UPDATE June 15, 2007: All of the graphs related to American losses in Iraq and terrorist losses, including those related to the Surge, have been moved to their own site:
This post has become the all-time most viewed post on this blog. It has also set the record for comments. Thank you to all the bloggers who have linked here and all of you who have taken the time to read this post. -Chuck
Donations to support Terrorist Death Watch would be appreciated.
Data used for these graphs are found at my site, Terrorist Death Watch, and at the site Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.
I’m not just a “one-note” wonder. Here are some other recurring features on this blog:
Our Best: Babe Edition (women in the military)
Terrorist Death Watch (some of the stories behind the numbers and explanations of methodology)
America’s Girl Next Door - Sgt. Amanda Pinson
125 responses so far ↓
1 brandon // Jun 6, 2007 at
finally someone tracking terrorist deaths; i exchanged words with the jokers on the iraq/coalition body count site regarding they could be a much better website if they tracked terrorist deaths/captured to put the war in perspective. instead they gave me BS about it is too hard to distinguish/identify the terrorists to which I responded how is it different from tracking the civilians killed on their site? thanks for doing this.
2 Francis // Jun 6, 2007 at
Right. So all insurgents are ‘terrorists’. I see.
3 Malone // Jun 7, 2007 at
This should be Digg-ed. I’m embarrassed that I don’t know how to do it. Very important for perspective.
4 anon // Jun 7, 2007 at
nice charts. here’s to more big purple bars!
5 anon // Jun 7, 2007 at
(on the latter two, of course)
6 Patrick Carroll // Jun 7, 2007 at
Dear Francis,
To you they may be freedom fighters, opposing American Christofascist Hegemony, but to those of us not suffering from that painful condition, rectocranial inversion, yes, they are.
Thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify that.
Patrick
–
7 Neal J. King // Jun 7, 2007 at
What I notice is that there is no clear trend in the purple bars.
To me, that means that the insurgents/terrorists are not getting discouraged.
8 amcgltd // Jun 7, 2007 at
A Graph Here, a Graph There…
I’m not quite sure what to make of these graphs charting American vs. terrorist casualties in Iraq, but they do seem to pose problems for the people reading from the “it’s a disaster, always has been always will be”……
9 LaurenceB // Jun 7, 2007 at
It was very clever to use percentages rather than real numbers in the first graph, thereby effectively hiding the fact that American casualties are way up. Very clever. And you were rewarded with an Instalanche. Well done.
[Editor: The numbers are in the second and third graph. The first graph illustrates the reason for the deaths, and you could argue that I'm hiding the non-hostile deaths as well. IED deaths went way up in May but losses due to fighting dropped. Go figure, if you are able.]
10 Jack is Back! // Jun 7, 2007 at
The insurgents aren’t discouraged because the Islamic radical imans of the world keep pushing the jihad to the front of all there sermons and speeches in the mosques, madrassas and 7/11’s. Those who believe these deaths are only related to Iraq will be shocked with awe when we leave there and they follow us here. They won’t be insurgents then - they will be terrorists to fit everyone’s definition - even that of the AP, Reuters and the NYTs. Unfortunately, we will still be debating this as more 9/11’s happen around us and continue to draw distinctions and moral equivalency as we watch IED’s exploding in Brooklyn and Detroit as some new form of RealityTV.
11 David Drake // Jun 7, 2007 at
Neal King–
Maybe we’re just getting better at finding at killing them. I do not expect that the jihadis will be discouraged, but do expect that, eventually, they will be killed, and then the killing in Iraq will stop. I expect this will take place very suddenly and predict that it will go unreported in the MSM
12 DANEgerus // Jun 7, 2007 at
Statistically numbers this small don’t really indicate much.
If American forces are being more aggressive it will lead to more casualties so… how does a change, to from 37 to 32 mean anything?
But…
It’s made more informative to include total casualties and even more useful to include a terrorist ‘Body Count’.
So thanks for showing the guts to say that.
13 Nathan // Jun 7, 2007 at
Of course the Jihadis aren’t discouraged; they have access to American media.
14 wxjames // Jun 7, 2007 at
Chuck,
Maybe if you include the number of college students in America that drink themselves to death the moonbats will get the picture.
Thanks again for providing this data.
15 July Linett // Jun 7, 2007 at
Has anyone done a graph of total terrorist killings (i.e., I mean murders by terrorists, not our killing them. This means all attacks by suicide bombers, shells sent into Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah attacking Lebanese citizens, terrorist bombings in India, Pakistan, Indonesea…you get the idea.) around the world during the past year by country and compared them with those in Iraq?
16 submandave // Jun 7, 2007 at
Francis: “Right. So all insurgents are ‘terrorists’. I see.”
In fairness, you have a point. It is useful, at times, to differentiate between the “insurgents” (Sadr’s gang, Ba’athists, etc.) and the “terrorists” (e.g. AQIZ). The main objective evidence that separates them is that the insuregents tend to kill people from other factions or MNF personnel while AQIZ just kills everyone (especially civilians). However, from the larger perspective of the surge, they are equally the enemy of a stable Iraq, with the caveat that while insurgents may be coopted into the political process there is no answer for AQIZ et. al. except to kill them.
In summary, yes these words are not interchangable, but it does not invalidate the reality that there are genuine terrorists in Iraq nor that we must engage both groups in order to succeed.
17 Dougslash // Jun 7, 2007 at
Lighten up, Francis.
18 trey // Jun 7, 2007 at
Since there is a legal, official Iraqi government, why are the insurgents NOT terrorists? Before the government was established, I agree that they were quite different, but now?
Personally, my view is that they’re only terrorists if they intentionally target civilians or civil property.
19 Francis // Jun 7, 2007 at
submandave–
I appreciate you making the distinction and I accept your caveat. For this very reason we (the U.S.) are negotiating with the insurgents to bring about whatever resolutions are possible. This must be done. To label the entire opposition as ‘terrorists’ is reductive and foolish. For on one reason it makes the U.S. absolute hypocrites ‘we do not negotiate with terrorists’—except for the ones we do? And that’s just for starters.
Graphs like these, using labels like ‘terrorists’ are pure propaganda. And not a little dishonest.
[Editor: There is an elected government in Baghdad. There is an established Iraqi army, police force and court system. A terrorist is a person who uses violence for political gain. All of those we're fighting fit that definition. By your view, the white power movement, the abortion bombers and the Puerto Ricans who shot up Congress are never terrorists. Horse poop!]
