« Did They Think This Headline Through? | Main | Woman Locked Up and "Lost" for 70 Years »

More Bad News For Democrats

Less dead bodies on which to stand on during stump speeches.

US military deaths in Iraq lowest in 14 months

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.

Actually the numbers are better than even this indicates... These are raw numbers not adjusted to consider force strength. Remember we've increased the number of troops by 30,000 in the last few months but even the raw numbers are down. If you consider about 30% of the deaths in Iraq are non-combat deaths (auto accidents for example) this is even better news.

Looking at every trend, Iraq was going in the wrong direction thru 2006 and early 2007. The (mis-named) surge has turned that on a dime. It's been said that a counterinsurgency war is won by the side that learns faster. As long as we keep learning faster, we'll keep producing results.

We have a long way to go before Iraq is both a free and stable Democracy but it is clear to everyone except the partisan hacks that the surge is producing results.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (23)

But that can't be. Both Mo... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

But that can't be. Both Moron.org and Hillary stated that things are getting worse. "General Betray us" is lieing.

(All moonbats immediately stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the mantra . . . The surge has failed . . . The surge has failed . . . The war is lost . . . The surge has failed!)

Walter Shapiro had an amazi... (Below threshold)

Walter Shapiro had an amazing article in the Nation not long ago detailing how and why the Anti-War Surge failed in Washington. He didn't even mention success on the ground in Iraq. That is hands clapped so firmly to the side of the head that you can't even see.

Proud Kaffir -You ... (Below threshold)

Proud Kaffir -

You forgot the refrain!

Hey hey hey,

This was a question on my L... (Below threshold)

This was a question on my LSAT yesterday:

Sex : Intercourse

Democratic Election Prospects (2008) : Notre Dame Football (2007-8)

neither you nor I will live... (Below threshold)

neither you nor I will live to see Iraq as "a free and stable Democracy"... for all the good that our troops are doing in killing terrorists, God has not yet invented a way that we can get the Iraqis to agree to live in peace and share power with one another, they simply don't want what Bush and the koolaid drinkers are selling.

stevesturm, the authentic I... (Below threshold)

stevesturm, the authentic Iraqi.

Steve. Given your way of th... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

Steve. Given your way of thinking, we might as well not even try. Obviously, excuse me.. OBVIOUSLY, we are winning this war, and things are going the right way. Once again i say OBVIOUSLY.

Iraq has voted for their representatives and have voted on a constitution. They are on a long road to a new national identity. Germany and Japan had to rebuild after WW2. Germany and Japan were in much worse shape than Iraq was when George Bush declared the official ground war ended.

Iraq is on a faster path to recovery because we didn't devastate the region much like we did in WW2 to Germany and Japan. We also have outside forces trying to foster a civil war (where is that civil war by the way??) which is much different than what happened in Germany and Japan.

The partisan hacks that were mentioned by Paul in the original article need a little sense of perspective other than their own colons that seem to be wrapped around their heads.

Do us all a favor lib-tards, go get help from a proctologist. Maybe they can remove that growth in your ass that you commonly refer to as your head.

I am not sure why you won't... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

I am not sure why you won't live to see a democratic Iraq, Steve, because I believe I will, and I am in my fifties. Give it another ten years.

The only thing I can conclude is that this is a veiled suicide threat by you -- you won't live to see it because you will kill yourself first. If so, please reconsider. Liberalism isn't worth it, if denying reality leads to suicide.

Get help. It's not far.

It's even more impressive w... (Below threshold)

It's even more impressive when we consider that numbers are going down not only as troops deployed have increased by 25%, but that we are also employing a new and aggressive strategy, the risk of which is exposing more of our troops to attack.

And yet, the numbers fall.

Naturally, all patriotic Americans should be delighted in these reports.

Mark, great, another 10+ ye... (Below threshold)

Mark, great, another 10+ years of having American soldiers die in the hopes that you'll get to see democracy in Iraq before you die.

Dave, you're right, we shouldn't have even bothered. We should have gone in, gotten rid of Hussein and whatever WMDs there were and then gotten out and left Iraq to the Iraqis to sort out. Tell me, where you as in favor of nation building when Clinton was in office, or is this a recent (i.e., when Bush is in office) infatuation of yours.

And you ought to think twice before you automatically call anyone who disagrees with you a liberal. I know it's easy and doesn't require you to actually do any work, but there are plenty of conservatives who just don't think the loss of American lives and the money being spent in Iraq does a whole lot to improve our national security.

Jim: yeah, I'm glad the number of American deaths is going down. But that, as even Petraeus admits but your fellow commenters are not, killing lots of terrorists and driving the others to cut back on their activities doesn't by itself get Iraq any closer to getting their act together. Where's the evidence that the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis are burying the hatchet?

And Dave, lib-tards? How many nights did you stay awake trying to come up with that riposte?

Steve, we are still occupyi... (Below threshold)

Steve, we are still occupying Europe. I have no problem keeping military forces in Iraq for 10 or 20 years when we still have forces in Europe for over 50 years and in S Korea for almost 50 years.

