« ...so, naturally, the solution is to take away everybody's guns | Main | More On The Bush/Abramoff Pictures »

Insurgent Attacks Less Effective

Hmm...

USA Today - The number of attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and civilians increased 29% last year, and insurgents are increasingly targeting Iraqis, the U.S. military says.

Insurgents launched 34,131 attacks last year, up from 26,496 the year before, according to U.S. military figures released Sunday.

From later in the article:

U.S. forces have become more effective at protecting against attacks. In 2004, 714 U.S. troops were killed in action and 673 last year, despite the increase in attacks. The number of wounded dropped 26%, from 7,990 to 5,939 during the same period.

The U.S. military attributes that to an increase in effectiveness in protecting its forces against roadside bombs and other attacks. Maj. Gen. William Webster said recently that 10% of the attacks against U.S. forces cause casualties, down from about 25%-30% a year ago.

Sounds to me like our guys are winning and the terrorists are losing. But don't tell that to USA Today, who ran the article under this headline:

Attacks in Iraq jumped in 2005

Well, yeah attacks jumped...but they were less effective. Too bad readers had to scroll down eight paragraphs before they got that part.

You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Insurgent Attacks Less Effective:

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

» In Search Of Utopia linked with Define Winning?

» Right Thoughts...not right wing, just right. linked with YOU'RE LOSING! (except

Comments (13)

Sounds to me like our gu... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Sounds to me like our guys are winning and the terrorists are losing.

winning is reducing attacks and reducing casualties. it's hard to judge exactly what this means, maybe US troops are taking less risks, not traveling to unknown terrain as much. conducting more airstrikes instead of patrols. less casualties but more attacks is definitely not clear-cut "winning".

oh, and by this reasoning, ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

oh, and by this reasoning, withdrawal is victory. limitless attacks, no American casualties.

it's hard to judge exact... (Below threshold)

it's hard to judge exactly what this means, maybe US troops are taking less risks, not traveling to unknown terrain as much. conducting more airstrikes instead of patrols.

Good question there. Sop instead of just asking it, why not GO FIND OUT THE ANSWER.

I lose patience with lazy-ass naysayers.

Well, yeah attacks jumpe... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, yeah attacks jumped...but they were less effective. Too bad readers had to scroll down eight paragraphs before they got that part.

You mean people have to read more than just the headline to get the full story? Horrors!

...it's hard to judge ex... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

...it's hard to judge exactly what this means...

And your lack of understanding is supposed to lend creedence to your conclusions?

Attacks less effective? Ac... (Below threshold)
Harv:

Attacks less effective? Actually, what I get from both excerpts is that while less Americans are being killed, more Iraqi civilians are being targeted and killed. The first excerpt mentions civilians, the 2nd doesn't.

So actually, the headline is accurate. But it's only Iraqi civilians, right Wizbang?

I gotta agree with Harv...o... (Below threshold)

I gotta agree with Harv...our troops have hardened themselves so the terrorists have started blowing up Iraqi civilians, hard to really count that as a 'win'. When we start killing more of them than they kill of 'us' (that includes Iraqis), then we can breathe a sigh of relief.

'We dont do (iraq ci... (Below threshold)
datsun:


'We dont do (iraq civilian)body counts'

sleep well christians

For you folks that like to ... (Below threshold)
epador:

For you folks that like to look things up:

How many Iraqi's died per year under actions of the Saddam Hussein regime. Please include war dead, civilian massacres, assasssinations and police actions.

I have to agree that an inc... (Below threshold)
CharlieDontSurf:

I have to agree that an increasing number of attacks, regardless of their effectivness, hardly suggests that we are getting control of this situation.

What a pathetic way to judg... (Below threshold)
Gus:

What a pathetic way to judge victory, whats happening is that American troops are not venturing out as much so the Iraqis are getting the Brunt of it, just like in the south when the Shia insurgents started using advanced IED's the Brits stopped the patrols and used helicopters instead for moving around. Hardly a victory now is it.

Got cites Gus, or are you j... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Got cites Gus, or are you just talking out of your seat?
I always luagh when folks try to take something complex, and find a very simple cause/effect relationship.
A number of factors are involved here, including but not limited to:
Iraqi support of insurgents and foreign fighters
Coalition troops exposing themselves to attack
Coalition troops adapting their tactics and strategy
Materials available to insurgents and terrorists
terrorist and insurgents attacking softer targets

All of these (and many others) factor into the numbers we are seeing.

SCSIwuzzy, ... (Below threshold)
Gus:

SCSIwuzzy,
So where did your complex research come from then..how do you know about the support for the insurgents and about the material available to them,,,and your point about the troops adapting tactics and strategy and not exposing themselfs to attacks is same as what I said which is the troops are not venturing out, and again links with insurgents attacking soft targets because the hard targets have made themselfs harder to hit by staying at their camp..

I just tried to make the point in simple FOX news style chunks to make it easier to understand for some of fools on here.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy