Iraq war death toll for December 23, lowest per day average of the entire war

[ProfJohn]

For December the death toll was 23, second lowest of the war.

But the per day average was THE lowest of the entire war at .77 (which includes one UK death)

The Iraqi Security forces and civilian deaths were also at the lowest total since the start of the war.

No doubt there are a lot of factors that play into the drop in deaths, but I don?t think any reasonable person can deny the fact that the surge has been insanely successful.

The fact that Time magazine didn?t name Petraeus as the man of the year is a huge example of their liberal world view.
Source of data

 

[nageov3t]

until political progress has been made, the surge is not a success.

unless your definition of success is something other than meeting the original objectives it set out to accomplish.

 

[ayabe]

Iran has reportedly honored its agreement with us and the Iraqi's to stop supplying militants with arms.

Sadr still has his cease fire in place.

Political reconciliation is still nowhere to be found, which is THE ONLY MEASURE OF SUCCESS.

 

[chucky2]

I doubt many will be saddened by the news (although sickly a few will) that we're loosing much less per day that we used to...

...but the reality is that 23 mothers got notified in Dec. that their baby is dead. 23 families had about as sh1tty a Dec. as one could possibly have.

When that number is 0 per month - or d@mn close to it - then we can all celebrate.

Chuck

 

[umbrella39]

FFS PJ, when will you get it? 23 is too much.

 

[bamacre]

I won't be happy until that number is zero.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I doubt many will be saddened by the news (although sickly a few will) that we're loosing much less per day that we used to...

...but the reality is that 23 mothers got notified in Dec. that their baby is dead. 23 families had about as sh1tty a Dec. as one could possibly have.

When that number is 0 per month - or d@mn close to it - then we can all celebrate.

Chuck

Ummm you do understand that between 400 and 600 members of the military die every year due to accidents. That works out to 33 per months (at 400) which means more than likely more members of the military died in accidents during the month of December than died in Iraq.

Yes, 23 is still too many, but let?s not diminish the amazing success our military has had over the last 6 months.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Iran has reportedly honored its agreement with us and the Iraqi's to stop supplying militants with arms.

Sadr still has his cease fire in place.

Political reconciliation is still nowhere to be found, which is THE ONLY MEASURE OF SUCCESS.

The bolded part is amazing? because when we were having successful elections and putting a government into place all the left talked about was the number of dead. And now that the number of dead is way down all the left wants to talk about is political progress.

I expect that if we see political progress the left will find a new reason to complain, I expect the amount of money spent will be the next major talking point.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Iran has reportedly honored its agreement with us and the Iraqi's to stop supplying militants with arms.

Sadr still has his cease fire in place.

Political reconciliation is still nowhere to be found, which is THE ONLY MEASURE OF SUCCESS.

The bolded part is amazing? because when we were having successful elections and putting a government into place all the left talked about was the number of dead. And now that the number of dead is way down all the left wants to talk about is political progress.

I expect that if we see political progress the left will find a new reason to complain, I expect the amount of money spent will be the next major talking point.

the entire goal of the surge was to buy time for the Iraqi government to achieve some political progress in Baghdad.

a lower death count is a happy side-effect, but can you argue that the surge has been successful in achieving its original goal?

 

[BoomerD]

Yet, 2007 was still the deadliest year for US troops since the Bush War began...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...iraq/main3657732.shtml

"The second half of 2007 saw violence drop dramatically in Iraq, but the progress came at a high price: The year was the deadliest for the U.S. military since the 2003 invasion, with 899 troops killed.

American commanders and diplomats, however, say the battlefield gains against insurgents such as al Qaeda in Iraq offer only a partial picture of where the country stands as the war moves toward its five-year mark in March.

Two critical shifts that boosted U.S.-led forces in 2007 - a self-imposed cease-fire by a main Shiite militia and a grassroots Sunni revolt against extremists - could still unravel unless serious unity efforts are made by the Iraqi government.


How can you spin that to say the surge is working? MAYBE it's helping, but it sounds like the gains are the results of the Iraqi's trying to limit the damage, NOT the surge.

In any event, fewer US troop deaths is still a good thing, but 23 is still far too many.

 

[techs]

Truly the surge has failed. Not one of the benchmarks has been met. They are no closer to any kind of political reconciliation in Iraq. In fact, all evidence points to all sides arming up for a showdown.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Iran has reportedly honored its agreement with us and the Iraqi's to stop supplying militants with arms.

Sadr still has his cease fire in place.

Political reconciliation is still nowhere to be found, which is THE ONLY MEASURE OF SUCCESS.

The bolded part is amazing? because when we were having successful elections and putting a government into place all the left talked about was the number of dead. And now that the number of dead is way down all the left wants to talk about is political progress.

I expect that if we see political progress the left will find a new reason to complain, I expect the amount of money spent will be the next major talking point.

Since when am I "the left" I don't speak for anyone, I'm using the justification for the surge as put forth by our leadership and Petreus himself.

If the goal of the surge was to limit deaths to only 23 a month ad infinitum then I guess the surge is a success, but that wasn't the bill of goods that we were sold and the surge will soon be coming to an end.

 

[heyheybooboo]

No one is questioning the bravery and honor of our military in Iraq but to compare violent deaths and dismemberment in Iraq to accidental deaths is a new low for you, Johnnie.

It's well past time for the Iragi's own self-determination. The Kurds have 100k troops, the Sunni's have 80k armed 'Concerned Local Citizens' and the Iraq gov't has a 90k army.

btw - 22k troops are redeploying home to NC this year - YAY!

Most are with the 82nd - the rest marines - and most on their second and third 'tours'

 

[Jaskalas]

John, I?ve heard the ?more deaths from accidents? argument before and it is just stupid. Those who died would not have, if not for the Iraq war. End of story. In general people die all the time, but our additions to that should not go unnoticed and, IMO, especially not downplayed in the manner that you use it.

With that said, it is good news to find that our enemy is weaker now, or at least laying down. That gives the Iraqis time to achieve progress themselves, although I would not place any faith in the Iraqis creating anything but the next extremist Islamic regime born from our sweat and blood.

I could be wrong, but we hear of extremist Muslims purging the moderates all the time. I don?t hear much about the moderates purging the extremists and until that happens systematically then the momentum is on the side of the extremists. Doesn?t matter if we ?win? in Iraq, this is a global struggle against Islamic Supremacism and I don?t think anyone in power is so much as viewing the fight in the way it needs to be viewed.

If anything, winning or losing in Iraq is nothing but a distraction. Militant separatist camps, honor killings, and the whole nine yards of Islamic Supremacism is alive and well on our soil, let alone the rest of the world.

What are we going to do about that? If Iraq is the summation of our response to 9-11, then I declare that the Islamic Supremacists won. If they are free to live on our soil then we have utterly failed to learn anything from their act of war against us and we will continue to leave ourselves and our families vulnerable to their every whim.

 

[rpanic]

Are we going to have a permanent surge of troops, because once it stops everything is going to go back to business as usual and I don?t see how that?s going to be any sort of success.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Iran has reportedly honored its agreement with us and the Iraqi's to stop supplying militants with arms.

Sadr still has his cease fire in place.

Political reconciliation is still nowhere to be found, which is THE ONLY MEASURE OF SUCCESS.

The bolded part is amazing? because when we were having successful elections and putting a government into place all the left talked about was the number of dead. And now that the number of dead is way down all the left wants to talk about is political progress.

I expect that if we see political progress the left will find a new reason to complain, I expect the amount of money spent will be the next major talking point.

Are you taking crazy pills? It takes a truly insane group of people to pick up the goalposts, move them to the 50 yard line, and then complain that the people still standing in the end zone are being unreasonable.

THE GOALS SPELLED OUT BY BUSH, THE GUY WHO ORDERED THE SURGE, DETAILED POLITICAL PROGRESS AS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE SURGE. POLITICAL PROGRESS THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.

How the hell is it a new reason to complain?! It's the same reason as always. The elections and putting the government together WERE NOT POLITICAL PROGRESS EITHER. Just because you have a meeting doesn't mean that you accomplish anything in it. When Iraq had elections they made a framework for political progress to happen, progress that NEVER HAPPENED. Now more then ever it looks like the Kurds in the north are breaking off to do their own thing, and they are the only part of that country that is even reasonably functional. This is happening specifically because the central government has zero control over their own country.

Yeah, the lowering of violence is great. First of all I bet you its temporary, and secondly its like a football team saying 'hey I know we lost by 15 points, but we outgained the opposing team in total yardage'.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Topic Title: Iraq war death toll for December only 23, lowest per day average of the entire war
Topic Summary: Anyone still think the surge was not a success?

You're a lying, loud mouthed pimp for your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal's failed policies of aggression in their war of LIES in Iraq and their aggression against all American citizens and our wounded Constitution at home.

For all of your braying about the current casualty numbers, ICasualties.org, the period from 2/1/07 to 1/3/08 was the second deadliest year for American forces in Iraq, second only to the previous period, 12/15/05 to 01/31/07:

The tally of Americans killed in Iraq by period:

02/01/07 - 01/03/08: 821

12/15/05 - 01/31/07: 933

12/14/05 - 01/31/05: 715

01/30/05 - 06/29/04: 580

06/28/04 - 05/03/03: 718

No doubt there are a lot of factors that play into the drop in deaths, but I don?t think any reasonable person can deny the fact that the surge has been insanely successful.

