, most especially that sharp dive at the end.

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

Some of us have been following the trends and pointing out for a month now that the numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties are or course declining because the ethnic cleansing is pretty much a fait accompli.

Serious question (the Great Gazoogle and I aren't speaking right now):
When did Moqtada al-Sadr instruct his militia to stand down so as to restructure and sort out which units and individuals are promoting his goals vs. those using his name to sow chaos?

Any chance that had an impact on casualty numbers?

About a month ago.

Huh.
That would be early September, I guess.

Steve, you can make statistics do anything you want by selecting the time span you want to deal with.

You can bet that had the September numbers been higher than the August numbers, this "short term trend" would have been considered highly significant here.

I am much more interested in how many Iraqis did the US military kill.

The bombing of the Golden Mosque is attributed to al Qaeda. This is a propaganda theme espoused by just about everyone who supports the US occupation of Iraq and accepted as a truism by many others. There is no proof, and, because I consider the US leadership to be the most murderous organization on this Earth, suspect it was carried out by US operatives. I suspect many of the examples of this kind of sectarian violence used to demonstrate the need for a continued US military presence in Iraq were perpetrated by US agents.

nearly 800 dead in one month is not really good news, by any standard. even though it's half of the month before, it's still 800 dead in one month.

"data muncher extraordinaire Engram" seems to be in a mad rush to ignore one of the first lessons of Statistics 101: Correlation is not causation.

Perhaps the insurgents accelerated their production of violence when the surge was being debated in late December, early January, as a hedge against the possibility that it would work to complicate their tactical operations.

Perhaps the violence blew itself out because, as one poster pointed out above, the sectarian cleansing of neighborhoods in Baghdad was well underway before the surge was, so less violence was needed to achieve the terrorists' goals.

Perhaps they're simply waiting and taking advantage of the surge to regroup, re-equip, and plan new operations.

Or perhaps the surge "worked."

But based upon the timing, it looks an awful lot like a spurious correlation to me.

[/trolling]

When did Moqtada al-Sadr instruct his militia to stand down?

After the fighting between competing Shiite groups during the religious celebrations in Karbala last month.

It should be pointed out the US military did not stop the fighing between Iraqis in Karbala, but al Sadr did.

Kenga, to be exact, it was the last few days of August. Here is a link to an article on the the Global Policy Forum site.

Wise, wise man, Kevin Drum, to keep your eye on the forest, and not the trees.

The tragedy of Bushco's disastrous "lie, spin, distract or keep secret" style of governance, including the invasion of Iraq, is that one cannot trust any numbers that have passed through the US government filter.

The question is NOT "Is it a good thing that Iraqi civilian casualties are down in September?" because there is only one answer to that, "yes, of course," though a liberal cynic might add, in a dour way, "if it holds" when the conservative war-lover will add "Victory is ours!" The right question, imho, is "How well does a decrease in civilian causualties measure progress in Iraq?"

Of course, before we can ask that we have to ask the preliminary question, "Are these numbers real or just a different way of counting civilian casualties?" (Engram answers "real" because he gets his numbers for anti-war sites.) And while we are at it, we might as well wonder if "these numbers reflect some dynamic other than the surge?"--eg, kenga points to Moqtada al-Sadr's behavior.

It would be pathetic that the war supporters immediately seize on this one statistic as a sign of Victory of the Surge if the whole situation were not so tragic.

The temporary drop in casualties is meaningless, since it's dependent upon a continued American military presence at the present personnel levels. And as the Pentagon itself has noted, that continued presence at those troop levels is simply unsustainable, even as the Bush administration now resorts to giving a mere six weeks' training in infantry tactics to Navy and Air Force enlisted personnel prior to their deployment as replacements for our wearied Army and Marine units.

Totally FUBAR.

In spite of the bomb throwing, I love this site. Thanks, Keven for cleaning it up a bit from what it was a few months ago.

Congratulations, Blue Girl, on your 25th wedding anniversary. And welcome to me MyYahoo. I like your pissed off red headed comments from deep in Red State land.

And for the surge is working crowd. Let's see: Record number of US dead over past year,k record # of Iraqi dead, double the refugees of a year ago, & fewer representatives in the Iraqi government than ever before. Yeah - It's working real good to keep the profits rolling in for the arms industries & the banks. Not working out too well for taxpayers & Iraqis, though.

You can bet that had the September numbers been higher than the August numbers, this "short term trend" would have been considered highly significant here.

What you can really bet on is that right wing idiots will and have ignored the death and carnage altogether in Iraq and instead say "at least they're free now," or "the Lancet report is incorrect" or "Iraqis have DVD's and cellphones now" or any other inane and outrageous thing that blithely refuses to acknowledge the human tragedy there.

In fact, you've done it yourself many times under your many nom de idiots.

Thanks Bob! Come visit often!

I forgot to mention that the largest insurgent army has withdrawn from the fighting to re arm & re organise so they can return to battle - SURPRISE - just as the US is withdrawing a significant number of its troops on the ground.

WMD found: 0.

Worst. War. Ever.

This illustrates the problem with touting short term data.
When Bush took his eye off the prize.

…There were 525 security incidents — attacks by the Taliban and other violent groups, bombings, terrorism of other kinds, and abductions — on average every month during the first half of this year, up from an average of 425 incidents per month in 2006.
Last year was the most violent since the U.S. post-September 11 offensive that ousted the hard-line Taliban Islamic militia from power and drove Osama bin Laden and his al Qaida terrorists into neighboring Pakistan.….

"....And as the Pentagon itself has noted, that continued presence at those troop levels is simply unsustainable........"

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 2, 2007 at 2:22 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think there were rumblings of looming manpower problems when troops were on a 12 month rotation. There were also implicit and explicit promises the 12 month rotation would remain at 12 months. Then when crunch time came that promise was dispensed with and 15 month rotations were instituted. Promises were made that 15 months was the absolute limit the armed forces could tolerate and 15 months wouldn't be revised upward. What do you think, Donald? Do you think 18 month rotations might alleviate the much discussed April '08 wall the Army is supposed to run into? Do you think they'd go back on their word and up the ante again? Hmmmm......?

The al Sadr ordered stand down of the Mahdi Army after the bloodletting in Karbala should be instructive to Americans. A stupid battle was fought for no good reason, innocent civilians were killed, and a leader of one of the factions is so horrified by what his militants have done that he ceases military activity.

Americans do not have such a leader.

I can accept Kevin's thought that statistics aren't that significant, since they can change direction so quickly. I can accept Donald From Hawaii's thought that regardless of current improvement, the US will withdraw and trouble will then get worse.

However, I cannot accept bob and Mr. Irony basing their evaluation of the surge on all of 2007. The surge didn't reach full strength untilmore than half way through the year. Petraeus's surge may be a fine plan, but it isn't good enough to go back in a time machine and reduce casualties in the past.

I am surprised that no one has pointed out that Ramadan is going on from roughly Sept. 13th through Oct. 13th. The truly pious Muslims are fasting and observing this holy month, so it isn't surprising there is less activity. Only the wacko Wahabbists, are still out there slaughtering people. Them and Blackwater.

Wait until October 15th or so...

By the way, hasn't everyone figured out by now that this egbert character is just a parody? Haven't you noticed how he/she/it always starts with the "Ah, Kevin" (even when it isn't Kevin) and then purposefully misspells a word or two, usually with comic intent, in the last couple sentences of the post? There is too much of a pattern for it to be random. Ignore it and it will go away...

Gee, didn't that pentagon flack Kevin somebody say at the start of September we might expect civilian casulties to increase since it was the month of Ramadan, and so September numbers might not properly reflect the positive effects of the surge.

Egbert, c2015: "The latest surge is working! Why, US casualties are only 3,521 this month, down from the 10,114 a month when the full-scale nationwide uprising began in 2008 (after we bombed Iran). President Rudy's plan to nuke our own base in Bahrain was truly inspired. How can anyone not see the tremendous progress we're making?"

Ex-liberal, c2025: "Finally our sacrifices are paying off! President Jenna's new strategy is clearly producing results. Expanding the war into Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan has taken the fight to the real enemy!"

Al, c2031: "President Chelsea is obviously surrendering to the Islamo-Nazis! We've only suffered 2.3 million casualties! This is World War II, after all! The fight hasn't even begun!"

A stupid battle was fought for no good reason, innocent civilians were killed, and a leader of one of the factions is so horrified by what his militants have done that he ceases military activity.

Americans do not have such a leader.

Brojo, are you drawing a parallel here between "militants" and the US Armed Forces? Just checking...

Ya know, the pointing gleefully at reduced numbers of American deaths for September is really pretty fucked up. One death is too many when the cause is not just and can not be made just.

Not working out too well for taxpayers & Iraqis, though." Posted by: bob in fl on October 2, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Neither of which is high on the Bush list of priorities. Sticking it to the taxpayers who aren't happy with his way of doing things is probably a bonus for Bush.

Bush commemorates the Iraqi civilian dead exactly how? "Stay the Course" is just driving over their bodies on the way to more bodies. Speed bumps under the tires of Bush's armored limo.

Sigh......

WMD found: 0.

Worst. War. Ever.

Posted by: scarshapedstar on October 2, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Dumbest. Meme. Ever.

If there's one things EVERYONE, left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, Capitalist or Marxist, can agree on it's that this war was about more than just "WMD".

Lefties believe this was part of a Zionist/Haliburton/Chenhy conspiracy to "steal the oil" and take away the rights of ordinary Americans through fearmongering for someone's own nefarious purposes. Neo-conservatives believe the goal was to respond to 9/11 by reversing Kissinger-ian realpolitik and being proactive in dealing with the various threats emenating from the Middle-East and (mostly) Islamic world -- by toppling dictators and continuing threats, establishing beachholds from which to promote our interests, and attacking the "root problems" which made/make Al Qaeda (you know -- that group that came over to our own soil and destroyed part of our National Military Headquarters, two economic buildings, killed 3000 people, and tried to murder either the Legislative or Executive branches of the government) an attractive ideology by establishing free(r), liberal(er) socities.