20 Francis // Jun 7, 2007 at
“A terrorist is a person who uses violence for political gain.” That about clears it up for me.
21 Karridine // Jun 7, 2007 at
Kudos! Good work, honest presentation.
And I applaud your courage in forthrightly taking on the APOLOGISTS for TERRORISTS. “Please call them insurgents. Militants. Social workers. Light-hearted and carefree instead of gay…”
Victory for the Iraqi people! Down with the terrorists in your midst! Look at the schools, hospitals, water-stations, electrical generation stations, libraries, colleges, communications infrastructure and FREEDOM brought by Americans!
Somewhat different from the Uday-Qusay-Saddam song, isn’t it?
22 Chuck Simmins // Jun 7, 2007 at
Here are a number of definitions of terrorism from the United Nations. By these definitions, all of those we kill are terrorists.
23 Butch // Jun 7, 2007 at
Right. So all insurgents are ‘terrorists’. I see.
Francis has finally learned something…
24 David Foster // Jun 7, 2007 at
Okay, I am a 2-time Bush voter who in 2008 will vote for the candidate “Entering his peak killing years,” as Dennis Miller would say. However, with a son deployed with the U.S. Army in Baghdad, I do not find much difference between an American soldier killed in combat (yellow) and an American soldier killed in blue (IEDs) - an IED death IS a combat death no matter how you cut it. The only statistics that matter are 1) How many of them do we kill? (A: Every one of them); and 2) How long will the Congress and American media give our soldiers to do it? (A: Not long enough). The sooner the American people and Congress understand that is going to be a decades-long effort, and the fact that we have to hit HARD again AND AGAIN, the closer we are to ensuring a safe world for our grandkids and their grandkids to grow up in. Can we do it?-Certainly. Will we do it?-I have serious doubts. And that’s all I have to say about that.
25 Yanni // Jun 7, 2007 at
There is a sickness in this world that makes some people believe that Americans are bad and Jihadists are good.
Let us hope we find the cure for this soon.
26 Purple Avenger // Jun 8, 2007 at
What I notice is that there is no clear trend in the purple bars.
I see what appears to be an inflection point in April.
The stat aspect would be better represented per unit troops in the field. Rates are always more useful in distinguishing trends than raw numbers.
27 bigcitylib // Jun 8, 2007 at
“We don’t do body counts.” But here you have body counts. Presumably the U.S. army figures supplied here are bogus, or include women and children who might have grown up to be terrorists.
[Editor: You don't have to read this blog if you don't want to. In fact, I'd ask Congress to pass a law preventing you personaly from reading this blog.]
28 Don Surber » Blog Archive » We’re beating the terrorists // Jun 8, 2007 at
[...] America’s North Shore Journal is keeping tabs on how many terrorists our GIs are killing. As with Vietnam, we have superior firepower, better trained soldiers and smarter tactics. [...]
29 Kolya // Jun 8, 2007 at
The most interesting graph would try to calculate how fast we are depleting the stock of jihadi cannon fodder in the Middle East. The relevant graph for the US would be how quickly is the enemy depleting our political will to fight.
The question is which line hits the X axis first or more likely how many more Americans must die in terrorist attacks from militant Islam before our political will to fight the jihadis is restored.
30 danceswithgoats // Jun 8, 2007 at
Playing “whack-a-mole” in Iraq is futile. We need to kill the Imams that are spouting jihadist rhetoric all around the world. As long as old men can send young men to die the fighting will continue. If we started with the Imams I bet the drive for Jihad would abate.
31 courtneyme109 // Jun 8, 2007 at
If looked at from the angle that Iran is the end all, be all since 911, then knocking out Iraq and turning it into a giant sucking killing machine for wannabe Jihadi’s, Syrian minions and Iranian proxies makes sense. Iran has blow over a billion dollars and has nothing to show for it - no theocracies, caliphates and no Iranian leaning super shia majority in Iraq either. Now, thats a quagmire!
Going to Iraq for jihad now is a dumb thing - Sons of the Great Satan will kill you and leave you on the side of the road for a stranger to bury.
SWEEEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
32 Robert // Jun 8, 2007 at
Its a pretty sad day when all the major news networks can’t wait to tell you how many of your guys got killed, but never utter a word regarding how many of the enemy were killed. Makes one wonder who’s side they are really on.
33 Scott Malensek // Jun 8, 2007 at
If they were freedom fighters, they’d scream, “LONG LIVE A FREE IRAQ” after they attack instead of “Allah ahkbar!”
Freedom fighters…brilliant.
34 wxjames // Jun 8, 2007 at
July Linett, a running count of people killed by greater Islam gathered, I believe, from newspaper articles at
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Happy hunting !
35 Jonathan // Jun 8, 2007 at
In my opinion another horrible tragedy similar to that of 9/11 could only hurt the Bush administration, and Republicans in general. “They said they would do their best to prevent another terrorist attack, and look what happened!” There wouldn’t even be a slice of anger toward the terrorists from the news or from the middle or left in this country. They don’t give the administration credit for the lack of a repeat since 9/11, and they never will, unless there’s a terrorist attack after the next Democrat is in the white house. But even then, they probably won’t get any credit. I guess what I’m trying to get at is this. If another terrorist attack occurs, it won’t have the same affect as 9/11, which is thanks to the left as a whole.
36 Banana Sandwich // Jun 8, 2007 at
How about a graph with the number of innocent non-muslims being beheaded by muslims, on video-tape, compared to the number of muslims being publicly beheaded by Christians!
37 Eric // Jun 8, 2007 at
Love the way some people can perform a freakin’ palm-reading on a statistic as simple as this. One guy sees these bars and says, “to me, this means the terrorists aren’t getting discouraged.” Well to me, these bars PROVE I’m going to be wealthy and travel abroad in my older years, and meet the love of my life when I’m least looking for it. Or maybe it means I’m going to win a new car in the lottery. Or maybe it means the politicians in Iraq aren’t very sensitive to the SOCIAL NEEDS of their own cold-blooded killers. Maybe we should look at these bars and say “a-ha! This proves Bush lied!!!!”
In actuality, the graph shows we’re better at recycling them than they are doing to us, but that could change with a bunch of liberal explainers doing their public affairs work for them.
