This may be the first unofficial announcement by the mainstream media that the US is winning the War in Iraq.
In only 4 years the US has ousted one of the world's most brutal dictators ever and helped replace his regime with a democratically elected government- Doing this without the backing of one political party, without liberal Hollywood, with numerous security leaks, with interfering politicians, and with a hostile antiwar press that continually misfires with bogus news stories.
Not bad!
Numbers via Murdoc and ICCC.
The AP announced today that the military is "focusing on reducing the U.S. combat role in 2008 while increasing training of Iraqi forces."
The military is doing this not out of retreat but after analysing the situation on the ground:
U.S. military officials are narrowing the range of Iraq strategy options and appear to be focusing on reducing the U.S. combat role in 2008 while increasing training of Iraqi forces, a senior military official told The Associated Press on Monday.
The military has not yet developed a plan for a substantial withdrawal of forces next year. But officials are laying the groundwork for possible overtures to Turkey and Jordan on using their territory to move some troops and equipment out of Iraq, the official said. The main exit would remain Kuwait, but additional routes would make it easier and more secure for U.S. troops leaving western and northern Iraq.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because internal deliberations are ongoing, emphasized that the discussions do not prejudge decisions yet to be made by President Bush. Those decisions include how long to maintain the current U.S. troop buildup and when to make the transition to a larger Iraqi combat role.
It is widely anticipated that the five extra Army brigades that were sent to the Baghdad area this year will be withdrawn by late next summer. But it is far less clear whether the Bush administration will follow that immediately with additional drawdowns, as many Democrats in Congress are advocating.
Bush has mentioned publicly that he likes the idea, first proposed late last year by the Iraq Study Group, of switching the emphasis of U.S. military efforts from mainly combat to mainly support roles. But he also has said that this should not happen until Baghdad in particular is stable enough to enable Iraqi political leaders to make hard choices about reconciling rival interests among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
There are now 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, of which 30,000 have arrived since February as part of Bush's revised strategy to stabilize Baghdad and to push Iraqi leaders to build a government of national unity.
Military efforts to stabilize the country effort have made strides in recent months, but political progress has lagged.

Note: Now that the military efforts are seeing results- the focus for the media and democrats will be completely on the "lagging" political situation.
A grand example of this is Hillary Clinton who acknowledges that the "surge is working" but that she still wants to surrender, anyway.
Jeff Goldstein has more on Iraq.
Related... Michael J. Totten has this from his present excursion in Iraq:
“When you came and liberated this country,” he continued, “Iraq had 25 million Saddams. America is turning us back into human beings. That soccer field is not for a specific person. It is for everybody. We appreciate that. We believe that if Americans have something that is ours, they will return it to us. If the Iraqi government has something that is ours, we forget it.”More from Dean's World.
Our host for the evening nodded in agreement.
“We support you,” the man continued. “You support our back, we support your back. But you must understand: If you pull back, we will pull back. I will have no choice but to pull back if I can’t depend on you. It will be much harder for us to stand together. But as long as you stand firmly behind us we will support you against Moqtada al Sadr and the other bastards in the area.”
Jim! Jim! Jim! What an excellent posting sir!
ReplyDeleteThe graphics tell the tale in more ways than one...
Very good!
Thanks!
Thanks, Juandos.
ReplyDeleteBecause of all the antiwar media bias, the actual facts are startling.
You could make those graphs more impressive by showing percentage of population rather than absolute numbers.
ReplyDeleteAre you comparing total military deaths during Clinton years to Iraq-only deaths since 2003?
ReplyDeleteWhile I think most people are surprised at the number of military deaths even during "peace" time, I do think that by excluding "other" military deaths during Iraq you could be accused of comparing apples and oranges.
Very interesting. Since there was limited combat during the Clinton years, I am assuming that the total military deaths included deaths from all sources including military and non military accidents, deaths due to health issues etc.
ReplyDeleteIt was be better if you included a total military death column from all sources in the post Clinton years, and a separate column for deaths due to combat, subtracting out deaths due to non combat accidents and health issues. These deaths would be part of the total so you would have three columns-military deaths in Clinton period, deaths post Clinton due to combat and then total military deaths per year post Clinton. That would be publishable.
Would you mind providing a data source for (or better still, an explanation of) the first graph?
ReplyDeleteWhile y'all are talking about categorizing casualties and subtracting out combat deaths to facilitate apples-to-apples comparisons ...