Stating that "no weapons of mass destruction were found and therefore we should... (do something rash)" is both ignorant and disingenuous.

Ya know, the pointing gleefully at reduced numbers of American deaths for September is really pretty fucked up. One death is too many when the cause is not just and can not be made just.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on October 2, 2007 at 3:10 PM

No... it would be "fucked up" for YOU to "gleefully" point that out since you clearly believe that "the cause is not just and can not be made just."

Someone who does believe that the cause is just (or can be made just) would not be wrong to rejoice in a positive outcome from what in their mind is a morally correct course of action.

I mean, for God's sake... why do postmoderm liberalis believe in moral relativism for absolutely everything.... except when it conflicts with their own specific viewpoints? (... In which case, their POV is the only correct one.)

Fine sentiments, J.C. - Now, go use some more Brasso on your "Gott Mitt Uns" belt buckle.

ex: The surge didn't reach full strength until more than half way through the year.

the previous low from sept.'s 66..

was 65 from august 2006...

does that mean the surge worked before it began?

explain...

This is the problem when a few fools think an oppurtunity that occurred because of luck is confused with a tactical victory.The insular and not well read person of this blog would have believed the inept General Westmoreland who asked for more time.
4 millions Iraqis are refugees. The killing only stopped because most of the ethnic cleansing is finished; as people have been forced into ethnic neighbourhoods.
America is losing because it thought it could manipulate the shias away from Iran, it's traditional influence. After bribing and arming Sunni groups and ex Baathist party militias as a counterweight to the failed Shia policy,America scrambles as it loses influence.

The USA disbanded the Iraqi army. There is far more evidence of USA complicity with death squads (The Salvador Option-John Negroponte) than there is for the crude propaganda of Iran supplying IED's.

Just like in Vietnam the over rated US and A soldiers will return home with tails tucked between their legs as the usual bores will blame the Iraqis for this egregious american failure!

Hmmm, someone seems to have left the liberal cliche-o-meter running too long!

Neo-conservatives believe the goal was to respond to 9/11 by wank wank wank

Actually, what you are stating is the post hoc justification for this war after WMD's failed to appear.

To the extent that some individuals held "neoconservative" principles prior to the invasion those same people failed to mention them and instead touted scary WMD's as the reason for invading -- probably because the majority of Americans wouldn't have thought it was too cool to start invading and killing the citizens of countries that hadn't attacked us so we could establish "beachholds" to promote our interests...that is, when we weren't busy reversing Kissingerian realpolitik.

And BTW, the father of neoconservatism, Francis Fukuyama, has disowned both the Iraq enterprise and the "neoconservative" principles you say prompted it. He's stated that "the challenge of terrorism [is] ultimately a political contest that [can't] be solved by military means" and that the Iraq war has been a major setback to that challenge.

Thought you might want to know so you could adjust your ideology and/or talking points appropriately.

Had, had so - Had, had so - Had, had so.

Of course fewer deaths, both US and Iraqi, is good news. And things are looking more favorable.

Certain Sunnis got pissed off with AQI (which had happened before) and found a temporary mutual interest with US forces.

One major insurgent group has called a temporary truce because they erred in killing fellow Shia during a Shia holy congress.

The US forces have finally, after 4 years, started adopting tactics more appropriate with being an occupying power fighting an insurgency.

We've temporarily got more troops on the ground, particularly in Baghdad and one sparsely populated and troublesome but now cooperative province.

It is Ramadan.

There are 4.2 million displaced Iraqis, mostly Sunni, half of which have left the country and are imposed in hardly bearable numbers on Jordan and Syria who receive little aid.

The country is coalescing into the main sectarian groups, either by area or by ghettoizing, as in Baghdad, which has seen a large increase in the proportion of Shia relative to Sunni.

There remain increasing tensions between Shia and tribal groups vying for both political and economic muscle.

Nothing has happened on the political front. At All!

OK.

Nobody says this isn;t a somewhat fluid situation. The greates fluidity has been in population movement, and not for the good.

We have seen a number of reasons why deaths should go down and, frankly, none of them really reflect on the surge although I'm sure it has had some effect.

The fact that both the US forces/CPA and the Iraqi government have a vested interest in minimizing the reporting of any destructive forces and have, in the past, shown themselves quite willing to "distort" the facts makes me somewhat sceptical as to the truth.

I'm glad fewer may have died. 800 deaths does not a summer make. There is still fantastic misery among Iraqis at home and those displaced, for whom we take no responsibility, it seems.

Just because things got a little better does not mean this wasn't a huge mistake that has been unconscionably mismanaged, or that the end is anywhere in sight.

Avoiding Week to Week is good but how by any stretch of the imagination is a MONTH considered week to week for these purposes?

J.C., on this one I am right. I was right in 2002, and 2003, I have been right all along, and I will still be right tomorrow. You lot, on the other hand, have been and will continue to be wrong. Wrong, wronger wrongest, a perfect specimen of wrongness. Sorry 'bout the buzzkill of reality, but pick smarter positions in the future.

mr. irony: The surge didn't reach full strength until more than half way through the year. ...the previous low from sept.'s 66...was 65 from august 2006...does that mean the surge worked before it began?...exclain

mr. irony, you seem to be making the logical error of assuming the converse. If the surge produced lower casualties, that does not imply that lower casualties at any other time was produced by the surge.

Or, perhaps you mean to raise the possibility that casualties have plummeted recently for some reason other than the surge. That's logoically possible. But, it makes only a small difference to me. I am happy to see improvement in Iraq no matter what the cause.

[/trolling]

ex liberal - I would concede your point except both civilian deaths & US troop deaths are about the same as they were one year ago. Basically the only evidence about military success are still based on the Aug - Sep 07 decline. If we see it hold till the first of Nov & again in Dec, I willingly will concede the surge is at least a partial military success. Sadr calling a 6 month cease fire a month ago also affect the results a great deal.

As far as the political situation, however, the situation is worse than a year ago, for all the reasons I & others have already stated. We can add in al Sadr's political desertion of the government as another bad sign. Another is the emigration of the professionals. Yet another is lack of basic services such as electricity, water, etc.

One positive note: Our military & politicians are experimenting with changing strategies in this war. The future will tell us whether those changes work or not.

Shorter J.C.:

All that stuff about yellowcake and vials of anthrax and turkey farms and crayon drawings and balsa wood drones and 45 minutes and mustard gas artillery shells and fermentation trailers was a product of your collective imagination.

Powell gave a speech about draining the swamp and kicking their anthill and telling them to suck on it, and that's why we went to war.

We're kickin' ass!

[/wingnut]

ex: Or, perhaps you mean to raise the possibility that casualties have plummeted recently for some reason other than the surge.

do you think casualties never, using your word...

"plummeted" in iraq before the surge?

why didn't bush use whatever they were doing then..to keep them low..

and why didn't they stay low?

why was a surge needed... and announced in january...when usa deaths weren't higher than normal until AFTER it was announced?

so many questions...

please explain...

bob in fl: Basically the only evidence about military success are still based on the Aug - Sep 07 decline. If we see it hold till the first of Nov & again in Dec, I willingly will concede the surge is at least a partial military success. Sadr calling a 6 month cease fire a month ago also affect the results a great deal.

Fair enough.

mr. irony, the number of American deaths is one convenient benchmark to measure how the war is going, but it's by no means all the military looks at. The military looks at number of tips from Iraqis, number of al Qaeda and other insurgents killed or captured, and many other factors.

Also, the war is constantly changing. When Bush claimed victory several years go, al Qaeda and Iran hadn't yet gotten into the war. After al Qaeda bombed the Samarra mosque, the battles between sects grew rapidly. At the moment, our surge strategy seems to be having some success. That success might continue, or the enemy might do something new that makes things worse again.

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

There is no question the success in Anbar has been dramatic.

There's also no question it started before the surge and has nothing to do with the surge. There's also no question it is entirely a brainchild of the Iraqis.

There's also no question that spokespersons for some of these Sunni groups have stated that they will continue to attack Americans once local jihadi groups are under control.

There's also no question that you've stated repeatedly on this blog that Sunnis need to die for attacking Americans.

Why is it all of a sudden ok to work with these " terrorists "now?

Anbar is now safer than DC and major reconstruction is starting.

Oh bullshit. Does DC see forty attacks a week on armed police every week this month? Were four armed Marines killed in DC the first reek of September? Get a fucking grip.

Patraeus is beating the snot out of Al Qaeda and they've clearly been seriously degraded.

CENTCOM estimates as few as 800 and no more than 2000 AQI in the entire country.

Please explain how long it takes roughly half a million American forces, Iraqi forces, and local sheiks to beat the snot out of 800 guys so we'll when to expect our final "victory" over them.

Or could it be that we're fighting someone other than Al Qaeda?

"...Someone who does believe that the cause is just (or can be made just) would not be wrong to rejoice in a positive outcome from what in their mind is a morally correct course of action.

I mean, for God's sake... why do postmoderm liberalis believe in moral relativism for absolutely everything.... except when it conflicts with their own specific viewpoints? (... In which case, their POV is the only correct one.)"

Posted by: J.C. on October 2, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Alright. I'll take you up on that. What is just, or how can it be made just ex post facto?

Where is the positive outcome rather than the less bad outcome?

Where is the morally correct course of action? Who acted on it? What was the effect? Please substantiate.

Is "moral relativism" judging ourselves by the same values as we apply to the towel-heads, or is there some racial/ethnic relativism applied in this equation? Please explain.

Do ignorant, racist, ideological morons only accept their own viewpoint?

I can answer the last, but I'm just dying to hear how you justify your stunningly stupid my-country-right-or-wrong, we're-doing-the-right-thing, who-cares-who-dies-in-pursuit-of-US-"moral"-superiority attitude on the other points.

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

"...Someone who does believe that the cause is just (or can be made just) would not be wrong to rejoice in a positive outcome from what in their mind is a morally correct course of action.

Alright. I'll take you up on that. What is just, or how can it be made just ex post facto?

Where is the positive outcome rather than the less bad outcome?

Where is the morally correct course of action? Who acted on it? What was the effect? Please substantiate.

