• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AP: Civilian deaths drop in Baghdad

ProfJohn

Lifer
The good news is that in the past two months the death toll in Baghdad was only 1500, down from 2871 the two months before that.

The bad news is that deaths outside the capital have picked up. However, if you add up the overall death toll from inside the capital and outside you see that the total number of deaths is down by about 800 or around 20%.

Overall though I think this is a good sign. It does show that we can make a difference in Iraq and that all is not lost yet.
Also the recent spike in al Qeada activitity shows that Iraq is still the center of the war on terror/radical Islam or whatever you want to call it.
link
Iraqi civilian deaths have fallen in Baghdad in the two months since the Feb. 14 start of the U.S.-led offensive, according to an Associated Press tally.

Outside the capital, however, civilian deaths are up as Sunni and Shiite extremists shift their operations to avoid the crackdown.

And the sweeps have taken a heavy toll on U.S. forces: Deaths among American soldiers climbed 21 percent in Baghdad compared with the previous two months.

Since the crackdown began Feb. 14, U.S. military officials have spoken of encouraging signs that security is improving in the capital but have cautioned against drawing any firm conclusions until at least the summer.

Figures compiled by the AP from Iraqi police reports show that 1,586 civilians were killed in Baghdad between the start of the offensive and Thursday.

That represents a sharp drop from the 2,871 civilians who died violently in the capital during the two months that preceded the security crackdown.

Outside the capital, 1,504 civilians were killed between Feb. 14 and Thursday, April 12 compared with 1,009 deaths during the two previous months, the AP figures show.

"We know this increased security presence and cooperation from the people is having an impact in Baghdad," U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell said this week. "It is a good beginning, but it is not nearly enough. The violence across the rest of Iraq remains at unacceptable levels."

U.S. officials have cautioned that numbers alone cannot provide a complete picture of the security situation.

The Baghdad crackdown was designed to provide the Iraqi government with what U.S. officials call a "secure platform" and to buy time for the country's religious and ethnically based political parties to agree on key reforms.

So far there has been little progress on that front.

Sunni and Shiite militants remain a potent force ? regardless of whether they are slaughtering civilians in the capital at the previous rate.

On Thursday, extremists managed to penetrate the most secure part of the capital ? the Green Zone ? and launch a suicide attack in the building where the Iraqi parliament meets.

Earlier in the day, a suicide truck bomber heavily damaged a major bridge across the Tigris River, collapsing part of the span into the muddy waters.

Such spectacular attacks may not produce a large number of civilian casualties. But they undermine public confidence ? which the U.S. military believes is essential for lasting stability.

"It is not going to be possible to see just how well the resulting mix of capabilities will counter the insurgency until the late spring of 2008 at the earliest," wrote former Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman. "The various insurgents and hostile groups may be weakened or suppressed early on, but will do their best to react."

It is unclear why deaths outside Baghdad have increased. However, U.S. military officials say both Sunni and Shiite extremists left Baghdad ahead of the crackdown, instead stepping up their operations in a belt of communities around the capital.

The rise in deaths outside Baghdad may also be partly a result of clashes in Anbar province between al-Qaida extremists and Sunni tribes that have broken with the extremist movement.

For example, at least 52 people were killed Feb. 24 when a suicide truck bomber struck worshippers leaving a Sunni mosque in Anbar after the mosque's preacher spoke out against al-Qaida.

Also, hundreds of Shiites died last month in a spate of bombings and shootings during a religious holiday ? including 120 Shiite pilgrims killed by a pair of suicide bombers in Hillah.

One key finding of the figures: Although civilians deaths are down in the capital, a careful analysis of the figures shows that sectarian tensions remain high.

Of the 1,586 civilians killed in Baghdad since the start of the crackdown, more than half ? or 832 ? appear to have been the victims of sectarian death squads. Their bodies were found scattered around the city. That number represents a significant drop from the 1,754 bodies found in the capital during the two months before the crackdown, according to AP figures. Still, the figure shows that the security crackdown has been unable to stop death squads entirely.

