… 49, 43, 25;
My only point is that, at the very least, people who complain that good news coming out of Iraq gets shuttered by the press aren�t crazy. I�m a regular denizen of the right-leaning blogosphere (though I spend about half my daily routine with left-leaning sites), and I was unequivicolly shocked when I saw this. Completely the opposite of what I�d expected. My non-scientific sample of three friends, all of whom are considerably more bullish about the prospects in Iraq than I am, revealed three people similarly surprised by these numbers. I�m guessing if I polled people on this site regarding the direction those numbers were going, and people didn�t answer strategically (eg figure I was up to something from the question words), no one would predict any of those numbers were on a downward trend, or were even flat.
Again, my point isn�t that we�re winning. My only point is that if the data you�ve received left you completely surprised by these numbers, what does that really say about the completeness of the data you�ve received?
And those who report it?
Via Glenn.
I haven’t read the link yet, but I’m guessing that it’s the death toll of American (and/or Allied) military personnel killed (or rather “died”) in Iraq over the past 6 months.
Actually, I think it’s much too high for that (unless it’s the dead and wounded rates); so I’m changing my guess to the number of IED attacks carried out monthly for the past 6 months.
I recall reading a blog linked to a study that compared death rates per 100,000 per year by the figures for the US population in the age bracket and the figures for the US troops in Iraq!
Guess what!!
In the USA the figure is in the high 700’s.
IN the War Torn Hell hole of Iraq? low 700’s!
So as far as the claims of “Heavy Losses” among US military personnel in Iraq…..it as all BS!
The soldiers would be more like to die at home!
At least according to the stats.
I think the piece was titled :
Lies! Damned Lies! and Statistics!
Stupid assholes!
Give a count of the Iraqis dying, or are they not human beings!
Change the name of this site. It should be called RacistDeadAnimals.
Hey somewhatangry, go read the post that was linked to before you make yourself sound stupid.
Oh wait, too late.
BTW – Those numbers are falling too.
somewhatangry
“Give a count of the Iraqis dying, or are they not human beings!”
I don’t know the exact number, but it is considerably fewer than the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam. So, in your opinion, it must be okay for Iraqis to die as long as it is done by their benevolent presidient. Stupid asshole.
Hey Defense Guy:
Somewhatangry is somewhattoostupidtoread
Hey DefenseGuy: What is your point? US soldiers are dying at a steady 2/day clip since 2003. Some months are low, some months are high.
There is now a civil war – Shiite militias vs Sunni militias.
The Iraqi dead numbers on the site is wrong. Actual Iraqi dead counts are much higher – no one really knows how many are dying in the sectarian killings. Read news reports of estimates from the Iraqi Health ministry, and from doctors actually operating in and around Baghdad hospitals.
The point is this: what exactly is getting better?
Do you understand now, DefenseGuy, or is your brain too constipated for that level of thinking?
Hey georgev: What about the people dying in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Azerbaijan …
Want the Americans to go fight and die there too?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Maybe they should change the name of this site to Stupid-And-Racist-Dead-Animals.
A couple of issues. First, the death rate in the US includes a lot of old and sick people, if you did a proper comparison of similar aged, healthy people you’d find the death rate for US soldiers is higher than for the general American pop. And for somewhatangry, I can’t take seriously the anectdotal evidence of some doctor who may or may not know what is going on outside of his particular 10 square miles. Apparently there is some disagreement on numbers, but your take seems to be from the least reliable sources, and you seem to take them because they reinforce your preconceived ideas. And that is the crux of the problem, each side seems to have biases and takes in only the info that supports the bias. If you think you have an open mind but refuse to look at contradictory evidence, your mind isn’t open.
That’s what I get for pointing out that someone ignored the facts. Angry emotional rhetoric.
Might as well just respond with a good old ‘I know you are but what am I’ and call it a day.
somewhatangry; why do people against the war in Iraq always bring these atrocities up as an argument to support that position. No, I do not want to see the Americans there too, at least not unilaterally. I would prefer to see the UN grow some balls, condemn these actions and then back up that condemnation by having joint armed forces of freedom loving countries sent in to stop it. It could be done if there was more back bone shown.