Hey look! It's an irrelevant point! I'm arguing here that the hypothetical person who believed it is/can-be just would not be "fucked up" for being happy that casualty numbers are down as the original post stated. I'm not arguing myself on the just/unjustness.

I mean, for God's sake... why do postmoderm liberal's believe in moral relativism for absolutely everything.... except when it conflicts with their own specific viewpoints? (... In which case, their POV is the only correct one.)

Is "moral relativism" judging ourselves by the same values as we apply to the towel-heads, or is there some racial/ethnic relativism applied in this equation? Please explain.

Do ignorant, racist, ideological morons only accept their own viewpoint?

I can answer the last, but I'm just dying to hear how you justify your stunningly stupid my-country-right-or-wrong, we're-doing-the-right-thing, who-cares-who-dies-in-pursuit-of-US-"moral"-superiority attitude on the other points.

Posted by: notthere on October 2, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Although I'd love to get into the "moral relativism fight" with you (cf. subjugation of women in Islamic societies, murder of Dutch filmmakers, stoning of gays in Iran), I'm not going to.

The "moral relativism" comparison I'm making is that of Liberals remaining more-or-less silent on issues relating to other cultures ("Islam is a religion of peace", Muslims should be able to smoke in hookah bars even if everyone else can't, they're poor that's why they're acting the way they do) while NOT giving the same amount of "moral leeway" to, say, a conservative who thinks that this was a just war. (cf, "fucked up" in the original post)

I have no idea of the armed robbery rate in DC but the murder rate is asolutely higher. In 2005 the murder rate for Dc was 35.4 per 100,000. In a city of 581K that's 204 per year or 4 per week. Except Anbar has about 1.5M people. A rate of 35.4 would translate to 531 murders per year or 10 per week. So yes, Anbar is SAFER than DC which is ranked 47 among American cities.

Per Prof. Juan Cole:

Is al-Anbar Province really paradise, as Bush suggested? Al-Anbar residents killed 20 US troops in July [2007] The total US fatalities in July were 79 according to icasualties.org, and some of those were presumably from accidents, etc. So al-Anbar, despite being reduced to the stone age, managed to kill a fourth or more of all US troops killed in combat in July. Al-Anbar is roughly 1/24 of Iraq by population. So it killed six times more US troops than we would have expected based on its proportion of the Iraqi population.

...In mid-July, There were about 100 violent attacks in a single week in al-Anbar. That's a bright spot. That's progress. Since the year before, there were 400 violent attacks in that same period.

Well, yes, that's a relative improvement. But a hundred violent attacks in a week? That's being touted as good news to be ecstatic over? There were probably on the order of 1100 attacks that week in all of Iraq. So al-Anbar generated nearly one-tenth of all attacks. But it is only 1/24 of Iraq by population, so it is more than twice as dangerous with regard to the number of attacks than you would expect from its small population.

http://icasualties.org/oif/Province.aspx

So yes, Anbar is SAFER than DC

Were you on crack when you came up with this argument? If we're comparing violent deaths, Washington DC saw 169 homicides in 2006.

By contrast, 159 coalition soldiers have died in Anbar province in the first ten months of this year alone. That's just soldiers and doesn't include the hundreds of Iraqis who were killed by coalition fire, killed by Iraqi fire, or in bombings.

Nor do these figures capture the IED's going off daily, nor do they captured the hundreds attacked but not killed.

God you're an idiot.

I have no idea of the armed robbery rate in DC but the murder rate is asolutely higher. In 2005 the murder rate for Dc was 35.4 per 100,000. In a city of 581K that's 204 per year or 4 per week. Except Anbar has about 1.5M people. A rate of 35.4 would translate to 531 murders per year or 10 per week. So yes, Anbar is SAFER than DC which is ranked 47 among American cities.

Please cite your source that Anbar Province has less than 531 war deaths per year.

Although I'd love to get into the "moral relativism fight" with you (cf. subjugation of women in Islamic societies, murder of Dutch filmmakers, stoning of gays in Iran), I'm not going to.

That's too bad, because we all know how much liberals are in favor of subjugating women and gays and radical filmmakers, compared to conservatives, who are proud champions of women's and gay rights.....

J.C., on this one I am right. I was right in 2002, and 2003, I have been right all along, and I will still be right tomorrow. You lot, on the other hand, have been and will continue to be wrong. Wrong, wronger wrongest, a perfect specimen of wrongness. Sorry 'bout the buzzkill of reality, but pick smarter positions in the future.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on October 2, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Well, faced with such overwhelming logic as that how can I possibly respond? =)

I'll respond with something just as pithy. As Mark Steyn has said in many different ways: "There are no bad reasons to clobber thug regimes."

[/trolling]

The "moral relativism" comparison I'm making is that of Liberals remaining more-or-less silent on issues relating to other cultures ("Islam is a religion of peace", Muslims should be able to smoke in hookah bars even if everyone else can't, they're poor that's why they're acting the way they do) while NOT giving the same amount of "moral leeway" to, say, a conservative who thinks that this was a just war. (cf, "fucked up" in the original post)

This word, "moral relativism," you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means....