Furthermore, the number of civilians killed by suicide bombers has risen in Baghdad ? 352 during the crackdown compared with 279 in the two months before.

Suicide bombings are considered the signature attack of Sunni religious extremists, including al-Qaida in Iraq. And most of the suicide attacks occurred in largely Shiite areas of the capital, indicating attacks on Shiites by Sunnis.

The AP count includes civilians as well as government officials and police and security forces, and is considered a minimum based on AP reporting. There have been no figures provided by the U.N. or the Iraqi government since the Baghdad crackdown began.
 
While I agree that fewer dead people is always a good thing, I'd suggest that the latest death toll says little about success (or failure, for that matter) in Iraq at this point...a point highlighted by "US officials" in the article. This conflict isn't going to be won by slowly grinding away at the insurgents as the death toll of civilians slowly goes down. The important task is to set up a self-sustaining government that all sides find reasonable, and get it to the point where the main kind of "law enforcement" in Iraq isn't religious death squads. This isn't a matter of killing enough bad guys or anything so simple, it's really about WHERE the effort is being centered and how it's used. Dropping casualties in the capital is a good sign, but making Baghdad safe isn't going to do the job all by itself.

And I'd suggest that this search for a "center" of the war on terrorism is a waste of time. It's not all about one big group, it should be obvious that this conflict is really several different conflicts with a lot of different actors, motivations and solutions. Iraq is a separate problem from Afghanistan which is a separate problem from transnational terrorist groups which is a separate problem from state sponsorship like with Iran which is different from state sponsorship like from Saudi Arabia. It's a big complicated mess, and I wish people would stop trying to distill it into a bumper sticker ideology.
 
All things considered, I'm reminded of a summer I spent in Indiana, working at an outdoor market.



Edit: A few minutes ago from Bagdad. Perhaps the numbers in the op's article can be adjusted.

At least 37 killed and 80 wounded in Karbala bombing. 13 minutes ago, Saturday, April 14, 207.

BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded Saturday in a bus station in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, and at least 37 people were killed or wounded, police said.

State television aired footage from the scene, in which rescue workers could be seen evacuating casualties. The charred body of a child laid motionless on a stretcher.

Hundreds of people swarmed around ambulances, crying out and pounding their chests in grief.

The attack occurred about 200 yards from the Imam Hussein shrine, where the grandson of Islam's Prophet Muhammad is buried ? one of the most important sites for Shiites.

Witnesses said as many as 15 ambulances rushed to the area, and police were firing guns into the air to disperse crowds and clear roads for emergency vehicles.

Karbala lies 50 miles south of Baghdad, and is the destination of an annual Shiite pilgrimage. Hundreds of Shiite faithful were killed traveling back and forth to the city during this year's pilgrimage, which took place last month.

Separately, a suicide car bomb exploded on a major bridge in downtown Baghdad, killing at least 10 people, police said.

At least 15 people were wounded in the attack, which occurred on the Jadriyah bridge over the Tigris river. The extent of damage to the bridge was not immediately clear.

It was the second attack on a major bridge in Baghdad this week.

On Thursday, a suicide truck bomb collapsed the al-Sarafiyah bridge in northern Baghdad, killing 11 people and sending cars plummeting into the waters below.

*These people were not killed in Bagdad, so I suppose the surge will not receive any undo bad publicity.
 
As soon as I clicked this thread, I knew there was gonna be a slant to the picture. Anyone surprised? :shocked:
 
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: techs
Why do you hate our troops?

Who are you directing that question to?

ProfJohn.
Because by his propaganda posting he is prolonging a lost cause and is just resulting in deaths of our armed forces.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The good news is that in the past two months the death toll in Baghdad was only 1500, down from 2871 the two months before that.

The bad news is that deaths outside the capital have picked up. However, if you add up the overall death toll from inside the capital and outside you see that the total number of deaths is down by about 800 or around 20%.