Evidence, steve? Iraqi dea... (Below threshold)

Evidence, steve? Iraqi deaths from violence in September were half that of August. There is a fatwah against violence. But keep looking backwards, someone is gaining on you.

Kim: it's not the greatest ... (Below threshold)

Kim: it's not the greatest analogy, but you're doing the equivalent of praising a team for gaining lots of yards even though they're not scoring points nor winning the game. You're (intentionally?) mixing up the process with the desired end result.

Just as in sports, where scoring points doesn't mean much if you don't win the game, YES, American military deaths are down, YES, Iraqi civilian deaths are down, and YES, our guys have killed lots of terrorists, although that is hard to tell due to their refusal to release body counts. Petraeus is accomplishing what he set out to do. But, and this is the point you seem to (again, intentionally?) miss, and surprisingly so, since Petraeus himself (as did Crocker) said as much, this doesn't mean that the Iraqis are doing what they need to do on their end to get their act together. All the surge has done is remove another excuse from the Iraqis as to why they haven't moved further and faster... and to allow you all to move the goalposts closer in order to claim that this proves Bush was right.

What you won't admit is it was stupid for Bush to think that (1) he could bring a peaceful democracy to Iraq, and (2) this would inspire people round the world to give up terrorism and leave in peace and harmony. Nice goal, but one beyond our grasp to pull off. And your refusal to call him on that has led to American lives being wasted (yes, wasted) in Iraq and effort being spent there that could have and should have been spent elsewhere to improve American security.

And Robert, are our troops in Europe and South Korea facing IEDs and sniper attacks on a daily basis? Since they're not, why compare the two?

US and Iraqi deaths dramati... (Below threshold)

US and Iraqi deaths dramatically down in September compared to August. Try to keep up.

Kim: it doesn't matter if d... (Below threshold)

Kim: it doesn't matter if deaths go to ZERO, that by itself doesn't get us any further to victory (as George Bush, to whom you have obviously gone into the tank for on this one) has defined it. Do you really not get this? Are you so fixed on never admitting we're wasting our time and our military lives in Iraq that you're just going to repeat the same tired talking points over and over again?

Look at what happened in Basra for an advance peek of what is going to happen elsewhere. In-fighting was negligible, Al Qaeda wasn't much a threat in that area, and as soon as the Brits took off everything went to h*** in a handbasket. the same is going to happen elsewhere. Petraeus can reduce the violence, he can scare Al Qaeda and the intramural terrorists into hiding out... and as soon as we leave, which we eventually will do, the country goes right back to killing one another, as they have done for thousands of years. And no amount of clicking your heels while you chant Bush's talking points is going to change that.... no matter how superior it makes you feel.

steve says it doesn't matte... (Below threshold)

steve says it doesn't matter if deaths go to zero.


Oh yeah. GODWIN====... (Below threshold)

Oh yeah. GODWIN

"Less dead bodies on which... (Below threshold)
liberal troll:

"Less dead bodies on which to stand on during stump speeches."
If this is what passes for reasoned political discourse these days, I guess I might as well join in the fun.
Fuck you, asshole.

Because liberals would ~nev... (Below threshold)

Because liberals would ~never~ use dead soldiers in Iraq to win an election.

Nope. Never

"Our goal tonight was to el... (Below threshold)
liberal troll:

"Our goal tonight was to elevate the fallen above the politics and the daily journalism," Koppel said in his closing thought.

"The reading tonight of those 721 names was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war nor was it meant as an endorsement.

"Some of you doubt that. You are convinced that I am opposed to the war. I am not, but that's beside the point. I am opposed to sustaining the illusion that war can be waged by the sacrifice of the few without burdening the rest of us in any way."

My question to you is why do you hate dead American soldiers? How is Koppel reading names even remotely comparable to your pointed insults? I suppose he's part of a vast left wing conspiracy. Maybe those dead soldiers are part of the vast left wing conspiracy and got themselves killed on purpose to make a point. Yeah, that makes sense.

The fact remains. You, sir, are an asshole. And can still fuck right off.

Sure, because after all a l... (Below threshold)

Sure, because after all a liberal standing on dead bodies to win an election would NEVER deny that is what he was doing.

No wonder you're a liberal. Nobody else would be stupid enough to paste that nonsense above and expect it to be believed.

The fact remains. You liberals have been walking on the bodies of dead service men for political gain since Vietnam.

If the truth hurts, change it.

I don't understand. Is Kop... (Below threshold)
liberal troll:

I don't understand. Is Koppel running for office? I'm pretty sure he wasn't in 04. I'm not sure exactly which election he's trying to win. What makes you think he's lying? Is it because he disagrees with you? He doesn't even necessarily disagree with you. You still haven't answered how reading a list of names is the same as using war dead for political gain. I guess I'm just a stupid liberal. But I'm pretty sure that change is a-comin'. You douche.

>I guess I'm just a stupid ... (Below threshold)

>I guess I'm just a stupid liberal.

Pretty much. Was Dan Rather running for office when he did his hit piece on Bush?

I guess you deny he was trying to change the outcome of the election too. (even though he admitted it later)

You're either lying when you say that liberals haven't been standing on the bodies of dead soldiers since Vietnam or you're freaking blind to reality.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


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