[/trolling]

I think the dramatic decline in deaths from August to September could have been forecast. This sounds negative, but I mean that there have been 60 less awful days in the past two months. The (honest) August numbers include the estimated 572 deaths from bombings in Qahtaniya on August 14 (the victims were Yazidi). This was an immense catastrophe and monstrous crime, but it could have happened on any day for years. It was reasonable to guess that such a massacre would not occur in September. That would imply that fewer people would be killed per day in September than in June and July (as fewer will killed in August except August 14).

I think the bizarre numbers presented by Petraeus must have been calculated by excluding the August 14 deaths in Qahtaniya. It might be reasonable to look at deaths other than those when trying to forecast, but just pretending they didn't happen is still perjury in my book.

Still, the important point is that the good news is spread over 60 of 61 days not just 30 days which is ... still much less important than the political stalemate.

This word, "moral relativism," you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means....

Posted by: Stefan on October 2, 2007 at 9:52 PM

I'm using it the manner of "(their) viewpoint is just as valid as mine, because everything is relative and (their) background explains it so we should be 'tolerant' of how they feel/think/act/engage-in-behavior-to-look-down-on/take-standardized-tests ...".

It's fuzzy, but close enough IMHO. That kind of benefit of the doubt isn't extended by Liberals to caucasian male conservatives.

[/trolling]

trex: There's also no question [the dramatic success in Anbar] started before the surge and has nothing to do with the surge. There's also no question it is entirely a brainchild of the Iraqis.

trex, what difference does it make if the success in Anber is part of the surge or not? Either way, the good guys are winning there. We and the Iraqis can build on that success in other areas. We are going to win the war against al Qaeda and insurgents.

[/trolling]

dimwit: Trex, this really isn't hard. We are talking about Anbar post surge. That's NOW.

So youre trying to base your argument on the last thirty days alone? The first thirty "post surge" days? And then extrapolate it out to a year???

Your statistical analysis leaves everything to be desired, including sound analysis and statistics. Although I'd wager that at least 50 people have been killed in Anbar in the past month, putting it far past DC's homicides when extrapolated out over twelve months. A quick glance at the headlines shows at least 35 or so.

BTW, IED's make a city less safe. As do bombings. Washington DC has had neither in the past year.

other dimwit: trex, what difference does it make if the success in Anber is part of the surge or not?

Uh, if you bothered to follow the argument it was rdw making the original claim that the developments Anbar were due to the surge. Try and follow along.

other dimwit again: Either way, the good guys are winning there. We and the Iraqis can build on that success in other areas. We are going to win the war against al Qaeda and insurgents.

The good guys? The good guys who've been attacking and killing American soldiers for years? And who have by their own language only temporarily suspended the tempo of attacks against us? Of whom 92% say they believe attacks on U.S. troops are justified and who refuse to reconcile with the government until their demand that we withdraw our forces has been met?

Which war have you been following, exactly?

Brojo, are you drawing a parallel here between "militants" and the US Armed Forces? Just checking...

"There are no bad reasons to clobber thug regimes."

"...I'll respond with something just as pithy. As Mark Steyn has said in many different ways: "There are no bad reasons to clobber thug regimes."'

Posted by: J.C. on October 2, 2007 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Since you quote general views and than claim no allegiance to your quotes, I'll ask you:

Do you think Steyn is correct?

Or, in other words, are you going to back up that argument or are you just pushing fallacious arguments just to stir the pot?

[/trolling]

dimwit number one: "It does serve as an example of the increasing desperation of Al Qaeda however."

Yeah, it was easy for those 800 jihadists when there were only half a million troops after them. But now that there's half a million plus 30,000 -- they're soooooo screwed.

And it must have been those last hundred troops or so to arrive that made the difference, as the numbers only came down in the last thirty days, not in the months prior when there were 28,000 extra troops.

Genius analysis.

"There are no bad reasons to clobber thug regimes."

I believe our experience with "clobbering" the Soviets in our proxy war in Afghanistan gave us 3000 reasons why it's bad to fuck around carelessly with warfare as laugh about it as if it were all a game.

In Steyn's defense, he was clearly deprived of oxygen at birth. He needs to call one of those TV lawyers and cash in.

My fingers are not working this evening.

There is no 'parallel' between the US Armed Forces and Iraqi insurgents. The US Armed Forces are wrong to kill Iraqis and should get the fuck out of Iraq.

I quoted 'no bad reasons...' to wonder if J.C. was threatening the administration.

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

"Dana Perino said something to give one paws yesterday. She said that Saddam had violated something like 17 UN resolutions. Yet you never hear the anti-AMerican left mention this when they complain about the war."

The insufferable hypocrisy never ends. They trumpet the legitimacy of the UN whenever it suits their purposes but villify it when it doesn't-when the UN failed to authorize the war for example.

[/trolling]

US hostile casualties have been dropping consistently since May.

No, they went up from July to August.

But I'm on board. If we've succeeded let's withdraw. Time for our troops to stop dying just for Bush's ego.

But be prepared to be as shocked about October as you were about September.

You said the same thing about the 2006 elections.

