US military deaths in Iraq lowest in 14 months

[Frankg]

US military deaths in Iraq lowest in 14 months

AFP - Sunday, September 30 BAGHDAD (AFP) - -
US military losses in Iraq for September stood at 70 on Sunday, the lowest monthly figure since July last year, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures.

The figure also marks the fourth consecutive drop in the monthly death toll following a high of 121 in May. June saw 93 deaths, July 82 and August 79. The monthly toll in July 2006 was 53.

Two US soldiers were killed on Saturday in separate incidents, pushing the overall toll of American losses since the March 2003 invasion to 3,801.
A US military "surge" strategy saw an extra 28,500 US troops being deployed from mid-February, mainly in Baghdad and the neighbouring province of Anbar, although commanders said most were not in combat positions until May.

US commanders say the strategy is starting to work and that levels of violence are dropping, allowing for a possible drawdown of the 160,000 or so troops currently deployed across war-torn Iraq.

The highest monthly toll was 137 in November 2004 when a US-led force stormed the insurgent bastion of Fallujah in fierce house-to-house fighting. Of the 137 dead, 126 were killed in action.

In April, 2004, the second deadliest month of the war for US military personnel, 135 troops died. The month marked a turning point in the war with uprisings in Fallujah in the predominantly Sunni west, and in Shiite cities south of Baghdad

[Linkster]

Alright - that doesnt mean shit since September is always - one of the lowest - how bout the total for 2007 so far compared to every other year - lets see 800 so far and we still have 3 months to go - and last year was 822 for the whole year with the year before that 846 and the one before that 849 - so we are well on our way to the costliest year of the war so far
So that means by the end of this year if we follow even that low number you post for this Sept - that makes it 1010 or so for the year

Golly - I sure am glad we didnt lose more so that Bush's "legacy" wont be harmed

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Alright - that doesnt mean shit since September is always - one of the lowest - how bout the total for 2007 so far compared to every other year - lets see 800 so far and we still have 3 months to go - and last year was 822 for the whole year with the year before that 846 and the one before that 849 - so we are well on our way to the costliest year of the war so far
So that means by the end of this year if we follow even that low number you post for this Sept - that makes it 1010 or so for the year

Golly - I sure am glad we didnt lose more so that Bush's "legacy" wont be harmed

Neocons can't think beyond the immediate moment. If they could, we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.


Lady Mod

[Frankg]

Alright - that doesnt mean shit since September is always - one of the lowest - how bout the total for 2007 so far compared to every other year - lets see 800 so far and we still have 3 months to go - and last year was 822 for the whole year with the year before that 846 and the one before that 849 - so we are well on our way to the costliest year of the war so far
So that means by the end of this year if we follow even that low number you post for this Sept - that makes it 1010 or so for the year

Golly - I sure am glad we didnt lose more so that Bush's "legacy" wont be harmed

Doesn't mean shit ? Would you feel better if death toll was higher ?

I felt that I needed to share that latest good news from Iraq because I would think that all real Americans that we all would be glad to hear that the death toll and violence are dropping and would be happy that we are that much closer to bringing the troops home

You sound pissed off that the violence is dropping , surely you dont' want to hear bad news from Iraq do you ?

I thought most of you folks on the left got over your BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) when the Democrats took back congress , guess not

[Frankg]

Neocons can't think beyond the immediate moment. If they could, we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.


Lady Mod

Ladymoderator

We went to war to protect the security of this country from a direct threat

National security ....that's one thing that's not high priority with leftist moonbats

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Bush had the woman fired (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616268111.html) who dared to take this photo of coffins being loaded each night in Kuwait for secret shipment back home.
More (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6078.htm). Dover coffin photos (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/). Still More (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/gallery.htm). Bush does not count soldiers who die en route to hospital or in hospital in Germany as deaths. This means the true death count of American soldiers is over five times higher (http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1390.htm) than Bush is reporting.


http://mindprod.com/image/restricted/coffins.jpg

http://mindprod.com/image/restricted/coffinsoutdoors.jpg



Take your monthly numbers Cupcake and multiply by 5. You'll come to a closer tally of the number of deaths.

.

[Linkster]

Doesn't mean shit ? Would you feel better if death toll was higher ?

I felt that I needed to share that latest good news from Iraq because I would think that all real Americans that we all would be glad to hear that the death toll and violence are dropping and would be happy that we are that much closer to bringing the troops home

You sound pissed off that the violence is dropping , surely you dont' want to hear bad news from Iraq do you ?

