Death surge: Iraq Coalition Forces Completing their deadliest Quarter:
Guest Editorial
William Blanchard writes:
In early April, 2006, the New York Times ran a front page article in the Sunday paper trumpeting declining casualty rates among the coalition troops in Iraq. March, 2006 had been an unusually quiet month, and the Times published a chart showing 6 consecutive months of declining fatalities. However, it was clear that the so-called trend was bogus. If the chart had shown 7 or more months, the trend would have all but vanished. As it turned out, April was one of the deadliest months of 2006, and the supposed decline was no longer mentioned. Now there is a much clearer trend, heading in the opposite direction. I suspect that lots of people had the same two reactions I had when the President Bush officially announced “the new way forward” (a.k.a. “the surge”) in January. My first reaction was, “it’s too little, too late”; and my second reaction was, “it's going to get a lot more of our soldiers killed.” Even pro-war analysts seemed to admit right out of the gates that the surge’s success was anything but assured. John McCain said if it had been up to him, there would have been more troops in the surge. Sidney Blumenthal reported in February on a group of policy planners meeting at the Pentagon, all of whom believed the surge was destined to fail. At his confirmation hearings, General Petraeus spoke of ominous emails from his friends and colleagues which said, “Congratulations - - I think”. President Bush himself said, while announcing his new strategy, ”The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve.” Now we can start to see the sacrifices to which the President referred. We are about to complete the deadliest quarter of the Iraq war so far for the coalition troops in Iraq. We have reached 349 coalition fatalities for the past three calendar months, and with a more than a day left in June, the number is bound to go higher (It may be higher by the time you read this). The previous deadliest 3-month period was 11/04-1/05, during which there were 344 coalition fatalities. For the first time, coalition fatalities have been over 100 for three months in a row. We’ve never had two months in a row before with more than 100 fatalities. This will also be the deadliest 4-month period, with 431 coalition fatalities so far vs. 414 during 2/07-5/07 and 412 during 10/04-1/05. It will be the deadliest 5-month period, with 515 dead vs. 500 during 1/07-5/07 and 499 during 9/04-1/05. It will be the 2nd deadliest 6-month period, with 601 dead vs. 615 during 12/06-5/07 vs. 559 during 9/04-2/05. I didn't calculate 7 through 11 months, but it's worth noting that we are about to finish the deadliest 12-month period (calendar months) of the entire war, with 981 coalition fatalities so far. The previous deadliest 12-month period ended last month with 946 fatalities and before that it was 1/04-1/05 with 906 casualties. It will also be the deadliest 3-month period for US troops (vs all coalitition troops) with 324 US soldiers killed since 4/1/07 vs. 316 for 11/04-1/05. And the deadliest 12-month period for US troops (vs all coalitition troops) with 928 US troops killed since 7/1/06 vs 899 for the period ending last month and 837 for the 12-month period through 1/05. One explanation for the rise in troop deaths is simple math. With more troops in harm’s way, there are bound to be more fatalities. However, it’s not clear that we’ve actually had much of a surge at all. According to globalsecurity.org, we are currently at 162,000 troops “in country”, up from 132,000 in January, but just 2 months earlier, in November, 2006 we were at 152,000. And in December, 2005, we were at 160,000. There are other possible explanations. It could be that the new counterinsurgency tactics under General Petraeus leave the troops more vulnerable to attack. It could be that the attacks are just more numerous or more deadly than they have been in the past. Whatever the reason, it is certain that we will have to suffer many more months or years of the slow-motion train wreck which is President Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq. |
- William Blanchard
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/29/2007 12:23:00 AM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
Sad, yet telling commentary--the omission of Iraqi deaths. Only the tools of our oppression are worthy of mourning/counting as if they were some endangered species, while genocide is the result of why they were killed to begin with.
That's the tough nut isn't it: Our soldiers are dying in the comission of the most hideous crime a people can visit upon another, one you can go to prison for in some European countries for denying--a Holocaust of millions dead, millions wounded/sickened, millions displaced, millions mentally scarred for the rest of their lives. That is what we, the citizens of the United States through our government and military have done to a totally innocent people.
July 4 is a symbol of freedom triumphing over tyranny. What continues to happen in Iraq at our hand is Tyranny of the first order. If we are to revolt against Tyranny today, what would we target to set ourselves free?
Mr. Blanchard / Professor Cole - do you want Iraqi Oil fueling your vehicles / heating your homes ? if yes, then do not quibble about the escalating KIA / WIA totals. ( by the way, the WIA totals have SKYROCKETED as have the KIA totals. )
thank you,
Richard B. " Shooter " Cheney
The focus on body counts on both sides, while neglecting civilian casualties, the destruction of Iraq's social fabric, the wounded in action and the horrible nature of their wounds is yet another piece of baggage from the Vietnam era. Absent the draft, however, the KIA numbers become little more than flawed indicators of "progress" or lack of progress, signifying nothing, even to the troops fighting in Iraq. (It's worth spending some time with the videos posted on YouTube by American soldiers and Marines to get a feel for who they are.) Politically, there are two anti-war fronts now. The first cares about the soldiers, Marines and Iraqis who are being killed and maimed as people. The second front cares about the volunteer armed forces as an effective fighting force, and about the social cost of the maimed and wounded soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq every day. To them, Mr. Bush is at best stupid. At worst, he is like an arsonist mayor who sets a fire, then throws firefighter after firefighter into the blaze. Heroes are in short supply. Why are we wasting ours in Iraq?
This answers some of the questions mentioned in this note:
Graph of Coalition fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan through May, 2007, with six-month moving average:
http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/pdf/iraq_fatalities.pdf
The June 2007 numbers (not yet shown) will mark new highs for the 3 month (and longer) moving averages.
Important note: as Prof Cole has said in the past, Coalition (and Iraq civilian) deaths do not measure success or failure of the Coalition project. These just measure a cost, one more important than the dollars spent.
It's possible this is the cost of letting professional soldiers conduct the conflict.
With the incompetence demonstrated by this Administration, I can see the military taking the reins of military plan-making away from our Duce, and is being more agressive to acheive its aim. Per William Glad's definitions above, the military's aim is now with the second front.
The reality is that before we try to leave, we have to improve our position. I expect that the Surge is Bush-spin on the US Army's plan for trying to extricate itself before an Iraqi Dien Bien Phu happens to us in the Green Zone, and a Dien Bien Phu is where Bush was resolutely staying the course towards.
The terrible irony is that many more soldiers will have to die before we can disengage.
Post a Comment
<< Home