Here is my regular summary of American losses in Iraq and those suffered by our enemies. U.S. losses are those as reported by the ICCC. Terrorist losses are those reported by MNF-I, except for November’s, which are my compilation pending confirmation by the military.
American losses are due to combat. Deaths from non-hostile causes are not included. People die of illnesses, vehicle accidents, murder, etc. all the time and being in Iraq has little to do with that statistic. Much of the media and many bloggers report the total deaths, which I suggest gives an inaccurate picture of the data.
The first graph compares our losses to the terrorists since 2006. The surge reached full strength in mid-June 2007.
The second graph displays the same data, from the start of the surge in January 2007 to November 30 2007.
This graph illustrates U.S. combat deaths, from IED’s and other combat.
You’ll note the leveling off from October to November. November was 1 less death than October.
Here are the deaths due to IED’s.
With our losses at such a low level, IED attacks can influence the graphs dramatically because they usually involve 2-5 troops, making one attack’s losses up to 20% of the monthly total of losses.
You’ll also note the drop in terrorist deaths. In many places our troops are just not having to fight any longer. Many of the people choosing to attack the Coalition in January have either decided to join our efforts or remain on the sideline and not fight.
This is a remarkable change. It does not take very many terrorists to wage an IED war. The lack of actual combat suggests that most of those we were fighting are no longer in the battle.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Mudville Gazette // Dec 3, 2007 at
Dawn Patrol…
Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our daily roundup of information on the War on Terror and other topics - from the MilBlogs and other sources around the world. If you’re a blogger, you can join the conversation. If you link to any of these stories, add a l…
2 jpickens // Dec 3, 2007 at
“Many of the people choosing to attack the Coalition in January have either decided to join our efforts or remain on the sideline and not fight.”
Uhhh… Many of them are simply dead…
3 American Losses in Iraq - Southern Maryland Community Forums // Dec 4, 2007 at
[...] our losses to the terrorists since 2006. The surge reached full strength in mid-June 2007.” Americas North Shore Journal __________________ "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will [...]
4 A Non-Story Remakes the Race - Southern Maryland Community Forums // Dec 4, 2007 at
[...] and Washington area news and headlines Much as the WaPo is reluctant to post, the reason is easy to explain Attached [...]
5 sferrell // Dec 4, 2007 at
Chuck,
I just wanted to note that U.S. wounded figures given at the ICCC site you linked fell from 296 in oct-2007 to a *stunningly low* 23 in nov-2007. The lowest previous monthly number I find there is 55 in may-2003. The second lowest number seems to be 147, june-2003. The total wounded is given at 28451, over a period of 57 months yielding an avg. 499 wounded/month. Is it possible that the large difference between 23 and 499 may be a better indicator of circumstances on the ground in Iraq than the KIA numbers?
SDF
[Editor: yes, you may be correct. Another indicator that the pace of combat has bee reduced to the occasional IED.]