38 Larry // Jun 8, 2007 at
Thanks to July Linett for the question and wxjames for the link. The linked sight has a graphic with the required html code for pasting into a web page or blog. I now have it embedded in my email signature at my Yahoo account. That way, whenever I email the liberal ‘news’ (read agenda-driven) media, they cannot avoid this side of the war. Yes, even with their blinders on and their heads in the sand.
39 Mike s // Jun 8, 2007 at
I remember reading an article somewhere within the past couple of years about a Saudi father who was upset at the local imam whose jihad preaching had resulted in the death of the father’s son, in Iraq. The man’s point was that these clerics preach a love of death but don’t seem willing to die. Some of the posters here wonder how important the number of dead terrorists is - well, I think our answer is somewhere in that story. Now, sadly, we can’t rely on our media to report such things. So people like Francis and bigcitynib don’t have to ponder the larger meaning of the Iraqi conflict. Each of those dead terrorists or insurgents - whatever you want to call them (how about “bad guys”) - is somebody’s son, cousin, brother, close friend, etc., and when enough of those somebody’s get sick and tired of the deaths we might see some change. That’s why we are in Iraq - we took the war to the heart of the caliphate.
Anyone whose response to that is that we are merely creating more terrorists from the friends, cousins, etc. is a racist fool. Sure, a few young men might run to Iraq for the opportunity to be killed by the infidels, but far more, I am sure, recognize the futility of such a death and would probably prefer a virgin on earth to 70 in heaven. Hey - Arabs and Muslims are people too! They have the some love of family that we have, and the same reaction to those who are destroying their lives - and the vast majority of the innocents killed in Iraq are killed by the bad guys, not coalition forces. The fact that so many on the left seem fixated on the idea that Arabs/Muslims are incapable of distinguishing between the terrorists and the coalition forces just demonstrates that they are probably more susceptible to terrrorist propaganda. All that “We love death” claptrap is more targeted towards Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi than anyone in the Middle East.
40 Pajamas Media // Jun 8, 2007 at
The Truth About American Deaths in Iraq:…
Done in bar graphs to make it easy. You’d think everybody could read a bar graph, but nooooooo. (North Shore Journal)……
41 Adeline // Jun 8, 2007 at
Yes, just like we killed all the terrorists VC in Vietnam.
42 Dusty // Jun 8, 2007 at
“We don’t do body counts.”
bigcitylib, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about, so run along and find the source of the quote, and check it’s context. It’s colloquial and responds to a specific question.
Anyone using even one brain cell, would know that the military does keep data on enemy deaths and a lot of subidiary data relating to those deaths. No doubt it is used as a metric in one manner or another.
What the military has not done, as exemplified by Franks’ response in 2002 you quote, is to use it in public relational, public advisorial or other ways to describe or highlight, directly or indirectly, the success or complexity of the war. And they especially haven’t to any significant degree when hearse chasing reporters ask about body counts. Good thing really, because then they’d twist it around to say the military is boasting about enemy body counts.
You’re smart and I’m sure you know all that. In addition, if you had the slightest interest in being informed on what you like to criticise, you’d have made at least a few visits to the MNF Iraq website where body counts, as well as wounded and captured counts, for individual missions would have slapped you across the face like a large trout in a minute or two.
*Presumably*, you only criticise in your fashion because you are a terrorist sympathizer. If, *presumably on the other hand*, the previous *presumably* is incorrect, please enlighten as to the real reason for your comment.
BTW, nice post, Chuck.
[Editor: Thanks! For those in the know, the command staff in Baghdad receives a report every morning with all the stats, including enemy dead. The military has chosen not to release those numbers except in a very few cases where they serve to illustrate a point. I added over 2,000 enemy dead to Terrorist Death Watch for 2007, tripling the count, based on the May 31 brief.]
43 Cynicor // Jun 8, 2007 at
“Those who believe these deaths are only related to Iraq will be shocked with awe when we leave there and they follow us here.”
Er…why would they wait until we leave Iraq to “follow us here”? Do they not know how to get here already? Do they think that it’ll be a better time to attack our country when we have hundreds of thousands of trained forces back here instead of Iraq? It would make the most sense from “their” point of view to attack our mainland while our National Guard is badly depleted at home due to the war.
[Editor: The perception that the Guard is "depleted" is in error. Every state still has well over 50% of its Guard, and all the material those troops need. Comments about depletion come from two sources, leftists that want to promote yet another "Big Lie" and politicians in and out of Guard uniform looking for more money for their little empires. Remember that the Guard is a state institution until it is called up.]
44 Scott // Jun 8, 2007 at
There would be one other number that might be worthwhile to track. The ratio of terrorists/insurgents captured as opposted to killed has been running at an incredibly high rate based on the reports I have been seeing. Only the hardcore terrorists are fighting to the death. The rest are surrendering at an amazing rate.
45 T Taylor // Jun 8, 2007 at
Just what we need. Statistics. Robert McNamara would be proud. How bout we take off the gloves?
46 A breakdown of US and enemy casualties in Iraq « Constitution Club // Jun 9, 2007 at
[...] North Shore Journal has some good graphs on the comparisons in combat deaths between US and enemy casualties in Iraq. I wish they had also done a graph illustrating the casualties of NATO forces compared to [...]
47 Boghie // Jun 9, 2007 at
Cynicor,
I can’t figure you libs out…
The American military cannot perform military actions within American borders. This is the result of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
———————–
From Wikipedia:
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement.
The original act referred only to the United States Army. The Air Force was added in 1956, and the Navy and the Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is often mentioned when it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.
——————-
So, if we cannot legally use the military within the borders of the United States tell me again how stationing them here helps us fight terrorism???
Or, are you arguing for the repeal of the Act???
48 Fred Beloit // Jun 9, 2007 at
The mission of the Infantry of the U.S. Army is: to close with and destroy the enemy and/or his will to resist. History has shown that if we do enough of the first part, the second will follow as a result of the first being done. Not the other way round.
49 CT // Jun 9, 2007 at
Interesting data, and I’m glad to see it, as it adds perspective to what is going on in Iraq.
I’ve been tallying, haphazardly, deaths (usually of Muslims) at the hands of other Muslims in various parts of the world. Yes, it’s very hard to sort the wheat from the chaff of (as per a recent news story) of an Afghan boat of 60 sinking, with “many Taliban on board,” but one must try.
The more I read and calculate, the more convinced I become that Islam is hazardous to everyone’s health, but most of all to Muslims’.
