| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US casualties down in Iraq |
| 2006-03-21 |
| U.S. military deaths during the past month have dropped to an average of about one a day, approaching the lowest level since the insurgency began two years ago, according to a USA TODAY analysis of U.S. military data. The decline in U.S. deaths comes as Iraqi casualties are the highest since the U.S. military began tracking them in 2004. In the past month, nearly five times as many Iraqi forces and civilians were killed as troops in the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, U.S. military data show. The shift from spring 2004, when U.S. and Iraqi casualty rates were comparable, reflects an insurgency that increasingly targets Iraqis and the growing presence of Iraqi forces on the front lines. “The Iraqi army is far bigger in number, far higher in training capability and far more willing to go where the fight is and take casualties,” British Defense Secretary John Reid said in an interview. On the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion, however, a wave of violence against Iraqis is prompting talk of civil war. In an interview Sunday with the British Broadcasting Corp., former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi said, “We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.” Vice President Cheney disagreed. Speaking on CBS' Face the Nation, Cheney said, “What we've seen is a serious effort by (insurgents) to foment a civil war. But I don't think they've been successful.” According to U.S. military data, about 15 Americans and 73 Iraqis are killed or injured each day. A USA TODAY analysis of U.S. military data shows the number of U.S. forces killed during the war has declined steadily since November. RAND Corp. military analyst Nora Bensahel says the increasing level of Iraqi casualties “means Iraqi security forces are in positions of responsibility.” The United States, which has 132,000 troops in Iraq, is “doing fewer patrols on its own and more in support of Iraqi operations,” reducing U.S. casualties. The U.S. military also has cut the number of American deaths by thwarting the homemade bombs that are the insurgency's prime weapon. Soldiers and Marines now find and neutralize more than 40% of the bombs, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said in an interview. That compares with 30% in September. Lynch said that 41 insurgent bombmakers have been killed or captured. Insurgents “are losing skilled bombmakers,” he said. Meanwhile, Iraq's 240,600 security forces increasingly are fighting insurgents directly, the Pentagon says. Sixty-three Iraqi units are operating independently or in a lead role with coalition support, up from 37 in September. Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari says military recruiting remains strong, despite the rising casualties. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #5 There's no one in the military that's "unaware" of the cost. AFN would make a point of bringing the deaths to our attention when someone in the military was killed in training. Non-military accidents were another thing, and the smaller number of deaths by "natural causes" was almost ignored. Units, though, kept these people alive and in the memories of those assigned to them. The 1st TAC lost an aircraft (RF-4C) and both crewmembers in 1987 during an air show. Two friends of mine suffered minor injuries aiding others during the Ramstein air sho plane crash in 1988. Just sitting here thinking, I can recall at least 11 deaths from military duty and another 24 or 25 to accidents in units I was assigned to. That doesn't include the nine that died in a C-46 plane crash in Panama in 1967 - a plane I was supposed to be on until the last minute. War is a serious business. Training for it has to be as realistic as possible. That's sometimes fatal for the trainees, either from equipment failure, or a momentary distraction, or your or someone else's mistake. Half the deaths in Iraq have been from accidents, not bullets. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-03-21 17:37 |
| #4 I don't mean to downplay Sheps numbers, but that's the fixed cost of having an armed force. The recent unhappy 2,300 is the variable cost. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-03-21 10:38 |
| #3 Shep, if the people have been properly prepared, the MSM will be ignored. It will take something like that for the LLL to lose their control of the MSM and their confidence in themselves. The people are a lot more savvy than the MSM leads us to believe. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-21 09:29 |
| #2 outstanding piece of info there Javirt - really puts it into perspective. What really worries me is if, no rephrase that when the big one starts with Iran and we face potentially losing thousands in a few months or even hate to say it a day if chem weapons are involved, how are we going to cope with a media which will inevitably cry 'defeat' even if we struck back ten times as hard and had the initiative and control of the Iranian battle space the media would paint it as utter defeat and with that power behind them i fear certainly in the UK the anti war nuts would put up such a barrage of lies and distorted facts that public opinion really would drop to disaterous levels. sad but i think it could happen |
| Posted by: ShepUK 2006-03-21 08:47 |
| #1 Between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one. That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011443.php#011443 |
| Posted by: Javirt Whaiter9406 2006-03-21 08:27 |