How'd that turn out for ya?

"No need to argue. We'll see in 30 days. But be prepared to be as shocked about October as you were about September."

The only time I'll be shocked is when polls in Iraq show a majority in favor of the occupation.

"His sideshow ended with him and the vast majority of Iraqi's are happy Saddam is dead."

And the vast majority of dead Iraqis don't feel anything at all. Meanwhile Maliki's death squads are surpassing Hussein's evil dictatorship.

Only in George Bush's America do we see the number of US troops killed in action drop and call it a "success."

"Success" is "NO US troops being killed."

I'm sure the media will give the 29%-ers something to jump for joy about. Yes--the fact that the casualty rates are dropping is a good thing. We all want the troops to be safe and to not get hurt.

I think the best phrase to use is, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. We need to get our troops out now.

And you can tell the mods have given up on rdw. What a fanatic. 29% approval and dropping, huh buddy?

You said the same thing about the 2006 elections.

How'd that turn out for ya?

How'd they turn out for you?

How'd they turn out for you?

Well, one small part of that enormous change brought about by the 2006 elections was the joy of watching the US congress take pretty-boy CEO Erik Prince to the proverbial woodshed and exposing to the American people the insanity of his private army of mercenaries.

How that turns out is anyone's guess, but with Republicans in charge, no one knew who Prince was or what Blackwater really is.

*Now* they know. Multiply that by all the other hearings and revelations and I'd say it's working out pretty well.

Ditto what Pale Rider said. I didn't exect a Democratic majority in either house, so I was happily surprised. Unlike you, I neither have an unhealthy sexual attraction to members of a certain party nor do I find my identity in party politics, so on some level I'm sure it meant more to you than I. I never expected a majority much less a supermajority that could get us out of Iraq, but it's enough that the criminal organization calling itself the Republican party was retired to minority status, making us that much safer as a country. Now we can slowly try and reverse the damage.

My remark referred to the fact that prior to the election rdw regaled us week after week for months with predictions on how the Dems were going to lose seats in the election. Poor bastard has never even been able to broach the issue since he lost. If you ask him about it he'll talk about Kyoto or trade deals. It's like it never happened.

Speaking of, remember when you posted this?

Those same Iraqi Shiites have buried tens of thousands of their family members after the war with Iran. Other than the ringers Iran has sent into the South after the fall of Saddam, and flunkies like Sadr and his goons, I doubt you're going to find that many fans of the Iranian regime in Iraq.

Posted by: harry (monkeybone) on September 27, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Now that Iran and Iraq have relations bordering on the phenomenal, how does it feel to have been exposed as not having the first fucking clue what you're talking about?

"Just curious," as you're prone to say.

I doubt you're going to find that many fans of the Iranian regime in Iraq.

Except for the entire leadership of the Shiite government of Iraq, which regularly visits Iran, you're, umm...

You're a dumbass.

Boy, those idiots at Fox Noise have really done a number on your ability to figure things out, haven't they? Go look up all the times Maliki and his cabinet members have travelled to Tehran and held talks with the leadership in Iran and look up all of the Iranians who regularly travel to Iraq and consult with the government. Look it up.

Oh, wait. You can't look anything up--you're still trying to get your typing finger out of your mouth. Watch the drool, ace.

I'm on dumbass patrol tonight...looking through the google and finding all kinds of things in the tubes...yes, here we go...why not quote Fox Noise to an actual wingnut:

Fox News.com
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Arrives in Iran for Security Talks
Wednesday, August 08, 2007

TEHRAN, Iran — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with officials in Iran on Wednesday to seek help in reining in violence in his country, reaching out to a nation the U.S. accuses of fueling Iraq's turmoil by backing Shiite militants.

It was al-Maliki's second visit to Tehran in less than a year, coming days after U.S. and Iranian experts held talks in Baghdad on improving Iraq's security.

Al-Maliki and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that dominate his government are closely linked to predominantly Shiite Iran, and he has struggled to balance those ties with the United States, Tehran's top rival in the region.

The U.S. has recently stepped up its allegations that Iran is arming Shiite militiamen, but the Iraqi government has taken a low-key stance without outright backing the American claims, which Tehran denies. One al-Maliki adviser, Sami al-Askari, said last month that the government "doesn't rule out" Iranian arming of militants.

An older story from Reuters:

Iraq’s PM to visit Iran next week for key talks
(Reuters)
9 September 2006

BAGHDAD - Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki will make his first official visit to Iran on Monday, a trip that will bring into focus key security and political issues at a time when Baghdad is battling to avert a civil war.

Iraq and non-Arab, Shia Iran fought a war in the 1980s under Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated rule. But relations have been warmer since Iraq’s Shia majority won national elections, unsettling Iraq’s minority Sunni Arabs and many Sunni-dominated states distrustful of Tehran’s influence.

Washington, pushing for international sanctions against Tehran over its atomic ambitions, accuses Iran of providing logistical and financial support to Shia militias in Iraq. Tehran denies this.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said on Saturday Maliki, a Shia, would discuss with fellow Islamist leaders in Iran, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the “principle of no interference in internal affairs� during his two-day visit.