Hey Defense Guy:
Somewhatangry is somewhattoostupidtomakeacoherentpoint.
Gee somewhatangry, you really have a lot to say…too bad you don’t have the guts to post a real email address, though….
Uh, actually, if you look at the rest of the numbers provided on this site, they’re all pretty crappy if you’re an American president who dressed up in an air force uniform to declare major combat “OVER” three years ago.
So before we start hammering away with the predictable old rant about the MSM, go look at the numbers again: More Iraqi police/security forces got offed last month than at any time in the last five months.
Iraqi civilian deaths were down by half last month. That’s great. It’s also because the previous two months were really, really bad.
I can understand why you folks out there who so eagerly joke about 50 journalists left to sink to the ocean floor, would be rushing with glee to greet some statistics — ANY STATISTICS AT ALL — as proof they’re all biased, corrupt ingrates concealing the historically marvelous job Dubya Bush is doing.
It’s kinda fun watching you war-apologists scramble over each other to grasp one statistical diamond embedded in a sea of crap that is the Iraq conflict.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
The political game
Excerpt:
…
Here’s the framework for the unity government, as outlined by Khalilzad, who has attended nearly all of the meetings. First, the broad strokes: The Sunni leaders have accepted that the new government will operate under the Iraqi constitution and that it will be based on the results of last December’s election, both of which reflect the reality that the Shiites are Iraq’s largest religious group. The Shiites, in turn, have agreed that the new government will be guided by consensus among all the factions. And they have agreed to checks that will, in theory, prevent the key security ministries from being hijacked by Shiite militia groups.
To implement this consensual approach, the Iraqi factions agreed on two bodies that weren’t mentioned in the constitution. They endorsed a 19-member consultative national security council, which represents all the political factions. And they agreed on a ministerial security council, which will have the Sunni deputy prime minister as its deputy chairman. Shiite leaders have tentatively agreed that the defense minister will be a Sunni. And for the key job of interior minister, the dominant Shiite faction, known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, appears ready to accept the replacement of one of its members by an independent Shiite, perhaps Qasim Dawood, a man acceptable to most Sunni leaders.
The key thing that jumps out of these paragraphs is that the Sunni leaders appear to have accepted, in principle at least, that they are no longer dominant; simply one of the parties in Iraq. This suggests they have signed on to the Iraqi constitutional roadmap in theory. But every party still has grave reservations over whether the others can be trusted. That is why the rest of the package consists of a series of checks and balances to ensure that no one group controls the security forces, and prevents their use without the unanimous consensus of all parties. (Like the UN Security Council). But quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will make sure the rules are followed? The United States, apparently.
But the X-factor in this delicate game is U.S. political support. Khalilzad could fail in his effort to midwife a unity government, and Iraq could spiral into full-blown civil war. But it would be crazy for an impatient America to talk itself into defeat and pull the plug prematurely. As Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, remarked this week: “America came to Iraq uninvited. You should not leave uninvited.”
This is a recognition of the fact that only the United States can make the checks and balances stick, which alone will permit an orderly evolution of the Iraqi state to its desired Federal configuration. Each sectarian group is apparently prepared (the Sunnis appear to have accepted the principle) to begin a withdrawal into its autonomous region, leaving behind a Federal government to administer what amounts to a treaty between the regions, trusting that the US will prevent the devolution from becoming a rout. In summary, the short-term political task facing the US consists of brokering a series of deals between the sectarian groups which will allow a legal transition from the Saddam era to the state described in the Iraqi constitution; the longer-term task consists of guaranteeing that those deals are kept by parties who may be tempted to cheat.