ReplyDelete... be sure, when the subject of civilian casualties comes up, that the casualties due to the intentional targeting of civilians by the enemy ... and/or their use as defilade when engaging us ... are subtracted from any total we are being blamed for.
Let us be consistent.
I made a similar graph showing the per/month combat casualties of Vietnam and Iraq:
ReplyDeleteGraph of per month casualties
Feel free to use it as you like.
I think your first chart is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I saw it on your blog, July 15, I followed your links back to your sources and the data I found did not match your graph. The numbers on the graph for the Clinton years are active duty military deaths of all kinds, not battle losses. The numbers shown on the graph for 2003 and 2004 are larger than the combat losses but much lower than the total active duty deaths (per the DMDC.
I posted a comment and sent you an email but got no response.
I'm not sure what things are being compared in this chart, but they don't seem to be comparable things and they don't seem to be the things the text says they are.
Could you show us where your data came from?
Lynwood
I think the earlier Gateway post I referred to was on July 12, not July 15. Sorry.
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeleteUpdated June 29, 2007
(hope i added correctly): PAGE 11:
total casualties 1993 - 2000 = 7,500
total casualties 2001 - 2006 = 8,765
albeit morbid, i found this interesting..
self inflicted 1993 - 2000 = 1,522
self inflicted 2001 - 2006 = 960
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Information Analysis Division,
[http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf], accessed on June 27, 2007.
Note: As of February 28, 2007 (reflects preliminary counts for 2006 and revised figures for 2004 and 2005).
==
++
ReplyDeletePAGE 11:
this was interesting as well..
homicide: 1993 - 2000 = 427
homicide: 2001 - 2006 = 261
==
++
ReplyDeletemight as well do this too..
illness: 1993 - 2000 = 1,400
illness: 2001 - 2006 = 1,338
==
I think that declaring victory and pulling troops out is the best solution. Victory is something that is decided by historians in situations like the current Iraqi conflict.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. Because if fewer American soldiers are dying per month now than were dying during the Clinton years, then obviously the sectarian tensions in Iraq are not going to continue tearing the country apart and everything is going to work out okay there. Only a liberal could fail to understand that argument.
ReplyDeleteEspecially now that we're arming and training the Sunni terrorists who were killing US soldiers up until recently, in the hope that they'll attack Al Qaeda rather than us and rather than the Shiites. Or I guess I should say *former* terrorists because they gave us their word that they would stop killing our soldiers if we gave them arms and training. And what could possibly go wrong with that?
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Gen._Petraeus_concerned_about_U.S._arming_0617.html
The first time I saw it on your blog, July 15, I followed your links back to your sources and the data I found did not match your graph. The numbers on the graph for the Clinton years are active duty military deaths of all kinds, not battle losses.
ReplyDeleteDo all liberals have reading comprehension problems? The graph is clearly comparing total deaths during the Clinton years with deaths directly attributable to the Iraq war under Bush.
If Gateway Pundit graphed *total* military deaths during the Clinton years vs. *total* military deaths during the Bush years it wouldn't support the argument he wants to make. So why would he do that? It would make no sense.
WASHINGTON - U.S. military officials are narrowing the range of Iraq strategy options and appear to be focusing on reducing the U.S. combat role in 2008 while increasing training of Iraqi forces, a senior military official told The Associated Press on Monday.
ReplyDeleteJust in case anyone isn't clear on what exactly this article is talking about, the news that Gateway Pundit finds so encouraging is elaborated on here:
The U.S. military has confirmed that it is arming Sunni insurgent factions to try to contain al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, according to a report in Monday's New York Times by veteran Iraq correspondent John Burns.
"With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past."
American officers acknowledge that it is arming some groups that are suspected to have been involved in American attacks as well as link to Al Qaeda.
That's what it's come down to. Arming terrorists who have been killing US soldiers as long as those terrorists "promise" to stop killing us and start killing al Qaeda.
++
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 11:23 AM
here's your link..
imo, we have more to fear from Sadr's Shi'a miltia than any armed AQ killing Sunni's who have not only joined forces with the MNF, but the Iraqi Government, and now more & more Shi'a tibal leaders are unting with Sunni to fight the terrorists (be they AQ, Militia, or little green men from mars)..
HT : The Fourth Rail
Mahdi Army trains with Hezbollah
excerpt:
[While recent press reporting has been skeptical of the Mahdi Army's involvement with Hezbollah and Iran, Muqtada al Sadr and members his Mahdi Army militia are openly admitting to their links with Hezbollah. In recent interviews with Britain's The Independent, Sadr clearly and proudly admitted to working hand in hand with Lebanese Hezbollah, which is an arm of Iran's Qods Force. "We have formal links with Hezbollah, we do exchange ideas and discuss the situation facing Shiites in both countries," Sadr told The Independent. "It is natural that we would want to improve ourselves by learning from each other. We copy Hezbollah in the way they fight and their tactics, we teach each other and we are getting better through this."]
still waiting/hoping to hear more about this:
[The fact that some political parties opted not to participate in the government could increase the chances for reconciliation down the road. Among the parties left out of the deal are both the Shiite faction loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and the Sunni Islamist bloc known as Tawafuq. Both of those slates include parliamentarians and government officials that have worked openly with terrorists who have attacked Iraqi security forces and American soldiers, not to mention Iraqi civilians.]
==
++
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 11:35 AM
where have you been.. geesh!!
just a SAMPLING of what's been going down in
Iraq that you will not be reading / hearing via
the Mass Seditious Media..
U.S. troops, Iraqis celebrate victory over Al Qaeda
Iraqis Unite at Historic Promise of the People Conference
Anbar leaders celebrate awakening
excerpt:
[“To all the attendees and by the name of God, the merciful God, it’s an honor and gives me great pride to have the sons of Al-Anbar gather here today,” said Ma’Mun Sami Rashid, Al Anbar provincial governor. “We’re here to defend ourselves against insurgents and bring back the honor and pride of the Iraqi people. Anbarians have established this with God’s blessing and have been defending themselves from the insurgents, who wanted to bring shame to our nation.”]
there's TONS more info, will try
& round a few more up for ya..
==
++
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 11:23 AM
well, one thing it does is point out how inconsequential numbers are compared to military accomplishments..
==
there's TONS more info, will try
ReplyDelete& round a few more up for ya..
Send some to the White House while you're at it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/21/bush.iraq/
President Bush on Tuesday acknowledged a mood of "frustration" hanging over Iraq's besieged leadership -- which is presiding over a fractious, paralyzed government stymied by boycotts, bickering and bombings.
But hey, if we get more terrorists to *promise* not to shoot at us any longer if we give them better weapons, we'll win the peace in Iraq in no time.
Some would say it makes no sense to negotiate with the people who were killing you, and then give them better weapons and training in exchange for their *promise* to stop killing you. But it allows for short-term military gains of a sort that Gateway Pundit and others can use to claim the Surge is working. And if it takes negotiating with terrorists to gain some short-term PR victories in the US, isn't it worth it?
If you still can't see how this is a good idea, try going out for a nice French meal, then rent some French-language movies and watch them without subtitles, drink a nice bottle or two of French wine, and eventually you'll start to understand why negotiating with and arming and training terrorists (so long as they *promise* to stop killing our soldiers!) is une bonne idée.
GP,
ReplyDeleteYou really have to do away with the anonymous posting here. All it serves to do is to encourage the drive by LLL trolls and sock puppetry.
It isn't that hard to get a blogger handle, you know. And if you think you are anonymous without having to log in you really haven't been paying attention to how Google operates.
We are winning!? But that destroys my media-driven belief in the Magical Insurgent! A strong, dedicated, impassioned resistance fighter, here and there, night and day, always just beyond the grasp of the cruel/incompetent barbarian invaders from the Great Satan!
ReplyDeleteNow I know the truth, they're just slimy idiots without an iota of military prowess and we've killed enough of them to make a difference. Kudos to our military, who are winning in spite of the opposition (at home)!!
++
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 12:54 PM
CNN?? they also made a pact with Iran a couple of years back.. oh well, i suppose they gotta eat, or is that feed??
FLASHBACK
Anbar Rising
The Awakening
February 18, 2007
excerpt:
[Al Qaeda "assassinated a lot of the sheiks," said Sheik Ahmed Abureeshah, 41, whose brother, Sheik Sitar, is the driving force behind the initiative. "They killed my father. They killed three of my brothers. They killed 14 other sheiks from different tribes.
"Then we met the sheiks of the tribe one after one, and we decided that we must put our hands together and fight to defeat these criminals."
The tribes sent hundreds of young men to join the police -- more than 1,000 in December and more than that last month, a record recruiting effort for the province.]