Overall though I think this is a good sign. It does show that we can make a difference in Iraq and that all is not lost yet.
Also the recent spike in al Qeada activitity shows that Iraq is still the center of the war on terror/radical Islam or whatever you want to call it.
Oh I'm quite sure your cheer leading will really make a difference for the Iraqi kids who have to walk by the dead and mutilated bodies scattered in the streets on their way to and from school. Just like our kids in Indiana as they walk to the bus stop. Oh wait...
 
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: techs
Why do you hate our troops?

Who are you directing that question to?

ProfJohn.
Because by his propaganda posting he is prolonging a lost cause and is just resulting in deaths of our armed forces.

Yep, the prof yields that kind of power with his mighty P&N postings. The prof has the blood of U.S. soldiers on his hands.

Do you read the crap you write, or is this sensationalist crap just par for the course?

 
The OP uses some curious math.

If deaths in the largest city go down by 10% and deaths in less densely populated areas go up 30%. People in the city barely notice. People in the neighboring areas say, "my God!"
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh I'm quite sure your cheer leading will really make a difference for the Iraqi kids who have to walk by the dead and mutilated bodies scattered in the streets on their way to and from school. Just like our kids in Indiana as they walk to the bus stop. Oh wait...
Not a good argument to make if you are calling for us to leave.
Because if we leave everyone seems to believe that the death toll would increase, meaning more Iraqi kids will die.
Why do you hate Iraqi kids? 😉
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh I'm quite sure your cheer leading will really make a difference for the Iraqi kids who have to walk by the dead and mutilated bodies scattered in the streets on their way to and from school. Just like our kids in Indiana as they walk to the bus stop. Oh wait...
Not a good argument to make if you are calling for us to leave.
Because if we leave everyone seems to believe that the death toll would increase, meaning more Iraqi kids will die.
Why do you hate Iraqi kids? 😉
Well, (A) We don't know what would happen if we leave, and (B) I'm not calling for a 100% withdrawal. I'd like to see a strategic redeployment with some US troops staying behind to be embedded into Iraqi units. Training of new Iraqi units would continue until they were able to take over security 100%.
 
Tommy, do the math...
According to the AP 3000 people were killed in Iraq in the past 2 months, an average of 50 PER day!!!!

Meaning, sadly, your story is hardly worse than the AVERAGE day in Iraq.
Every few days we are greeted with news of some horrific explosion that kills a few dozen people. However, based on the overall death tolls, it is reasonable to assume that the days in between are relatively calm.

As the story says, a two month span with a 20% decrease in deaths is not a sign of victory. And one spectacular attack is not a sign of defeat.
This is not a short term war where we can defeat their armies, take over the capital, install a new leader and go home.
This is a long term fight against an ideology that has taken 25+ years to get to this point. It may take that long to defeat. (That doesn?t mean we will be in Iraq for 25 years, don?t get all excited and take that out of context.)
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, (A) We don't know what would happen if we leave, and (B) I'm not calling for a 100% withdrawal. I'd like to see a strategic redeployment with some US troops staying behind to be embedded into Iraqi units. Training of new Iraqi units would continue until they were able to take over security 100%.
A) an increase of US troops has lead to less deaths, therefore it is safe to think that a decrease could lead to more deaths, but you are right in that we are not certain this will happen.
B) I am in agreement with you, IF the surge fails or as a long term solution following a surge 'victory' whatever that means.

BTW Hillary's stay in Iraq idea involved around 75,000 soldiers staying in Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: [PrevaricatorJohn
The good news is that in the past two months the death toll in Baghdad was only 1500, down from 2871 the two months before that.

The bad news is that deaths outside the capital have picked up. However, if you add up the overall death toll from inside the capital and outside you see that the total number of deaths is down by about 800 or around 20%.