In the end, George Will, Bill Buckley and Francis Fukuyama may well be right in saying that the peoples of Iraq have no desire to agree to anything but to hate one another. But they are not necessarily right. There is nothing in the situation that forbids the achievement of the vision described in the Iraqi constitution. There is nothing that guarantees it either. Success will depend, in my opinion at least, not upon grand political principles, but on the skill of the Americans and Iraqis who are striving for a political solution. Is it difficult? Yes. Is it impossible? No.
posted by wretchard at 4:24 AM
http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/
tony’s right
I’m convinced, and we should immediately return Saddam to power. I mean what’s a little rape rooms, oppression and mass graves between friends. Clearly that was better, because no hope is better than knowing that there are dirty war apologists out there.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” John Stuart Mill
Also, U.S. soldiers now find and neutralize more than 40% of the bombs and as an occupational hazard the insurgents are losing skilled bombmakers.
The problem is with the statement “we are winning”. There is no “we” anymore. “We” has been fractured into shards of multicultic relativism and laser-beam hatred towards the US. If the Americans and their allies achieve their goals in Iraq, many in this country, will say “they” won, not “we” won. They might, however, say “we” lost.
somewhatangry is also completelystupid. Typical left idiot. Attempts to win an argument with figures he’s pulled out of his ass and calls a fact.
With an IQ like that it’s amazing these people aren’t mistaken for common house plants.
You should see what I can do with a 440 Weatherbee.
Greg . Always a worthwhile quote.
Well, aren’t you guys hostile? I’ll try to write an entire post without calling anyone a dick or asshole and see how it goes.
You’ve obviously all come to the conclusion that those numbers are in fact the number of American servicemen/women killed per month in Iraq. I didn’t get through all of the comments, it got too cattish for my tastes, but in case noone mentioned this, there is a website that is keeping track of the number of coalition dead and wounded -> http://icasualties.org/oif/ that should dispel any argument. It’s non-political and provides links to all of the CentCom and DoD reports as well as many related MSM articles.
I would hesitate to say that the declining death rate of service personnel is a good thing, unless of course you’re wearing an American uniform. According to lots of reports that I’ve read recently, there has been a turn in the attack mode of the insurgents and they are now stepped up attacks civilians, businesses and Iraqi police.
It is certainly no victory yet.
Just got here and a little behind, but I carefully read the link and the comments. I must say it was refreshing to see respectful discussion between people of various political leanings.
Feisty: If you reread the stats the comparison was between similar age groups. Having said that it sounds to me that the good ole US is dangerous for young guys, not exactly a selling feature!
Why the hell don’t you actually read a link before offering comment on what it contains? What are you missing, exactly – instructions to “click words highlighted in blue”?
The declining death of American servicemen is entirely a function of them staying out of the fight more and more often. You might think this is good, but while U.S. troops are standing down, Iraqi troops are not standing up. Instead they are getting slaughtered like sheep, where they are not slaughtering innocent members of other sects in sectarian violence. In short, as American forces adopt a more passive role, they become less relevant to the state of the conflict. Hence Sistani doesn’t even bother to read George W’s letters anymore.
And so things are spinning down the sewer even faster than they were, and to get back in the game, as it were, the U.S. will have to pay in casualties. With midterm elections coming up, who knows what will happen?
kevvyd:
The link stated that the author didn’t feel he could call it a victory. He just felt that a real discussion wasn’t being afforded by the MSM. There wasn’t any real counterpoints to the largely negative bias.
BCL:
What Kate just said. Take your time and reeeeeaaaddd it really slowly so as not to strain yourself. Read the analysis, the comments at the link, the comments above, and when you’re done, get back in about two days.
I just glanced at the numbers but don’t really know if they portend a lessing of hostilities or not.
Odd as it may sound I don’t actually believe that is relevant. The end game here is what is important and the War in Iraq although poorly executed I believe at times has a remarkable significance and hope for the whole planet.
It astounds me that the dreamers the left the artist can’t or won’t see it and all they take from the war is an excuse to hate America.
Think of it a Democracy in the middle of all those Theocracies. Rigid unforgiving brutal theocracies.
Dare to dream of what real democracy in the middle east would produce for her people. They would live build their homes raise their families vote read the paper discuss politics go to temple come home go to bed get up go to work and do the cycle of life. Happiness could be achieved by millions. Safety, Freedom.