50 Phoenician in a time of Romans // Jun 10, 2007 at
The insurgents aren’t discouraged because the Islamic radical imans of the world keep pushing the jihad to the front of all there sermons and speeches in the mosques, madrassas and 7/11’s. Those who believe these deaths are only related to Iraq will be shocked with awe when we leave there and they follow us here. They won’t be insurgents then - they will be terrorists to fit everyone’s definition - even that of the AP, Reuters and the NYTs.
Of course, there weren’t any Iraqis coming to America and blowing shit up *before* the US bombed them and invaded their country.
As has been said by experts, the war has made the US *less* safe…
[Editor: Given Saddam's support of terrorism worldwide, and the many arrests made since 9/11 of long time residents of the U.S. who are Arabs, making that statement is a bit dangerous. I would suspect that there was at least one Iraqi involved in a terrorist plot here in the U.S.]
51 BitsBlog » The Surge story the press won’t tell you // Jun 10, 2007 at
[...] Go see.Last 10 posts by BitheadWatcher of Weasels – June 10th, 2007The left and it’s suicidal tendencies – June 10th, 2007Project Hero: Staff Sgt Stephen Achey, Silver Star – June 9th, 2007Racism isn’t the issue, here. Keeping our country, is. – June 9th, 2007Snark of the day: Kate O’Bernie – June 9th, 2007Are we vicarious Bimbos? – June 9th, 2007Watcher’s council – June 8th, 2007Kings humiliated? Well, no… – June 8th, 2007The biggest threat to John McCain is his lack of conservatism. – June 8th, 2007Che isn’t ‘cool’, gang…. – June 8th, 2007Extend the reach of this post Posted by Bithead @ 17:23 :: BitsBlog, Iraq, War on Terror Comment RSS :: Trackback URI [...]
52 infidel4life // Jun 10, 2007 at
danceswithgoats
“Playing “whack-a-mole” in Iraq is futile. We need to kill the Imams that are spouting jihadist rhetoric all around the world. As long as old men can send young men to die the fighting will continue. If we started with the Imams I bet the drive for Jihad would abate.”
I’d like to agree with you here ‘goats, but having read the Qur’an I cannot do so. As long as people continue to use that “holy” book and the life of the –ahem– “prophet” as their muse, there will always be people who want to kill infidels.
53 Tatterdemalian // Jun 10, 2007 at
“So, if we cannot legally use the military within the borders of the United States tell me again how stationing them here helps us fight terrorism???
Or, are you arguing for the repeal of the Act???”
The left has not only argued for years for the repeal of the Posse Comitatus act, but done its best to do end runs around it, for the express purpose of crushing domestic dissent through military force, Clinton’s egregious use of the BATF during his administration being a prime example.
[Editor: just to clarify. The use of military vehicles at Waco was very close to a violation of the Act.]
54 P aula // Jun 10, 2007 at
nathan is correct about Jihadis being aided by western press see MEMRI article
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD161507 and just read New York Times
55 Curious // Jun 10, 2007 at
Many arrests of U.S. Arabs since 9/11? How many arrests and, more important, how many convictions?
56 Andrew M. // Jun 10, 2007 at
It would be interesting to compare the ” mortality and bodily injury rates between the military now and prior to the Iraq action.
Few people recognize that a week doesn’t go by in the military outside of Iraq when someone isn’t killed by vehicle collision, misadventure, suicide, training accident, natural disease or otherwise. Mortality rates are heightened because of the very nature of the military demographic; young and largely male with access to big machines and weapons. Hence the obsession with safety in the military.
As insensitive and seemingly disrespectful as this may read, I believe that once normal mortality due to being in the military was factored in, the operational deaths in Iraq would not be overly significant statistically. (I know each death is significant for that soldier’s family friends and loved ones.) Keep in mind that 2/3 of hospital admissions in Vietnam were due to disease and not battle injury. The fact is, from a statistical perspective, some of the deaths incurred in Iraq would have occurred anyway due to work related factors.
[Editor: I just answered an e-mail on this very topic. In peacetime, somewhere between 500 and 900 troops die from non-hostile causes. That in the regular military. I don't know if they even keep stats on the Reserve and Guard unless it happens on a duty weekend or something. Somewhere on the DoD site are the actual stats for regulars.
Most of our troops are younger than 30. This is an age group that has a very low death rate. Combat is, without a doubt, increasing that rate. However, as I and other bloggers have pointed out repeatedly, there are places in the United States where yoou are at greater risk than you are serving in Iraq. A young black man in Washington D.C. would be safer to enlist than to stay on the mean streets of D.C, and that is not the only city where safety increases with distance.
The DoD casualty count is at this link. 18% of the deaths in Iraq are due to non hostile causes.]
57 zinowl // Jun 10, 2007 at
According to NATO and the Coalition Forces combined statistics - since 9/11, the war on terrorists, around the world, including all of asia, africa, indonesia, philippines, the middle east, far east, as well as eastern and western europe, the americas, and australia - the death toll per day of recognized terrorists averages approximately 100 per day (conservative statistics).
At 100 terrorist deaths per day, since 9/11 this represents close to 200,000 that have been eliminated by coalition forces around the world.
[Editor: I don't trust NATO numbers. Their activities in Afghanistan seem to suggest a lack of assessment and a "best guess" style of reporting enemy deaths. It's the French, after all.]
58 5JimBob // Jun 10, 2007 at
I’m curious about the perpetrators of the IEDs. Are perpetrators being paid to plant and trigger these things? I would suspect that lots of poor young men with no real access to money would be more than willing to take the chance and act in a mercenary fashion. Does anybody have any facts on this suspicion?
God knows our press couldn’t be bothered to investigate the possibility.
[Editor: The military has arrested folks that were paid to set these. It has been discussed in a couple of news conferences at DoD. The bigger and more dangerous the IED, the more likely that it was set by the guys that made it. The more sophisticated the bomb, the more likely it is a pro, not a paid and fumble fingered amateur.]
59 earth56 // Jun 10, 2007 at
Stop your driving right now !!!!
Iraq War casualtys in 4 years …..3500 ( bless them all )
Vehicle deaths in the USA in 4 years…170,000
60 nutmeg // Jun 10, 2007 at
Thank you for the homework and charts. The strategy is more than just attrition of enemy combatants. Numerous schools, clinics, and public/economic projects have been undertaken to improve life/hope for the general population in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But these efforts are also directly targeted by the terrorists/insurgents as part of their destruction/intimidation campaign for power. Successes in education, healthcare, employment opportunities, etc… will also have a positive impact on the situation. For a lighter moment on the subject of suicide bombers, check out the Fasil character on “Sands of Passion” web series posted at nationalbanana.com
61 Arnie Rosner // Jun 10, 2007 at
First off how many comments on this blog are based on first hand verifiable knowledge of the situation about which the comments were made?