I thought most of you folks on the left got over your BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) when the Democrats took back congress , guess not

First off - its not dropping - get over it - if you would like an entire history of USS deaths in Iraq - go google it and you will see that its not dropping - its going up every year

Yes Im pissed off cause that means that we again are not committing the number of forces we need to over there to take care of this war and get everyone home

We need to send over 500,000 troops - take care of this problem once and for all and then bring everybody home in a year - instead we are faced with exactly what happened in Vietnam - politicians running the war and not letting the military do its job - which sucks

Im not on the left BTW

[Linkster]

Here - so you dont have to go looking yourself:
http://icasualties.org/oif/ByYearGraph.aspx

and the reason that your Sept numbers dont match is that your numbers are from before the military confirmations - wheras the numbers I have in that link are ones that have been confirmed by the US military - they usually lag 5-10 days

[Smurf-Herder]

First off - its not dropping - get over it - if you would like an entire history of USS deaths in Iraq - go google it and you will see that its not dropping - its going up every year

Yes Im pissed off cause that means that we again are not committing the number of forces we need to over there to take care of this war and get everyone home

We need to send over 500,000 troops - take care of this problem once and for all and then bring everybody home in a year - instead we are faced with exactly what happened in Vietnam - politicians running the war and not letting the military do its job - which sucks

Im not on the left BTW

The problem is, Rumsfeld screwed up the inital invasion strategy - when we were able to send more troops in. Now we're limited, but also have most of the Iraqi Army trained.

BTW, there will always be between 30,000-70,000 troops in Iraq. They want a long-term agreement, like we had with Japan, Germany, Korea, etc.

[Bill]

Cool. We can police Iraq for a century at this rate.

Now all we need is a draft.

lets see - 70 a month - lets not count the wounded, nobody cares about them - that's 840 a year.

10 years, only 8400 dead - we are freekin stylin' now.

[Frankg]

Here - so you dont have to go looking yourself:
http://icasualties.org/oif/ByYearGraph.aspx

and the reason that your Sept numbers dont match is that your numbers are from before the military confirmations - wheras the numbers I have in that link are ones that have been confirmed by the US military - they usually lag 5-10 days

Linkster

Good chart, thanks for link , just one thing....it says 62 casualties for Sept which is acutally lower than my link and aside from august, it does show a definite downward trend


May 126

June 101

July 78

Aug 84

Sept 62

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Linkster

Good chart, thanks for link , just one thing....it says 62 casualties for Sept which is acutally lower than my link and aside from august, it does show a definite downward trend


May 126

June 101

July 78

Aug 84

Sept 62



Year_Jan_Feb_Mar_Apr_May_Jun_Jul__Aug_Sep_Oct_Nov_ Dec
2003_0___0___65__74__37__30__48__35__31__44__82__4 0
2004_47__20__52__135_80__42__54__66__80__64__137_7 2
2005_107_58__35__52__80__78__54__85__49__96__84__6 8
2006_62__55__31__76__69__61__43__65__72__106_70__1 12
2007_83__81__81__104_126_101_78__84__62__0___0___0


September isn't over yet frankie. Linkster told you there is a 5-10 day delay. And when you actually read the graph, which is up and down every year. We actually have higher soldier casualty rate than last year from Jan - August.

There is no reason except in the eye's of the GOP and you of course, to think that it's going to end with less victims. The numbers, when you read the graph show the truth. The number of soldier casualties are only dropping since July from those of the prior 6 months of 2007. We haven't dropped from last year at all.

Lower in 14 months is not lower overall.

[Frankg]

Originally posted by Ladymoderator at Scam.com
.... Bush does not count soldiers who die en route to hospital or in hospital in Germany as deaths.

Right, according to TBRNews.org , interesting I couldn't verify that anywhere else and they also came up with same number of casualties as I posted:
Officially 71 military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq from 1 September to 27 September, 2007 with a total of 4,768 total official casualties to date.

From LadyModerator's link:
Note: There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded, this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,400+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the souces

That was January 2005 and we're still waiting on those manifests

Looks like thier research isn't "watertight"


Also fromTBRNews.org it has the following statement at the top of thier homepage :
Bush-Blair-Sharon: L’ Axe du Mal

(translation : Axis of Evil)

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Total yearly casualties:

2003 - 486
2004 - 849
2005 - 846
2006 - 822
2007 - 800 so far with Sept totals not in and 3 months left in the year.


NOT going down frankie.

[Linkster]

The problem is, Rumsfeld screwed up the inital invasion strategy - when we were able to send more troops in. Now we're limited, but also have most of the Iraqi Army trained.