Overall though I think this is a good sign...
Overall, I don't think you know how to think. The article at your link also notes:
And the sweeps have taken a heavy toll on U.S. forces: Deaths among American soldiers climbed 21 percent in Baghdad compared with the previous two months.
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
It does show that we can make a difference in Iraq and that all is not lost yet.
Yep! That difference is, Bush can still dramatically raise the American death toll, and he's still got more bodies to waste in the middle of someone else's civil war that he unleashed.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The OP uses some curious math.

If deaths in the largest city go down by 10% and deaths in less densely populated areas go up 30%. People in the city barely notice. People in the neighboring areas say, "my God!"
It doesn't matter to the PrevaricatorJohn and his crowd of Bushwhacko sycophants. It's still "good news" to them. When those Iraqis cry out, "My God!" they're speaking to a different god so they don't count as much. They're just a trifling part of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says

BAGHDAD, Oct. 10 ? A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here.

The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report in Iraq. That month was the highest for Iraqi civilian deaths since the American invasion.

But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.

It is the second study by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.
.
.
The mortality rate before the American invasion was about 5.5 people per 1,000 per year, the study found. That rate rose to 19.8 deaths per 1,000 people in the year ending in June.
.
.
The most recent United Nations figure, 3,009 Iraqis killed in violence across the country in August, was compiled by statistics from Baghdad?s central morgue, and from hospitals and morgues countrywide. It assumes a daily rate of about 97.

The figure is not exhaustive. A police official at Yarmouk Hospital in Baghdad who spoke on the condition of anonymity said he had seen nationwide counts provided to the hospital that indicated as many as 200 people a day were dying.
Some Iraqis may disagree about just how "good" PrevaricatorJohn's "good news" is. 🙁

We'll probably reach 3,300 American deaths in Iraq over this weekend. Some Americans may disagree about just how "good" PrevaricatorJohn's "good news" is, as well.
rose.gif
rose.gif
rose.gif
🙁
 
Harvey, I would hope that even you are willing to admit that the 600,000 figure in that study is total crap.

The article itself says that would require 15,000 violent deaths PER MONTH!!!!!!!

How in the hell are the deaths of 15,000 people happening without ANYONE in Iraq noticing?
So far we have two studies claiming 600,000 deaths and both are based on statistical analysis and not backed up any real evidence, such as the number of bodies being found on the streets or in graves etc etc.

Please explain to me how 500 people are being killed PER DAY and yet no one seems to notice.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, I would hope that even you are willing to admit that the 600,000 figure in that study is total crap.

The article itself says that would require 15,000 violent deaths PER MONTH!!!!!!!

How in the hell are the deaths of 15,000 people happening without ANYONE in Iraq noticing?
So far we have two studies claiming 600,000 deaths and both are based on statistical analysis and not backed up any real evidence, such as the number of bodies being found on the streets or in graves etc etc.

Please explain to me how 500 people are being killed PER DAY and yet no one seems to notice.
How many were getting killed daily before George Bush invaded and occupied Iraq?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, I would hope that even you are willing to admit that the 600,000 figure in that study is total crap.

The article itself says that would require 15,000 violent deaths PER MONTH!!!!!!!
What part of the third and fourth paragraphs of the article I quoted didn't you comprehend?
But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.

It is the second study by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.
Does it really matter? If you don't like those figures, do your own homework to post some figures you think are more realistic... unless you already tried, and the dog ate your homework. :roll:
How in the hell are the deaths of 15,000 people happening without ANYONE in Iraq noticing?
Maybe they noticed, but they were too busy ducking for cover and praying they survive.
So far we have two studies claiming 600,000 deaths and both are based on statistical analysis and not backed up any real evidence, such as the number of bodies being found on the streets or in graves etc etc.

Please explain to me how 500 people are being killed PER DAY and yet no one seems to notice.
Other paragraphs from the article at my link, not quoted above:
The findings of the previous study, published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, in 2004, had been criticized as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1,000 families, and because it carried a large margin of error.