Jeff:
Nice comment. The numbers lean, albeit slightly,towards Iraqi police and forces taking the ‘hits’. I read about bombings at police stations where there are line-ups to join. Doesn’t that tell you that many Iraqis (the ones in the line-up) want the change and are willing to risk their life for it?
“Odd as it may sound I don’t actually believe that is relevant.”
Over 2300 soldiers dead. Over 50,000 Iraqis dead – 150+ this month alone. Billions spent.
It does not sound “odd” at all. It sounds like a racist condescending comment from an ignorant delusional twit.
“Doesn’t that tell you that many Iraqis (the ones in the line-up) want the change and are willing to risk their life for it?”
No, it does not. It means they are so desperate to put food on their table that they are willing to risk death. That is what passes for Iraqi democracy.
There is no democracy in Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East. No history of it – ever.
The only true democracy is Israel. All the others are lip synching W’s talking points.
SWLA:
I said that those lining up want change, I didn’t say democracy.
You’re right they don’t know what true democracy is, they still haven’t truly had the chance. That’s years down the line, but they have started. My posts are short, because I try to distill my thoughts to keep them to the point.
A political system that has a president and a prime minister plus the political parties. Ala many countries to wit: Iraq,Israel and many former Russian(euro) nations is definitely a subject to discuss.
Somewhat less:
Apparently you missed my point, and I certainly don’t know how you can call me racist. Possibly condesending but then look at your repily to my post I gotta tell ya it’s hard not to be condesending.
As per usual just ranting no constuctive rebuttal. But then with your exalted intellect and you will be one of the annointed to rule over us all. Our very lives will waiver in the balance of your aura.
People die in the fight for freedom. If you have never been confronted with the decision of having to chose what you would do to protect your home or family or country, or contemplated your response to a threat to same maybe you should consider what you would do. If you are not willing to fight to save what is precious and hard won by those that have gone before you maybe you it’s time to consider what you would be willing to give.
But then you are from the left a artiste at the skill of having your life paid for by others. You do not contribute but simply take. No thought to giving back. No conscience just an economic sociopath.
And what’s with the cheap shot at President Bush how about a alternative. The Americans leave? Would that be your solution. Let Iraq dissolve into civil war or maybe have Iran move across the border to take up the slack not to mention gaining control of the second largest oil reserves on the planet. Yup sounds like a good plan. Then what real war, not where thousands die to make life better for their families but hemispheres fighting to survive.
Just be glad- that it is not YOUR country being trashed, (this time)! That it is not YOUR family, getting killed, just for ‘being in the wrong place at the wrong time! Trying to stay alive in a bombed-out building, with sporadic electricity, running water, availibility of food, etc. etc.
What would YOU say- to your Iraki buddy- who is now in another country, watching his homeland being destroyed? What do you tell him?
Dear Mark,
What the fact that Iraqis are signing up to join the new army tells you is that unemployment is about 60-70 per cent. AS I said, all these numbers show is that the yankees are stepping back and letting their Iraqi counterparts become cannon fodder. The “MSM” is not reporting this as good news because it isn’t. You can’t lie about Iraq (report good news) just to satisfy the delicate sensibilities of the right wing yobos who cheerleaded for the war and are now depressed because its gone down the crapper. News isn’t about stroking right wing sensibilities.
Dear Mark,
The reason Iraqis are still joining the army is that there are no other jobs available. The reason the yanks are taking less casualties is that the insurgents see them as less relevant to the struggle. It isn’t being reported as good news because it isn’t. You seem to think the whole point of the news is to stroke the delicate sensibilities of the right wing yobos who cheerleaded for this war. It isn’t.
BCL reminds me of that song from Team America, “Everyone has AIDS”.
BCL: You take your figures, as far as I can tell, from an Al Jazeera report dated Dec. 2004. Could you please supply a link to a more recent report? I’m GOOGLING but most of the reports seem to be old and copied from A.J. Sorry, but I need a little more evidence then that!