Big Meeting in Ramadi
March 13, 2007
excerpt:
[In this photo released by the Iraqi government, The Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, center, holds hands with the al-Anbar province tribal leaders while on a visit to Ramadi, 115 kilometers (70 miles) west of Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, March 13, 2007. Al-Maliki met with tribal leaders and the provincial governor in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Ramadi on Tuesday, a day after he warned that extremists would flee to other parts of the country during a security crackdown in Baghdad and promised government help in fighting them.]
Shaykh Abdul Sattar Abureeshah Addresses
the Anbar Salvation Council
SCROLL DOWN TO MARCH 15, 2007
excerpt:
["The time for dictatorship is gone, and we are welcoming the new dawn of democracy and freedom here. I expect the future to be much better for the next generation for they will live in a better world than we do today."]
lots of links @ links..
btw, that too was just a sampling.. may be back later with another round up..
==
++
ReplyDeleteIraqi tribal chiefs forming
an anti-insurgent party..
excerpt:
[One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court system in Ramadi, the provincial capital.]
["The terrorists destroyed the network of people and how they communicate, and the new sheiks council is here to bring it back and fight the insurgents until they are out of the country," Sattar said.]
[But some sheiks in Ramadi and other parts of Al Anbar have established closer links with U.S. armed forces since last year, when they began speaking out against the insurgency and Al Qaeda in Iraq.]
As Surge Begins To Take Hold,
Tribal Leaders Turn on Qaeda
excerpt:
[Sheikh Hussein, as well as other sheikhs interviewed for this piece, said the turning point for the tribes was in September when Al Qaeda in Iraq declared the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq, a shadow state that in pockets of the country has established Islamic sharia courts and tried to provide some social services. The declaration was a direct challenge to the centuries-old tribal system that has prevailed in most of Iraq. As a result, the terrorists once seen as allies against the American invaders have also come to be seen as invaders.]
[Despite the rising antipathy toward Al Qaeda, the tribal sheikhs in the Sunni regions in particular are very clear that their new alliance with the Americans is merely a tactical one. Sheikh Hussein summed it up: "We would like America, a friend, to rebuild the country. This is what we want, what the tribes want. But to stay here as a military force indefinitely is unacceptable." For Sheikh Hussein, however, the prospect of a speedy exit is also unacceptable. At a luncheon at a home of one of his cousins, he asked this reporter, "Please, tell the Democrats for now to stop pressuring Bush."]
HT : Gateway Pundit
More Progress In Diyala
excerpts:
[At the Al Abarrah Iraq Army compound, local leaders gathered, May 10, to pave a way ahead for peace between some of the rival villages and gain a commitment toward a unified stand against al-Qaida while supporting the government. The leaders also focused on establishing a police force in Zaganiyah.]
[At the meeting, five Sunni and five Shia volunteered to form a committee to recruit residents for the Iraqi police force.
Ahmed also encouraged the leaders to agree on several key points: returning displaced families to the area, opening an Iraqi police station in Zaganiyah, securing the area under government supervision, turning to the International Security Force for assistance, protecting government institutions, committing to fight terrorists without sectarianism and being honest with one another.]
[Also in Diyala, tribal leaders from the Ambugiya and Ubadie tribes have begun a series of tribal meetings designed to resolve conflicts between villages from Khalis to Dali Abbas. The leaders have been meeting with provincial and security force leaders to determine how to resolve their differences, agreeing that terrorists must be eliminated from the province and pledging to eliminate terrorist activity from their lands.]
my apologies to GP & all for going so far OT..
==
Thanks for the good news links, BG.
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeleteyou're welcome GP.. :)
a little update.. HT : The Mudville Gazette
Ramadi: Open for Business
excerpts:
[“This place is dynamic! The people are working ‘round the clock, and it’s all positive,” said Kristen Hagerstrom, leader of the ePRT (embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team) based in Ramadi. Mrs. Hagerstom spent an hour talking with OnPoint Sunday about the economic and administrative successes in the city.
When 1st Battalion, 6th Marines left Ramadi in June, they’d successfully cleared the city of Al-Quada, and formed a successful partnership with Sheik Sattar al-rishi and his newly-formed “Sons of Anbar.” Long before terms like “The Surge” and “Clear-Hold-Build” entered the Pentagon and American public’s vocabulary; 1/ 6 Marines had fought and cleared Ramadi and established outposts at 17th Street, the Government Center, Khatanna, and others, and then turned them over to their enthusiastic Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police replacements.