This is exactly the nature of why the distortions and the lies persist. The media, in my view are the greatest abusers of the public trust so to quote almost any media source is essentially extending the lie they have concocted for political or financial gain.
Also, again in my view, those funding the activities of the terrorist and or insurgents know this about the gullibility of the typical US citizen and the roll of the US media in this charade and they are playing this for all it is worth.
Want proof? Just look at the opinions expressed in this blog.
Check out how the Iranian political strategists are playing the American public. How come it works? Because most people have been brainwashed almost from birth to trust the written word, politicians, civic leaders, clergy, movie stars, athletes and of course rock stars. It isn’t until one gains a sense of maturity and begins to learn about following the money instead of the fancy marketing hype used by most political activists following their specific agendas.
The problem as I see it is not Iraq…we are being taken for a ride and pretty stupid at falling for it too. The real masterminds behind this are the Iranians. They are providing all of the support to enable the insurgency. We are simply flailing away at the tentacles of the octopus instead of one well defined strike at the heart of the beast.
So how long will we remain so distracted and diverted by Iraq before we wake up to this ruse?
62 h-townTx // Jun 11, 2007 at
on 07 Jun 2007 at # Francis
“A terrorist is a person who uses violence for political gain.” That about clears it up for me.
*********
then what is your definition of a freedom fighter you tool?
63 ofek5 // Jun 11, 2007 at
here is another good stats websites http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Current stats
Islamic terrorists have carried out more than 8545 deadly terror attacks since 9/11
More interesting details some visitors here wanted. it include data from all over the world as far as i can tell
64 Stevend // Jun 11, 2007 at
I appreciate the stats, but I think it was Mark Twain who said something about “Lies, damn lies and statistics.” One can interpret this info in many different ways.
I have one “constructive criticism” that I hope the editor will take in the positive light in which it is intended: The “good guys” include British, Iraqi and other members of the multi-national forces, too. Publishing American deaths without recognition of their sacrifice does not sit right with me.
Unfortunately, the bottom line is that the casualty rate for the good guys is too high. The slow bleed will not be supported by the US public for much longer (unless the statistics show something positive). The political winds will force a withdrawal and who knows what will unfold next. I pray to all that is good, that the Patreaus strategy gets us to the point where the good guys are not being killed and -eventually - our your men and women can come home (to the heroes welcome that they deserve).
65 angryamerican // Jun 11, 2007 at
Is there any RELIABLE info on current fatalities of Iraqi’s due to what appears to be “sectarian” in nature (ie. sunni vs. shia) during the past few months?
I find this info would be interesting as it could be a good gauge as to the success of the so called “surge”.
Yes, our press fails to investigate ANY good news, including the recent handovers of several Iraqi provinces to ISF - that is the true gauge of the success in Iraq - Iraqi’s taking control of Iraq.
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/iraq-update/Handovers/index.html
66 By The Numbers « Buttle’s World // Jun 11, 2007 at
[...] the helpful graphics from Terrorist Death Watch. I guess the enemy is better than I thought, because I was expecting a [...]
67 living abomination // Jun 11, 2007 at
Ok, nice charts, but what’s your point? Does that mean that because fewer US troops are dying than “terrorists” it somehow justifies letting our troops die in a nonsensical war? Is it like “well, we’re not letting ALL soldiers die, so don’t worry about them”?
And how did they come up with the number of terrorists killed? Were they out there asking them “are you a terrorist” right before they died? In case you haven’t realized, there is a plethora of groups attacking - and they’re not all terrorists. It’s a civil war over there, and I wish Bush had the maturity to admit his many mistakes.
68 David C Beach // Jun 11, 2007 at
Thanks for the infomation. Like others have said, it’s hard to get numbers.
69 Art Hippler // Jun 11, 2007 at
Adeline:
Yes, Adeline, we did destroy the Viet Cong almost entirely during the TET Offensive of 1968. Expectably, the MSM claimed it was a massive defeat for the US when in reality it was a massive victory.
The only reason why Viet Nam fell to the NVA was that the Soviet and Chinese supplied NVA (Regular Army) attacked a South VietNam which our Congress (led by the usual suspect Democrats) refused to supply with weapons and equipment, even though S. VietNam did not have the capacity to manufacture such things and the North VietNamese did not have to since, (as I noted), they were receiving foreign supplies.
General Giap the legendary NVA general himself admitted that the NVA could never have defeated either the US (which it did not) or South Viet Nam if it were not for the assistance of the news media in the US which lied about the war and all but ignored the horrible massacres which communists carried out after its loss.
By the time of the NVA invasion there were nearly no American troops in the country.
By the way,don’t feel bad for your ignorance. I do not know a single liberal who is aware of this overwhelmingly obvious reality.
70 Phil // Jun 11, 2007 at
Brandon, to give you an idea as to just how bullshit sites like Iraq bodycount are I killed two of their so called “civilians.” it would seem to me that the fact that those guys were actively engaged in trying to kill me when they died would have precluded them from that title, but apparently not.
71 John // Jun 11, 2007 at
This is the dumbest thing in the world.
58,000 Americans died in Vietnam vs. Two Million Vietnamese, and we didn’t win that one either.
Comparative body counts have little to do with the success or failure of a war in the modern era.
Succeeding in Iraq requires clearly defined goals and a clearly defined plan for achieving them. Right now it does not appear that we have either.
72 B Dubya // Jun 11, 2007 at
Here is a comparative graph you could knock together, if you wanted.
Plot the number of all US Military deaths in theater against the same age group (19 to 35) killed in motor vehicle accidents CONUS, by month.
I believe the NSTA data for 2006 is available.
What you will see is that the senseless slaughter of young, military aged Americans is not happening in Iraq, its going on here, on the nations’s highways. What and where is the point of dying in an alcohol related car crash?