BCL: link to iraq stock exchange.
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=4291
“Three years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the first signs of an economic recovery are looming on the horizon, despite the numerous predictions to the contrary. These measurements include the halving of the unemployment rate, from 60% in the summer of 2004 to 30% a year later; the stabilization of the value of the new Iraqi Dinar, which was introduced in October 2003; the halving of Iraq�s debts; the earmarking of considerable funds for the reconstruction of Iraq at the 2003 Madrid conference. Iraqis abroad have also increased their remittances to a total of $1.5 billion. Iraqis have also rushed to buy and acquire new technologies; more than a million cars have been bought in the last three years, in addition to thousands of satellite reception equipments, electrical equipments, mobile phones and computers. Until recently, Iraq was an oil-exporting country, with Saddam�s regime benefiting from the country�s rich natural resources. However, the oil wealth was not reflected in the average earnings of Iraqis, which declined dramatically.
In the last three years, the Iraqi economy has witnessed a growth that is notable in the consumption capabilities of Iraqis as the salaries of public sector employees have increased and the old ruling cartels”
appologies that was a link I gathered from the ISX.
Kate – thanks for your helpful comment! Why yes, it would be very helpful if you put a “click button here”. Of course I read the bloody links, it was the hostile pissing match in the comments I didn’t have the stomach for. Sheesh.
As BCL suggests a few comments above, the US troops are standing down to some extent. There has been quite a lot of chatter in the MSM and elsewhere lately that there is a conscious effort to do this in preparation for a real stand-down which would likely occur before the fall elections. The US would haul their troops back in to their “enduring camps” and combat would be relegated to bombing and strike missions from the carrier-based task force. Iraqi government troops would act essentially as spotters to identify targets.
This will indeed allow the US to declare a victory of some sort, but the impact it could have on attaining a real peace is uncertain. It is sort of a replay of their Vietnam strategy, which didn’t work then, but at then they were fighting against an organized army that was well supplied. This time, against only loosely organized insurgents, they might do better. Or worse, who knows?
Jeff -> Your comments are well thought out and clear, thank you. However, I disagree on the point that the casualties do in fact matter a great deal; even taking a long view, which I think you are. High casualty counts are hurting US support for the war at home, which will indeed have an effect on how the war is conducted. Also at the other end – casualties among the citizenry do not make for stability.
I agree that while the long-term goal of non-theocratic governments is a good one, it is going to be difficult to achieve. As long as real theocracies like Israel are tolerated and supported, and as long as the United States is viewed essentially as a theocracy, the Muslim world will view any moves along these lines as being specifically anti-Muslim.
Mark, BCL -> I have no idea what the real unemployment figures are in Iraq, after having just done a quick search to find out as well. There is some evidence, as Mark has pointed out, that there has been improvement in the last year or two. However, it is probably safe to say that the job market isn’t flush and that BCL’s comments that many of those joining the defense forces simply to make a living are probably close to reality.
Try this recent one, Mark, from a “senior Iraqi official”:
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=129185
Bottom line, most recent unemployment figure is about 50%.
As kvvyd suggests,the U.S. is currently employing a strategy to the one that failed in vietnam. The problem with retreating into desert bases is you can’t really control anything from there (for example, you can’t secure the oil-fields). So the question becomes, what are you doing there in the first place other than trying to wait out the civil war.
I would disagree though concerning the “disorganized” nature of the insurgency. This seems to be rapidly changing. There was a very good article that I no longer have the link to (found through realclearpolitics) which outlined the insurgencies sophisticated progaganda organs (monthly magazines in .pdf format, among other things). The upshot of the article is that the insurgents now think they’re winning. They expect the U.S. to leave and the current security forces to collapse.
kevvyd notes: “It is sort of a replay of their Vietnam strategy, which didn’t work then, but at then they were fighting against an organized army that was well supplied. This time, against only loosely organized insurgents, they might do better. Or worse, who knows? ”
Vietnamization, as the US strategy of turning the war over to the S. Vietnamese army to fight was named, didn’t work because the government of S.V. was corrupt, autocratic, and brutal, and thus didn’t have the support of the people.