“The purpose of the visit is to discuss political and security issues,� Dabbagh told Reuters.

Though Maliki has brought Sunnis into his national unity government since he took over in May and conspicuously chose Sunni Gulf Arab states for his first foreign trip, his visit to powerful Iran will likely upset Sunnis.

Analysts have pointed out Iran’s increasing influence in post-war Iraq since the empowerment of its Shia majority.

This influence, analysts say, is particularly stronger in the mainly Shia south, where a top Shia leader this week renewed demands for an autonomous Shia region.

“Iran views Iraq as its own backyard and has now superseded the US as the most influential power there; this affords it a key role in Iraq’s future,� a report by the London-based Chatham House think-tank said last month.

It also said Tehran had an “unparalleled ability to affect stability and security across most of the country�.

The announcement of Maliki’s visit follows a dispute between the two countries in which Iranian border guards this week detained Iraqi guards after accusing them of crossing into Iran.

Iraq’s Defence Ministry spokesman Ibrahim Shaker said the Iraqi patrol, consisting of five soldiers, an officer and a translator, had simply been doing “their duty�.

Yo JC,

Seems your memory is getting a little fuzzy. The way I remember 2003 was:

No Way,
No Way in Hell,
No Fing Way in Hell,

Americans condone the invasion of Iraq WITHOUT Weapons of Mass Destruction.

PERIOD................................

The invasion was about WMD and that is all.

Your Friend-Fuzzy Memory

[/delusional trolling]

[/delusional trolling]

An rdw post for the ages:

We've won in Iraq.

Passing non-binding resolutions isn't an example of working out well.

Lieberman-Kyl is a non-binding resolution. Yep, I'd say you're right about that.

Arabs and Persians have a very long history and not a whole lot of love. Patraeus has chased the Iranian agents in Iraq out and is getting control of the borders. The CIA is also actively supplying Kurdish rebels in Iran forcing them to reallocate resources.

Notwithstanding the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, they don't need to love each other to be working against us. They don't need to agree on much, except on new ways to kill Americans and fight the Sunnis and ethnically cleanse Baghdad. Petraeus knew that if they did nothing to ethnically cleanse Baghdad, there would be a statistical drop in violence once the bloody work was done. He also knew that if he changed the rules of engagement, paid off tribal leaders and militia leaders, he could engineer and artificial drop in US casualties. As for the CIA--when was the last time you heard a wingnut applaud their efforts? Oh, that's right--when it suited their bizaare need to make a non-point. How much more effective do you think the CIA would be right now if the Bush administration hadn't chased away thousands of potential informants, sources, and covert agents by smearing Valerie Plame? Or did that not happen in wingnut land?

rdw - 10/3/2007 We've won in Iraq.

Mark it down, run it up the flagpole--this is youyr wingnut on crack cocaine mixed with crystal methamphetamine.

We've won in Iraq.

Just when you think they couldn't get any more delusional, the prototypical American wingnut says this:

We've won in Iraq.

And once more for posterity, so that future generations of blog commenters can refer back to it and permalink to my post, rdw actually said this in a comment thread on a blog:

We've won in Iraq.

Oh. My. Word...

[/delusional trolling]

[/delusional trolling]

[/delusional trolling]

Did you see the news on the Iraq war budget? It passed 92 - 3.

That's right--someone has to send Mine Resistant Vehicles (MRVs) to the troops and help keep them alive. God knows the Bush Administration didn't do anything between 2003 and 2006 to properly arm and equip our soldiers so that they could survive the devastating attacks they have been subject to.

How do you score a political point by pointing out that the Democrats are giving the troops the funding and the gear they need?

You have to admit the payoff is pretty shrewd.

It's no different than Ronald Reagan giving SAMs to the Iranians. It's called negotiating with terrorists. We're giving money and weapons to shiekhs who were formerly supporting the armed insurgency against US troops. We're putting treasure and guns in the hands of the people who, a year ago, had the blood of US troops on their hands.

No wonder you're a Rush Limbaugh fan--blatant hypocrisy, a lack of the fundamental understanding of right and wrong and a complete lack of self-awareness and decency. In the diseased and confused world in which you both inhabit, you believe that you both support the troops because you support the people who are giving money and guns to the people who were killing our troops.

Bravo, rdw.

By the way--if we were winning and kicking ass in Iraq, what would it look like? It sure doesn't look like victory to me.

[/trolling]

[/trolling]

Deleting rdw is no different than having a call screener select who gets on the Rush Limbaugh show and it is no different than hanging up on someone.

After all, he is the delusional little fuck who said:

We've won in Iraq.

[/trolling]

You are going to be embarrased come Thanksgiving when the numbers are even better and economic progress has begun to surge as well.

I'm embarrassed now. He just took away health insurance for children with his petulant veto.

I suspect his approval rating will be below 30% in November. I suspect you'll still be delusional.

And you're bitching about the MSM? What do you call Fox Noise? You call it news? You have the gall to call it news?

Have we won in Iraq? This optimistic article says we're well on our way to victory.

[/trolling]

[27 deleted comments on this thread alone! You are not persistent, you are pathological.]