Those who have died in Iraq are mourned and we hope that their deaths shall not have been in vain. The same pampered and gutless elitists who co-opted NVA General Giap’s strategy for North Viet Nam in the late 60’s would appear to be on the move to do so again. Only this time, there is nobody out there who will accept their surrender…
73 Gatorman // Jun 11, 2007 at
I continue to be troubled by the use of the word “terroism” or “terrorist”. We should keep in mind that by its most open defintion, George Washington and the forces he commanded during the American Revolution were terrorist. When we attempt to use derogatory labels to push agendas, as our current president and congress do frequently, we create fear and passionate hate filled emotions that tend to neturalize reason. Reason is the connerstone of our republic. I think data such of this is of interest and should spark reasonable discussion, but labeling one side as badguys and the other as goodguys oversimplifies the argument. Remember the lessons of history, the “terrorist” of one history book is often the “freedom fighter” of another book written 50 years or 5,000 miles away. Regardless, I will keep serving my country and fighting this fight so everyone on this blog can have the freedom to reason with each other in a productive forum.
Peace,
M.W.,
USN
[Editor: You are correct in some respects. I did a post quoting the U.N. definition of terrorism, just for a baseline. Read it and see if our opponents in Iraq don't meet the definition. The problem is that many on the left refuse to call those who blow up schools or murder prisoners as "terrorists". Were the vast majority of the attacks against military targets, I might incline to your point of view. They are not, and it is clear that in Iraq our enemies intend to attack civilians and civilian targets as a preferred choice.]
74 Trey // Jun 11, 2007 at
Hey John,
Seems this information really pisses you off. As uncouth as it is, most Americans demand to know the “score”, but the media has kept it purposefully hidden. Why?
Is it screwing up your agenda that this info gets out there?
75 bob // Jun 11, 2007 at
To all who wonder why “they haven’t followed us here yet”. Of course the terrorists will not attack targets in the U.S….yet. If they did, ALL people, right AND left, would be forced to face the real threat and get mad enought to go all out against all terrorists, especially in Iraq. The terrorists will hold off any action against American civilians UNTIL Congress pulls the plug on Iraq and we “lose” that war. The terrorists only have to out last the Americans to “win”, and the MSM is convincing the American people that we can’t win. Once people are convinced, psycologically, that they can’t win, they have already lost…wars and battles are won, regardless of the odds, when people are convinced they can’t lose. Once Iraq becomes a terrorist base, and it will with US troops gone, there will be a tremendous up swing in attacks world wide. This will be principally because when the US leaves Iraq, it will be touted as a “win” for the Islamofacists (and that is a REAL terrorist enrollment draw), showing that the US is a weak enemy easily defeated. Summary: when we leave Iraq, there will be blood on American streets as they follow a “defeated enemy” home.
76 Out West // Jun 11, 2007 at
All the Americans who died in Iraq this year (and last) gave their lives so the Deserter and Chief can save face politicaly.
The War FOR Terrorism goes on in Iraq.
As for the server crashing at LGF, it serves that islamophobic hate site right for spreadig all it’s filthy racist lies.
[Editor: This rant brought to you courtesy of the Boeing Company. We appreciate your support.]
77 Mark S. // Jun 11, 2007 at
To Earth56, I agree!
This is from the site: http://california.resource4accidents.com/
California Accident Statistics:
Fatalities 2003-4,225 2004 4,120 -2%
Crashed with another moving car: 1,336 at 35% of wrecks
Fixed Object: 1,072
Non-Collision accidents: 412
Vehicle Type Death:
Car: 1,738
Light Trucks: 1,048
Large Trucks: 50
Buses: 0
Motorcycles: 432
Pedestrian Deaths: 684
This is Califonria alone. Stats I have heard about (driving eduacation classes) quote a number between 28,000 and 35,000 per year. We should ban driving.
78 Double Tap Blog » The truth about jihadi deaths in Iraq // Jun 11, 2007 at
[...] here’s something you won’t see in the Mainstream Media - it’s a tracking of reported jihadi and insurgent deaths in Iraq, in comparison to combat [...]
79 Ben // Jun 11, 2007 at
Francis-
Despite what many beleive, NOT all insurgents are terrorists.
The ones that wear insignia, do not hide among civilians, do not target civilians, do not murder their prisoners or leave them disfigured, and in general follow the laws and customs of warfare are NOT terrorists.
But both of those guys were caught long ago, so they no longer affect the statistics.
All the rest are terrorists.
Hope this clears it up.
Ben
80 Patriot // Jun 11, 2007 at
To those of the mindset of OutWest (I think he’s faaar out west somewhere) I’ll only say this when questioned about our involvement in Iraq.
1. We are gaining invaluable urban (MOUT) combat experience.
2. We are developing, testing and utilizing new and effective means to kill terrorists (insurgents is a glamour term, even the Iraqis know the difference).
3. We are kicking the ever loving shit out of those who desperately need it and generally scaring the living hell out of Iraq’s neighbors… who also are in need of an ass whipping.
Let Iraq be and you will have another safe haven ala Afghanistan, our military is bleeding to keep this from happening. It’s an important cause unless you want to see another 9/11.
Iran is waiting at the gates for us to leave, want to see another Islamofascist state in the world?
For those that say we are racist I’ll only say this… when Canadians start blowing things up, cutting off heads and forcing their religion/beer on the rest of the world then I’ll become wary of the Cannucks… until then Habib is going to make me nervous.
81 czekmark // Jun 11, 2007 at
“The most interesting graph would try to calculate how fast we are depleting the stock of jihadi cannon fodder in the Middle East. The relevant graph for the US would be how quickly is the enemy depleting our political will to fight.”
Since every devote follower of Islam is a potential terrorist, the max number of terrorists is the current muslim census. Yes, it is the imams and mullahs that sponser terrorist acts.
82 Shane Hanson // Jun 11, 2007 at
[For Mr. King and others]
For those here who don’t see a trend in the amount of terrorists being killed you need a little lesson in war. War is a battle of attrition. It is attrition of people and of supplies and money. One side loses when it no longer has people or it no longer has funds and weapons. Every war stopped before this happens will eventually restart. Korea didn’t end correctly, we started again in Vietnam. In Vietnam we continued our proxy war with the Chinese and Russians. The Cold War stopped short of an all out victory, we are starting that one again with Putin. And we are still fighting the Chinese.
We can continue to kill several hundred a month for quite a long time. The question is, will we continue to support this. I personally do.The terrorist, although some think they are endless, will run out of money and people. My attention span is a little longer and I realize we have been fighting these losers for more than 30 years. If we bag it and leave, we will just have to pick this fight up again. Let’s go ahead and do the damn job right and finish it.