The Sunnis may have no love for the new Iraqi government, but the Shiite and Kurds seem to support it. As the US withdraws from active combat, it will become increasingly clear to the Iraqi people that the ‘insurgents’ are the real problem. Will the Iraqi security and police forces be strong enough to subdue the insurgency? Maybe not in a few months, but I believe that over time, as the US presence fades, the Iraqi people will stop providing the cover and support the insurgents need to operate; they will simply get sick of the killing and either implore people to stop it or start turning them in.
The statistics quoted in Kate’s link are encouraging when viewed in this light, and the statistically challenged (hi BCL!) should study the concept of a moving average, which more clearly indicates trend.
KevinB, you’re out there in wingy-dingy wonderland.
BCL writes: ” You can’t lie about Iraq (report good news)”
I’m trying to parse this comment. Does it mean “any good news about Iraq is, ipso facto, a lie”? Does it mean “you can’t tell lies about Iraq that are good news, but you can tell lies that are bad news”? Does it mean that any and all news coming from Iraq must be bad, BAD, *BAD*?
Not that I would ever suggest that BCL’s views are in any way predetermined, or that he’s adamant he won’t be confused by facts. I’m just curious.
KevinB -> You might well be right, and I hope you are. Time will tell. But there are a lot of things standing between today and a peaceful resolution to all of this.
– What happens if a populist government actually manages to rally the people and then asks the Americans to leave?This is not a rhetorical question, either. The US has to prepare for this eventuality.
– What if the mounting casualties cause the citizenry to trust no one? The kind of violence that we see now creates embittered survivors that breed factions and volunteers for the likes of Sadr.
– What if the Kurds just don’t want to play with the rest of the country? I don’t know that they actually support the new government except insofar as it leaves them alone in the north. If things went to hell, the Kurds might just sit it out and hold what could become a real border between them and the rest of Iraq. Wouldn’t Turkey like that!
– What happens if Iran takes an active role in backing the Shiia, if they aren’t already?
We live in interesting times, unfortunately.
Dear kevein B,
It actually means I wrote that comment before I had enough coffee, sent it by accident, thought I had cancelled it, and then wrote the next message. But what I was trying to get at is its a bit ridiculous for war supporters to beg the media for good news when they’re isn’t any. In the current context, declining casualty figures don’t mean good news, so they are not being reported as such. They essentially mean that the U.S. is shying from the fight (maybe just until midterms are over, who knows?.)
kevvyd raises some very good questions in his latest post. I don’t pretend to have answers, but there are precedents:
Northern Ireland – waxing and waning periods of terrorist activity and Ulster retaliation. Gradually, the cycles slowed down. Perhaps the recent assassination of an elderly spy might be the final death?
Cyprus – Permanent armed intervention from the UN. I don’t follow it closely, but I haven’t read of much in the way of terrorist activity from either side in years. Boring stalemate is preferable, in my view, to interesting struggle.
Haiti – deposition of a dictator, followed by a popular government, followed by attempted coups, civil mayhem, etc. There are many who will suggest that this is where Iraq is headed. I hope it doesn’t work out that way, but I have to accept that it is a very real possibility.
The declining death figures in the original article cited suggest that there’s some possibility that the Irish or Cypriot scenarios might come into play; why people would want to dump all over that possibility is a mystery to me.
KevinB -> Unfortunately I can’t get to the original article through the firewall here, but if memory serves, it referred to the military death toll, not civilian, which is increasing if http://iraqbodycount.org/press/pr13.php is accurate. (Sorry, Kate, I honestly am smart enough to click a button, don’t hit me!) That tells me that the mode of the war is changing, not that it is changing in intensity.
There are definite similarities between the Ireland and Iraq situations, now that you mention it; and I had not considered it before. Not so many with Cyprus, I don’t think – it was far simpler politically, and religion didn’t really enter into it.
Good food for thought, thanks.