As of 01/3/08 7:37 pm EDT, 3,907 American troops have died, and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life in the Bushwhackos' war of LIES. I'm sure all of your happy talk is a great comfort to the families and friends of all those whose lives were squandered for utter bullshit.

Yep! Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie!

Then, there's that nagging matter that "the surge" was intended as a short term measure to allow the Iraqis to resolve their squabbling and establish a peaceful coalition. How soon so you expect that to happen when those jackasses would just as soon kill anyone who didn't agree with them about which finger on which hand to use to pick which nostril? :roll:

The fact that Time magazine didn?t name Petraeus as the man of the year is a huge example of their liberal world view.
Source of data

The fact that you continue to pimp the failed policies of your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal is a huge example of how out of touch you are with reality. :roll:

---

* * * IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY NOW! * * *

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For December the death toll was 23, second lowest of the war.

But the per day average was THE lowest of the entire war at .77 (which includes one UK death)

The Iraqi Security forces and civilian deaths were also at the lowest total since the start of the war.

No doubt there are a lot of factors that play into the drop in deaths, but I don?t think any reasonable person can deny the fact that the surge has been insanely successful.

The fact that Time magazine didn?t name Petraeus as the man of the year is a huge example of their liberal world view.
Source of data

Still playing your shell game? The goal of the surge was Iraqi government taking control not less troop casualities due to cutting street patrols.

 

[Lemon law]

The first basic thing to realize is that the entire surge is only a political slogan for stay the course, and at that its a busted play because we found Iraqi security forces worse than useless as early as 3/07.

Its really the Iraqi insurgencies that have decided to go quiet. They have already achieved their initial goals of a segregated Iraq carved into fiefdoms. And now they rest and regroup better armed and organized than ever.

The good news is that this State of less violence is a win win for the Iraqi people and the US military death tools. The disquieting news is the lack of political progress and the total lack of economic repair of infrastructure needed take advantage of the moment.

Sadly any political progress made will threaten all the insurgencies who will fight to keep what they have. Nor does the economic cost of maintaining our occupation drop in any real way as the surge has the side effect of kicking the can of progress perpetually down the road ahead of us for the foreseeable future.

So the real question is how long will the quiet last before things explode?

Maybe not the answer PJ wants but that is the Iraqi question we are left with. I could now list a pile of external or internal event scenarios that could cause such explosions, but we might as well enjoy the quiet while it lasts.

Until then the surge neither has succeeded or failed. If and when thing blow up, we will all know the surge has been an abysmal failure. And with luck GWB&co. can reach 1/20/2009 and skulk out of town saying it did not happen on my watch leaving others to fix what he broke.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
* * * IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY NOW! * * *

Well, at least you've changed the macro, Harvey. :laugh:

 

[manowar821]

:music: Huh! Killing in the name of! :music:

Not that it matters, but no, I don't think the trickle did anything. That could've happened with or without it.

It doesn't matter because it's still 23 too many.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: manowar821
That could've happened with or without it.

Once again, failing to give credit where credit is due.

Somehow, I'm not surprised. :roll:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: manowar821
That could've happened with or without it.

Once again, failing to give credit where credit is due.

Somehow, I'm not surprised. :roll:

Credit for killing American soldiers? You're right, we should be giving Bush and the neocons all the credit for that. Hope you're proud of yourself, supporting our troops right into a coffin.

 

[Jhhnn]

It"s good news, no doubt, but that doesn't mean correlation is causation, nor does it mean that progress will be ongoing or permanent once the surge is over next summer.

So we'll have to wait and see.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For December the death toll was 23, second lowest of the war.

But the per day average was THE lowest of the entire war at .77 (which includes one UK death)

The Iraqi Security forces and civilian deaths were also at the lowest total since the start of the war.

No doubt there are a lot of factors that play into the drop in deaths, but I don?t think any reasonable person can deny the fact that the surge has been insanely successful.

The fact that Time magazine didn?t name Petraeus as the man of the year is a huge example of their liberal world view.
Source of data

You get me the man in charge for calculating the death toll and we'll talk.

Oh, right, he doesn't exist.

I've seen this used before, it was a lie then, it's a lie now, it's good to see cocksuckers like you gulping down this shitstream though, saves me from having to interfere with your idiocy because surely no one besides you is stupid enough to actually believe the numbers that are not counted PER POLICY?