The new study is more representative, its researchers said, and the sampling is broader: it surveyed 1,849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq. The selection of geographical areas in 18 regions across Iraq was based on population size, not on the level of violence, they said.
Of course, as usual, you're dissembling and distracting from the point by posting your "happy news" about a drop in civilian deaths in Baghdad while minimizing the rising death toll outside of Baghdad and the dramatic 21% rise in American casualties reported in your own link since the Bushwhackos' "surge" began. :thumbsdown: 🙁 :thumbsdown:
 
Only the Iraqi people themselves now have the power to decide----the so called Silent majority caught between the US troops and the homegrown Iraqi insurgency. And this large and silent group of Iraqi---their ranks now thinned by a debatable amount---are not direct the percipients of violence, but are tasked with the simple task of managing to survive until saner times arrive.

The larger history of the US occupation has been a steady but slow turn from bad the worse as the number of US occupying troops has remained a rough constant. Or to put it the more realistic way---the Iraqi insurgency has grown from near zero to the force it is today. And all during this time, the US coalition forces have enjoyed "central command and control" while the Iraqi insurgency has had little united command and control. And instead operate as quasi independent groups. In terms of the Iraqi insurgency---the somewhat question is a matter of perception rather than anything measured---do we want to regard them as terrorists marching to the AL-Quida drums---or do we want to regard them as simple Iraqi street thugs who have seen the path to power and have seized it. I think its a matter of zero debate that GWB&co. wants to see it as the former and I and others think its more the latter. But until there are some hard numbers and statistics to settle the debate, anyones guess has the equal credibility of near zero. Meanwhile, the democratically elected Iraqi government is up and running. And has been for over a year. And in terms of the democratically elected Iraqi government, I think its a matter of no debate on this forum---they presently have a effectiveness quotient of exactly zero.----and seemingly will for the foreseeable future.

So how do we test the assertion of PrevaricatorJohn's that there is some good news tucked away in all this violence and death??? And that there may be some light at the end of the tunnel to borrow a measure from Vietnam---when the net effect now of the surge seems to be resulting in pushing civilian deaths away from present troop concentrations in Baghdad
to other parts of the countryside.

And I suggest that that measure will be when the so called silent majority of Iraqis start ratting out the insurgent leaders and the Iraqi powers that be begin to the process of jailing them , trying them , and convicting large numbers of insurgent leaders.

Since this is not happening----I think the inevitable conclusion must be that the surge is a present total failure. And that there is zero evidence to conclude its doing anything to even arrest the slow slide of Iraq into a total civil war.
 
Also the recent spike in al Qeada activitity shows that Iraq is still the center of the war on terror/radical Islam or whatever you want to call it.
Interesting you mention that, considering that preemptively attacking Iraq and occupying their lands has directly resulted in an increase in terrorism and al-Qaeda's presence in the country. Not to mention that our failures in Iraq have turned it into a breeding ground for anti-US sentiment and terror.

From 2001 to 2003, we had the terrorists running for their lives in the Afghani mountains; how thoughtful of the US to bail them out by opening a 170,000 square mile training facility for terror in the Middle East.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Also the recent spike in al Qeada activitity shows that Iraq is still the center of the war on terror/radical Islam or whatever you want to call it.
Interesting you mention that, considering that preemptively attacking Iraq and occupying their lands has directly resulted in an increase in terrorism and al-Qaeda's presence in the country. Not to mention that our failures in Iraq have turned it into a breeding ground for anti-US sentiment and terror.

From 2001 to 2003, we had the terrorists running for their lives in the Afghani mountains; how thoughtful of the US to bail them out by opening a 170,000 square mile training facility for terror in the Middle East.


Good catch, jpeyton. Another fine bit of chicanery from the republican apologist.

I'm waiting for him to claim the democrats are responsible for extending the war; its only a matter of time before they wipe his brain and implant the next meme. The only question is will he realize it happened, will there be a moment of confusion, will there be a glint of self-awareness. Here's to hoping.

:beer:
 
Back
Top