One third of that Iraqi Army we had trained quit and took their weapons with them - and have now become the insurgents

We are not limited whatsoever
We right now have over 1.4 million active duty and 1.2 million active reserve - granted some are navy pilots etc - we just dont have the "political will" to commit the number of troops needed - unfortunately we have a bunch of spineless politicians sitting in Washington - and this includes the new Sec of Defense - and the president - that will just let the "low number - as they keep reporting" of soldiers getting killed go on and on - and not let the generals on the ground make the decisions with their units to go do whats needed. This is exactly the same thing that happened during vietnam except that finally someone tried to get some spine and made up a little story to get the American population to support sending a bunch more soldiers. It didnt work out too well because we were up against a much better trained enemy with 2-3 times the troops and an endless supply of arms being shuttled to them. What makes Iraq different is that we dont have that to fight.

[Smurf-Herder]

One third of that Iraqi Army we had trained quit and took their weapons with them - and have now become the insurgents

We are not limited whatsoever
We right now have over 1.4 million active duty and 1.2 million active reserve - granted some are navy pilots etc - we just dont have the "political will" to commit the number of troops needed - unfortunately we have a bunch of spineless politicians sitting in Washington - and this includes the new Sec of Defense - and the president - that will just let the "low number - as they keep reporting" of soldiers getting killed go on and on - and not let the generals on the ground make the decisions with their units to go do whats needed. This is exactly the same thing that happened during vietnam except that finally someone tried to get some spine and made up a little story to get the American population to support sending a bunch more soldiers. It didnt work out too well because we were up against a much better trained enemy with 2-3 times the troops and an endless supply of arms being shuttled to them. What makes Iraq different is that we dont have that to fight.

We have around 500,000 in the active Army. Around 20% are actual combat troops. And you still have to keep some out for contingencies in other regions and for rotation.

And the Iraqi army is not how you charcterize it. You're generalizing the situation. A lot more are trained and presently fighting; and many areas are now under Iraqi control. Also, see my thread on 30,000 Iraqi volunteers in just the last six months. Iraqi troops are fighting and they're being killed at twice the rate of US troops.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Also, see my thread on 30,000 Iraqi volunteers in just the last six months. Iraqi troops are fighting and they're being killed at twice the rate of US troops.

Isn't that because the Iraqi troops barely get their feet wet and they are attacked and/or desert?

It seems to me it would be rather difficult to train an army in the middle of a war zone. :(

[Linkster]

Between the Army and Marines we have about 570,00 active duty soldiers - that could fight - this doesnt count the 80,000 officers as I dont count on them doing any real fighting

This doesnt count the 1.2 million active reserves - and of course we are using national guard over there as well - I know we pulled at least 20,000 out of Korea to fight in Iraq - so somewhere along the line we are missing out on over 1.5 million people that could be fighting but arent

Of course Ive always been for the draft - as that would finally get the numbers back to pre-Bush 1 levels after he lost a third of our military after the first Gulf war and didnt up the financing for replenishing them

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Between the Army and Marines we have about 570,00 active duty soldiers - that could fight - this doesnt count the 80,000 officers as I dont count on them doing any real fighting

This doesnt count the 1.2 million active reserves - and of course we are using national guard over there as well - I know we pulled at least 20,000 out of Korea to fight in Iraq - so somewhere along the line we are missing out on over 1.5 million people that could be fighting but arent

Where are they?

Of course Ive always been for the draft - as that would finally get the numbers back to pre-Bush 1 levels after he lost a third of our military after the first Gulf war and didnt up the financing for replenishing them

I could live with a draft IF they draft the rich kids too. I think if we have to sacrifice our children to fight these wars then the Rich should be willing to make the same sacrifice the rest of the people make. That means their kids and no buying anyone off or using their influence to keep them in the guard instead of fighting in the war.

:D

[Smurf-Herder]

Between the Army and Marines we have about 570,00 active duty soldiers - that could fight - this doesnt count the 80,000 officers as I dont count on them doing any real fighting

This doesnt count the 1.2 million active reserves - and of course we are using national guard over there as well - I know we pulled at least 20,000 out of Korea to fight in Iraq - so somewhere along the line we are missing out on over 1.5 million people that could be fighting but arent

Of course Ive always been for the draft - as that would finally get the numbers back to pre-Bush 1 levels after he lost a third of our military after the first Gulf war and didnt up the financing for replenishing them


All soldiers are not combat troops. Less than half the troops presently in Iraq are combat troops.

And you're forgetting something. They all need armored vehicles - with the new improved armor. How much time do you think it will take to deliver three times the vehicles that are already behind schedule. Not to mention half the country wants to pull out. It's not feasible at this point.

[Smurf-Herder]

Isn't that because the Iraqi troops barely get their feet wet and they are attacked and/or desert?