“…and we arrived in April at a perfect time,” Mrs. Hagerstrom continued. “the city just had experienced thirteen days without a shot being fired, Mayor Latif was coming into his own as a mayor, and the Sunni’s were volunteering to join the police in record numbers.” Her ePRT Team arrived soon after 1st BCT, 3rd ID (under Col John Charleton) formally took over Ramadi. 1st BCT’s 6,000 Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force have aggressively and successfully continued to expand these newly positive dynamics.
The Provisional Reconstruction Teams are part of Gen. David Petraeus’s counter-insurgency strategy; keep the people employed, get them a salary, and they’ll be too busy working being heads of households again to be insurgents.]
[But what is happening these days is possible because of the relations between the Sunnis in Ramadi and Anbar, as led by Sheik Sattar. As he said this winter when being visited by Deputy Under Secretary of State John Negroponte :
I would like to convey greetings from the Sons of Anbar to the American people.
I want to give my condolences for the American blood shed in the Anbar Province to the American people, and I ask the Army and Marines to stay because we would be an easy target for terrorists. Stay until we gain our strength, and then staying is up to you.]
==
++
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 12:54 PM
"to save our coming generations"
excerpts:
[Iraq's Shiite prime minister carried an appeal for unity to Saddam Hussein's hometown Friday and told Sunni tribal chieftains that all Iraqis must join to crush al-Qaida in Iraq and extremist Shiite militias "to save our coming generations."
Nouri al-Maliki's bold sojourn into Tikrit — a city once pampered by Saddam, its favorite son — underlined the prime minister's determination to save his paralyzed government from collapse and prevent further disillusionment in Washington as voices grow for a troop withdrawal plan.
The sharp alteration in the government's political course — a willingness to travel to the belly of the Sunni insurgency and talk with former enemies — suggested a new flexibility from the hard-line religious Shiites who hold considerable influence over al-Maliki's views]
["There is more uniting us than dividing us," al-Maliki told sheiks in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad. "We do not want to allow al-Qaida and the militias to exist for our coming generations. Fighting terrorism gives us a way to unite."]
New Coalition Is Reached To Rule Iraq
excerpts:
[The deal, which would align two of the three major Shiite parties with the two major Kurdish parties, is notable in part because it excludes Sunni parties, including the Iraqi Islamic Party led by the current Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi. A statement signed by Prime Minister Maliki, as well as leaders of the other major factions in the new coalition, said that they would be able to command a majority in the 275-seat parliament in Baghdad.]
["Anyone who is not in the coalition is not in the coalition by their own choice," he said. "The members of this coalition have gone to great lengths to convince them to be part of this group to end this paralysis and it is unfortunate that people think they can hijack the political process. We must move beyond all or nothing."
The fact that some political parties opted not to participate in the government could increase the chances for reconciliation down the road. Among the parties left out of the deal are both the Shiite faction loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and the Sunni Islamist bloc known as Tawafuq. Both of those slates include parliamentarians and government officials that have worked openly with terrorists who have attacked Iraqi security forces and American soldiers, not to mention Iraqi civilians.]
ps:
Iraqi tribes reach security accord
excerpts:
[Members of the First Calvary Division based at nearby Camp Taji helped broker the deal on Saturday with the tribal leaders, who agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from both Sunni and Shi'ite extremists.]
[Men from the village, most of the them carrying weapons, greeted the soldiers warmly, shaking hands and kissing cheeks in traditional Iraqi fashion.]
Tribal Leaders Join Forces to Fight Terrorists in Diyala Province
excerpt:
[Eighteen paramount tribal leaders representing 14 major tribes in the province swore on the Koran and signed a peace agreement last week that unifies the tribes in the battle against terrorism.
“Let’s build this tent and live under it like one family – all the tribes and all the people of Diyala. You have to be one family,” Ra’ad Hameed Al-Mula Jowad Al-Tamimi, governor of Diyala, told the tribal leaders during an Aug. 2 meeting at the Baqubah Government Center. Sheikhs representing three Shia tribes, 11 Sunni tribes and 60 of Diyala’s 100 sub-tribes attended the meeting, which was led by Ra’ad, Staff Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem, commander of Iraqi security forces in Diyala province, and U.S. Army Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of coalition forces in Diyala.]
==
You are good, man.
ReplyDelete