83 dtheb // Jun 11, 2007 at
TO Bob
If we snatch Defeat from the jaws of Victory by leaving the job not done in Iraq, I think the next fight will be in the cities of Europe. The big question (but not the biggest) is will we decide to fight for and in, Europe, three times in 100 years.
The biggest question is when the Rules of Engagement will be lifted from our troops. When that happens, and it will, may God have mercy on our souls. I am afraid that future generations looking back at this time period will be shocked how many will be killed. The paradox is that the sooner the ROE are lifted, the less will die. I dont know who said it but this quote comes to mind ‘I can forgive you killing my sons, I cannot forgive you forcing me to kill yours’. Unfortunately, there will be much we cannot forgive.
To OUTWEST:
The deserter in chief left office in Jan of 2001. I dont see how this keeps his face.
84 Padraigh // Jun 11, 2007 at
Great figures! This shows why we are winning!
85 Billy Barue // Jun 11, 2007 at
The insurgents aren’t discouraged because the Islamic radical imans of the world keep pushing the jihad to the front of all there sermons and speeches in the mosques, madrassas and 7/11’s.
Agree! The fact that we won’t bomb mosques, graveyards, etc. is ridiculous. This policy creates defacto safe areas for the bad guys to gather and exchange information and ideas. If we’re to defeat the Jihad we need to silence the message of Jihad and that can only be done by eliminating the mosques. One or two high profile strikes could make a lot of Imams nervous. Our message should be, “if you preach Jihad there is no safe place.”
This is WWIII, folks, isn’t it time we acted like it?
86 dtheb // Jun 11, 2007 at
Patriot:
It has crossed my mind that we are in IRAQ partly to warm up for urban fighting in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid, Rome, and Berlin. My previous post I mentioned this but may have given the impression that it will happen only if we abandon Iraq, but I think it may happen even if we do finish the job in Iraq.
87 TroopTalk Trip // Jun 11, 2007 at
Attention all tadets…attention all tadets…
This means we are taking it to them…War is hell…but we have not lost in Iraq…and will not lose unless we Quit the fight before it is done! I am still curious as to where the numbers come from.
Trip
88 Out West // Jun 11, 2007 at
Those who share the macho simpleton mindset of “patriot”, they are the unwitting helpers of Ossama Bin Laden.
[Editor: Someone at Boeing has way too much time on their hands.]
89 Blog Platoon » The Truth About American Deaths In Iraq // Jun 11, 2007 at
[...] http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/2007/06/the-truth-about-american-deaths-in-iraq [...]
90 ChenZhen // Jun 11, 2007 at
Many good points have been brought up already, such as the distinction between a ‘terrorist’ (or as I would prefer, someone who would otherwise be a threat to the US here at home) and ‘insurgents’ (who aren’t), and the fact that body count numbers really mean nothing. I will add one more thing, however…
I think too many people see what we’re doing in Iraq is fighting a ‘war’. I disagree. We won the war, but are losing the battle against the insurgency. The reason why the ROE’s are so restrictive in this conflict is exactly because of this distinction. Fighting an insurgency isn’t about body counts or simply “killing the bad guys”. It is a complex and organic problem that constantly forces you to adjust and react. In fact, most of the effective counter-insurgency tactics don’t involve killing anybody. It’s more about winning ‘hearts and minds’, political maneuvering, and building alliances with the locals. THAT’s why the ROE’s are what they are.
Anyway, if you really wanted to prove that we’re having success in Iraq, than you post evidence that we’re having having an effect towards quelling the insurgency as a whole. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it yet. In my opinion (and based on all that pre-war intel that’s finally seeing the light of day), the whole mission was an extreme longshot from the get-go. Add to that the incompetence and arrogance of people like Rumsfeld, and you have the impossibly FUBAR situation we find ourselves in today.
Just my opinion…
91 dtheb // Jun 11, 2007 at
Out West:
Stop regurgitating and start thinking.
Patriot advocates actively attacking and stopping Binny Boy. How is that helping?
Oh, every one we kill means five more will pop up? Get real, those five more were against us from the start. There is nothing we could have done to not outrage them.
If you haven’t noticed, you cant throw a dead cat without hitting an imam preaching death to Jews, Christians, Americans, Russians, Hindus, Buddhists (I going to stop here, I think my fingers will fall off before I get to the end of the list of people Binny Boy and his ilk would like to kill). Oh, and its on film and captured so we can hear just what they actually say. Dont you just love Utube?.
92 Stevend // Jun 11, 2007 at
ChenZen,
You said, “if you really wanted to prove that we’re having success in Iraq, than you post evidence that we’re having having an effect towards quelling the insurgency as a whole. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it yet.”
Response - that’s BS. You are obviously getting your info from NBC and CNN and the like. I suggest you visit Michael Yon’s site or the Centcom site to get more balance.
You also said, “In my opinion (and based on all that pre-war intel that’s finally seeing the light of day), the whole mission was an extreme longshot from the get-go. Add to that the incompetence and arrogance of people like Rumsfeld, and you have the impossibly FUBAR situation we find ourselves in today.”
Response - That’s more BS - maybe you get your info from the DNC, not the MSM. It is difficult work to be sure, but it’s not a long-shot and we are winning. The major problem - as has been mentioned elsewhere - is that 90% of the media are democrats and they are treating the War - a War, for pete’s sake - with the same flippant attitude that they treat Paris Hilton.
93 Padraigh // Jun 11, 2007 at
“but it’s not a long-shot and we are winning”
Exactly - and the numbers prove that.
It’s a war of attrition, and the thing about wars of attrition is that it takes a long time for the result to emerge. The biggest war of attrition was WWI, and it took four whole years before victory came about.
94 ChenZhen // Jun 11, 2007 at
Stevend
Fine, fair enough. However, I think the fact that the “surge” was deemed necessary is evidence enough that our battle against the insurgency isn’t going so well. And there are multiple polls that say that the insurgent attacks get the stamp of approval from the general population. That ain’t a good sign when it comes to fighting an insurgency.
LOL. Yea , good ol’ Rummy. I don’t need to go to the DNC to know that Rummy was a joke. Forget the generals and troops that spoke out against him, or the fact that he resigned, Rummy hung himself with his own words. Flippant about the war you say? Like “I doubt six months“? What a howler. Or how about this gem: “Well, I think that anyone who looks at it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight has to say that there was not an anticipation that the level of insurgency would be anything approximating what it is“. Good grief. The fact is that report after report after report told these guys that this was going to be pretty much exactly as it has turned out. That’s what I mean by longshot from the get-go. Yet they act like they had no idea. And that’s why I say incompetence and arrogance. But , by all means, keep blaming the MSM if you want to (the MSM who, incidentally, played a role in selling the war to begin with).