It seems to me it would be rather difficult to train an army in the middle of a war zone. :(

No.

And it is difficult to train in a combat zone; but we're doing it. And part of the training is Iraqis being rotated through combat deployments to gain experience. The problem is it takes a lot more time to train high-level officers. Every time an Iraqi officer gets killed, it takes a while to replace him. But the Iraqis are doing a hell of a lot better than they were. Being in total control in some areas.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

And you're forgetting something. They all need armored vehicles - with the new improved armor. How much time do you think it will take to deliver three times the vehicles that are already behind schedule. Not to mention half the country wants to pull out. It's not feasible at this point.

It never bothered them to send them in without armor personal or otherwise in the past and they are still behind (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/opinion/14thu1.html). A lot of soldiers have to buy their own or orginizations solicit donations to buy for them.

http://www.bakesalesforbodyarmor.org

http://www.armor4troops.org

http://www.cafepress.com/2571

If they want to start a draft they will. And you can bet, they aren't going to allow a lack of armored vehicles or for soldiers stop them from doing so.


Lady Mod

[LadyMod at scam.com]

No.

And it is difficult to train in a combat zone; but we're doing it. And part of the training is Iraqis being rotated through combat deployments to gain experience. The problem is it takes a lot more time to train high-level officers. Every time an Iraqi officer gets killed, it takes a while to replace him. But the Iraqis are doing a hell of a lot better than they were. Being in total control in some areas.

I saw a video, I think on youtube, aren't they building some kind of, gosh what's it called? Like a barracks or training camp?


.

[Linkster]

All soldiers are not combat troops. Less than half the troops presently in Iraq are combat troops.

And you're forgetting something. They all need armored vehicles - with the new improved armor. How much time do you think it will take to deliver three times the vehicles that are already behind schedule. Not to mention half the country wants to pull out. It's not feasible at this point.

This is something Ive never been able to understand - we have a stockpile of helicopters that is greater than any other in the world - why are we driving vehicles around getting blown up when it seems to me with helicopters - at least in vietnam it was - a hell of a lot safer

As far as the percentages in Iraq of combat troops - I understand that - and that half are support personnel - so we have lets say 150,000 total right now on the ground - of that 75,000 are support - leaves 75,000 combat troops. Now I know out of that 2.5 million total we have sitting in the US we could come up with another 450,000 ground and air support (helicopter) troops

[radioguy]

There is a simple conclusion to render here based on the casualty figures and despite the attempt by the racist moderator from scam, to turn it into something it isn't.

Since the troop surge went into full effect, the number of US soldiers being killed in Iraq is on a steady decline.

When you combine that with the fact that the number of enemy insurgence being killed and captured has risen dramatically and the number of violent attacks has fallen, the only conclusion anyone can draw, is that the surge is working!

Hurray for the United States!!!!

[LadyMod at scam.com]

There is a simple conclusion to render here based on the casualty figures and despite the attempt by the racist moderator from scam, to turn it into something it isn't.

YOU were told to drop it. Now do so.

Or don't blame me for the consequences.


Lady Mod

[Smurf-Herder]

I saw a video, I think on youtube, aren't they building some kind of, gosh what's it called? Like a barracks or training camp?


.

You're not serious with that statement, are you?

The Iraqi Army has 95 functioning battalions in the lead, they have complete military bases; and they have control of over a third of the provinces in the country.

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/iraq-update/Handovers/index.html


"Coalition Forces Continue to Transfer Responsibility for Security in Provinces to Iraqis.
On June 1, 2007, responsibility for maintaining the security of Erbil, Dahuk and Sulaymaniyah Provinces in northern Iraq was officially transferred to the Kurdistan Regional Government. It is the seventh of eighteen Iraqi provinces where security control is now principally in the hands of Iraqis, with Coalition forces standing ready to provide assistance if needed. Iraqi authorities first assumed responsibility for provincial security in in Al Muthanna Province on July 14, 2006. The most recent transfer occurred in Maysan Province on April 18th. Several other provinces are close to meeting the criteria necessary for security independence.

Iraqi Forces are Increasingly in the Lead.
In June 2004, no Iraqi Army units were in the lead, capable of coordinating, planning, and executing security operations independent of Coalition forces in their own areas of responsibility. By September 2005, 11 Iraqi battalions participated in Operation Restoring Rights in Tal Afar, controlling their own battlespace, and outnumbering Coalition forces for the first time in a major offensive operation. As of June 2007, 95 Iraqi Army battalions were in the lead in more than half of Iraq’s territory, with Coalition forces providing assistance in certain key roles such as logistical support. As shown in the included maps, the growth of the Iraqi Army in 2006-2007 has been significant.

Iraqi Forces Continue to Grow in Number.
In September 2004, there were only 96,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces. By November 2005, there were more than 212,000. As of May 30th, there were nearly 350,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces."

[Smurf-Herder]

There is a simple conclusion to render here based on the casualty figures and despite the attempt by the racist moderator from scam, to turn it into something it isn't.

Since the troop surge went into full effect, the number of US soldiers being killed in Iraq is on a steady decline.

When you combine that with the fact that the number of enemy insurgence being killed and captured has risen dramatically and the number of violent attacks has fallen, the only conclusion anyone can draw, is that the surge is working!

Hurray for the United States!!!!

My kid was in the third surge brigade. He got in country in March. He almost got blown up his first week. But he says there's been a major change since then. He has Iraqi friends in the Iraqi detachment that works with them. And seriously, he says things have changed 180 degrees since he got there.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

You're not serious with that statement, are you?

The Iraqi Army has 95 functioning battalions in the lead, they have complete military bases; and they have control of over a third of the provinces in the country.

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/iraq-update/Handovers/index.html


"Coalition Forces Continue to Transfer Responsibility for Security in Provinces to Iraqis.
On June 1, 2007, responsibility for maintaining the security of Erbil, Dahuk and Sulaymaniyah Provinces in northern Iraq was officially transferred to the Kurdistan Regional Government. It is the seventh of eighteen Iraqi provinces where security control is now principally in the hands of Iraqis, with Coalition forces standing ready to provide assistance if needed. Iraqi authorities first assumed responsibility for provincial security in in Al Muthanna Province on July 14, 2006. The most recent transfer occurred in Maysan Province on April 18th. Several other provinces are close to meeting the criteria necessary for security independence.

Iraqi Forces are Increasingly in the Lead.
In June 2004, no Iraqi Army units were in the lead, capable of coordinating, planning, and executing security operations independent of Coalition forces in their own areas of responsibility. By September 2005, 11 Iraqi battalions participated in Operation Restoring Rights in Tal Afar, controlling their own battlespace, and outnumbering Coalition forces for the first time in a major offensive operation. As of June 2007, 95 Iraqi Army battalions were in the lead in more than half of Iraq’s territory, with Coalition forces providing assistance in certain key roles such as logistical support. As shown in the included maps, the growth of the Iraqi Army in 2006-2007 has been significant.

Iraqi Forces Continue to Grow in Number.
In September 2004, there were only 96,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces. By November 2005, there were more than 212,000. As of May 30th, there were nearly 350,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces."


Ya, I'm serious. It was a news recording. I don't know what channel it had aired on.

Here this one is close but it doesn't mention the soldiers buiding a training came or compound: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hN23vyhxlvI


Maybe I saw it on regular television? I don't know. I watch so little television that I thought I must have seen it on the the net.

If I find it I'll send you the link.

Lady Mod

[Smurf-Herder]

Ya, I'm serious. It was a news recording. I don't know what channel it had aired on.

Here this one is close but it doesn't mention the soldiers buiding a training came or compound: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hN23vyhxlvI


Maybe I saw it on regular television? I don't know. I watch so little television that I thought I must have seen it on the the net.

If I find it I'll send you the link.

Lady Mod

I'm sure they're constantly building new camps as the army grows. Your apparent point is meaningless.

As if they were building a single camp to train, when they already have over 200,000 troops trained means anything.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I'm sure they're constantly building new camps as the army grows. Your apparent point is meaningless.

As if they were building a single camp to train, when they already have over 200,000 troops trained means anything.

I wasn't trying to "make a point". Not everything one says needs to "make a point".

I was asking your clarification on the topic of the Iraqi based on the thread you mentioned that you started. I presume that
you are capable of participating in more than one train of thought at a time right? Or is that not something you can do?



Lady Mod

[Smurf-Herder]

I wasn't trying to "make a point". Not everything one says needs to "make a point".

I was asking your clarification on the topic of the Iraqi based on the thread you mentioned that you started. I presume that
you are capable of participating in more than one train of thought at a time right? Or is that not something you can do?



Lady Mod

What exactly did you want clarified?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

What exactly did you want clarified?


In the series of questions, statements and answers we have had since the response below, you have already clarified what I was wondering about and satisfied my curiosity. Thanks.

No.

And it is difficult to train in a combat zone; but we're doing it. And part of the training is Iraqis being rotated through combat deployments to gain experience. The problem is it takes a lot more time to train high-level officers. Every time an Iraqi officer gets killed, it takes a while to replace him. But the Iraqis are doing a hell of a lot better than they were. Being in total control in some areas.