Look, I don’t like to sound like a defeatist. But I thought this invasion was reckless and foolish from day 1, even when I thought there were WMD’s. Now that we’re 4+ years into it, and seeing all this stuff, it’s downright infuriating. Realistically, I think we probably had a window there where we could have pulled this off if it had been done correctly. But I think that window passed a while ago. We’ve overstayed our welcome. I wish I could say that I see positive things in staying there and putting in the effort. I wish I could.
95 John // Jun 11, 2007 at
Hey Trey,
No, I’m all in favor of MORE information rather than less.
I just don’t think this information is particularly useful in terms of gauging our progress toward creating a peaceful, or at least reasonably stable, Iraq.
Speaking of information the MSM is burying, how about an explanation from either party or the president as to what our current specific goals are in Iraq, and what we’re doing to achieve them.
Is this just going to be a complete boondoggle for the next 18 months, where more American soldiers die for no reason, because nobody wants to make a stand one way or another, and risk hurting their party’s presidential chances, or is there going to be a specific plan, backed up with money and men and strategy, to put the hurt on the bad people, protect the good people, and really bring this thing to a positive conclusion?
That’s what I’d like to know.
96 Just Another Exchange On A Blog « ChenZhen’s Chamber // Jun 11, 2007 at
[...] ChenZhen’s Chamber Home of the noble Flame Warriors « A Warm Reception For Xhorxh W. Bush Just Another Exchange On A Blog June 11th, 2007 One of the things I enjoy most about blogging is the ability to engage in debate with other netizens on all kinds of sites (including my own). There are advantages to having my own blog, and one of them is the fact that I can to use it as a resource. In other words, as I collect more links and information to make my own arguments here, that means that I have them readily available for use on this or other sites. It certainly beats searching all over the net for some link that you may have used, say, six months ago. Sometimes I can even copy/paste arguments I’ve already posted if the context is appropriate (although I tend to view that as a bit lazy, it can save some time). A perfect example of this concept in action was in a response I posted on America’s North Shore Journal: The Truth About American Deaths in Iraq [...]
97 Stevend // Jun 11, 2007 at
I’m not going to try to defend Rummy’s personality disorder or pretend that W. is a great communicator. Both of those weaknesses are valid. That said, I think the civilian leadership did make the right judgement to overthrow Saddam. I also think many of the most often criticized elements of the overall strategy were good decisions and will look better over time.
Knowing what we think we know now regarding WMD, it’s absolutely amazing to me that everyone focuses on the “stockpile” angle of that issue. There were now chemical stockpiles…so what. Accoording to Kaye and others the plans to reconstitute those programs were in place. Iraqui sanctions were all byt gone and a middle-east with Iran and Iraq having a mini arms race to see who could get the bomb first would have been unmanageable. Everyone would need one! That’s the path we were headed. We tried before to cozy up to those the ME tyrants and it does not work. Think also in the context of the region at large, the growing throngs of wahabbi suicide terrorists, our special relationship with Israel and the world’s reliance on the region’s oil, and there are many very bad scenarios that might have unfolded. The idea of letting the scenario play out and see what happens would have been ultimately foolish - playing Russian Roulette with the future. What we have now is a difficult task, for sure, but it is not on the threshold of spiraling out of control (unless we just leave - and that will not happen).
Should we have gone in with a more troops? Maybe, but I believe that was largely a military decision from Franks - not the arrogant politicos. A larger footprint may well have led to more - not fewer casualities given the nature of the engagement. Should the military have been authorized to use more force early in the occupation (remember Fellujah) to put down the rebellion earlier? Maybe, but then World opinion would have turned even more against the action.
At BTW, at the same time that Rummy & Chaney were making their “six-months” comments, General Sanchez was making it clear that insurgencies last years, not months. The political leadership should not have been setting unrealistic expectations, but if you were paying attention at the time, what has ensued should not be a surprise.
98 Christopher G Schroeder // Jun 11, 2007 at
Still waiting for the question I posted above to be answered.
In the mean time, those that have opposed this war, and think that Saddam was Mr. Nice Guy, I suggest reading this as a whole and looking at the Iraq war in its full history.
The Iraq War Puzzle Put Together
http://admin.itol.com/~cschroed/Iraqwarpuzzle.htm
99 Christopher G Schroeder // Jun 12, 2007 at
To ChenZen, John and the rest of the “doubting Thomas’s” that do not understand WHAT the our scope of completing the job in Iraq is, here it is for you:
What has been defined to you blockheads that don’t want to listen from the beginning:
March 19, 2003 - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
“And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.”
The National Strategy for Victory In Iraq - Nov. 2005 - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
“Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.”
—————
This site shows the progress of the handover to Iraqi’s. Dark green indicates provinces under full Iraqi control. IMO - as soon as all of it is dark green - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/iraq-update/Handovers/index.html
General Works to Dispel Myths About Iraq
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46226
and here is the ppt presentation by Brigadier General Anderson - Ten Myths of the War in Iraq
http://www4.army.mil/outreach/links/index.php?next=yes&index=4
100 Padraigh // Jun 12, 2007 at
“as soon as all of it is dark green - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”
Absolutely! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! And we can’t say that often enough!
101 ChenZhen // Jun 12, 2007 at
Christopher G Schroeder
First off, what’s with the name calling? Normally I don’t respond when people resort to that, but I’ll make a brief exception here.
OK, fine. Bush mentioned in one sentence that we weren’t going to just pack up and leave after ousting Saddam. I’ve listened to many of his pre-war speeches, actually, and he made that kind of statement a few times. So, yea, he said it. It’s certainly the understatement of the century, but he said it. The administration also said things like “greeted as liberators” too, absent any reason to believe that.
I’m guessing if they had started talking about permanent military bases, an olympic stadium sized embassy, millions of refugees, half a trillion dollars, the prospect of a civil war and/or destabilizing the region altogether, etc. , they probably wouldn’t have gotten us to go along with it.
102 The Anchoress » Blog Archive » Scanning the ’sphere; from fun to fractures and first lines // Jun 12, 2007 at
[...] Lawyers calling war strategy?: Can we think of more ways to screw up in Iraq? Of course, not all is as one thinks. Or as easy as one might [...]