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
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.
Right. So all insurgents are ‘terrorists’. I see.
This should be Digg-ed. I’m embarrassed that I don’t know how to do it. Very important for perspective.
nice charts. here’s to more big purple bars!
(on the latter two, of course)
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
–
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.
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”……
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.]
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.
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
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.
Of course the Jihadis aren’t discouraged; they have access to American media.
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.
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?
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.
Lighten up, Francis.
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.
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!]
“A terrorist is a person who uses violence for political gain.” That about clears it up for me.
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?
Here are a number of definitions of terrorism from the United Nations. By these definitions, all of those we kill are terrorists.
Right. So all insurgents are ‘terrorists’. I see.
Francis has finally learned something…
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.
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.
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.
“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.]
[...] 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. [...]
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
If they were freedom fighters, they’d scream, “LONG LIVE A FREE IRAQ” after they attack instead of “Allah ahkbar!”
Freedom fighters…brilliant.
July Linett, a running count of people killed by greater Islam gathered, I believe, from newspaper articles at
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Happy hunting !
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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)……
Yes, just like we killed all the terrorists VC in Vietnam.
“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.]
“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.]
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.
Just what we need. Statistics. Robert McNamara would be proud. How bout we take off the gloves?
[...] 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 [...]
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???
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.
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’.
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.]
[...] 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 [...]
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.
“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.]
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
Many arrests of U.S. Arabs since 9/11? How many arrests and, more important, how many convictions?
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.]
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.]
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.]
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
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
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?
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?
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
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).
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
[...] the helpful graphics from Terrorist Death Watch. I guess the enemy is better than I thought, because I was expecting a [...]
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.
Thanks for the infomation. Like others have said, it’s hard to get numbers.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.]
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?
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.
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.]
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.
[...] 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 [...]
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
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.
“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.
[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.
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.
Great figures! This shows why we are winning!
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?
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.
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
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.]
[...] http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/2007/06/the-truth-about-american-deaths-in-iraq [...]
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…
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?.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
[...] 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 [...]
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.
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
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
“as soon as all of it is dark green – MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”
Absolutely! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! And we can’t say that often enough!
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.
[...] 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 [...]
[...] some sobering graphs on U.S. KIA vs. Enemy KIA in [...]
I believe this ‘terrorist deaths’ graph to be misleading in several ways. Without getting into the old “Body count math: 5 guerillas plus three noncombatants plus a dozen pigs equals twenty enemy dead” argument, I would point out that the U.S. military press was notorious for grossly overestimating enemy casualties from artillery and air strikes in the Korean and Vietnam wars. While reporting on enemy casualties is doubtless more accurate now than in the past, gauging the number of dead enemies is an imprecise science at best. Without accusing our military of any intentional dishonesty, I can’t help but think they would be more inclined to overestimate than underestimate enemy casualties when in doubt.
Second, the number of confirmed enemy dead does not take into account their relative value. The ‘terrorists’ or insurgents who die in the greatest numbers tend to be those with the least training and experience. Disenchanted young muslim men eager to give their lives are pouring into Iraq from the enormous and largely overpopulated muslim world. The muslim world, enormous swathes of which could be brought into a fight against a perceived non-islamic agressor (like Iraq) easily. To the commanders, the organizers, the bomb-makers and other veteran terrorists, the lives of eager but untrained jihadis are valueless. While this obviously shows them to be amoral monsters, it must be understood that they would not spend the lives of their soldiers so freely if they did not have a nigh-limitless base of manpower. I see on the above graph that the ratio of IED/combat deaths to terrorist deaths is something like one to ten, or one to five at least favorable. When one considers the massive investment made in every single U.S. combat soldier, ten dime-a-dozen suicide jihadis for every ultra-expensive marine or soldier is not a good trade.
This brings me to my next point. If conservatives truly want to fight and defeat the vast and powerful ideology of islamic extremism, they must debase themselves of the illusion that American resources are limitless. Abundant, perhaps, but at the rate that military materiel is being destroyed and consumed in Iraq, the U.S. army will be a shadow of its former self in only a few years time. By measuring American losses only in the number of dead, conservatives disingenuously neglect the fact that American military might is based on our technological and materiel superiority. We are squandering, shamelessly, this power in Iraq. Insurgents and terrorists have often succeeded in attacking ammunition dumps and other high-value targets. Even if not one soldier dies, an entire ammo dump cooking off is a multi-million-dollar dagger in America’s side. Look at the weapons insurgents use; twenty-odd year old russian artillery shells for IEDs, AK-47s (still cheap, still effective) and similar, almost uniformly inadequate equipment. While it may be of low quality, the arab world has absolutely no shortage of the weapons they have been killing our men and destroying our equipment with.
I beleive Iraq has proved that the U.S. army, in its ultra-mechanized current form, is absolutely INCAPABLE of acting as a successful occupying force. Attempts to shore up our military’s inadequecies (chiefly, a shortage of ‘boots on the ground’) by quickly gearing up an Iraqi military have been dismal failures; these Iraqi army units, besides being shot through with infiltrators, are questionably loyal at best, and have often refused orders and sold their equipment to the black market (insurgents). Before the Iraq war began, I said that a protracted land-war in the middle east was the last thing the U.S. armed forces was prepared for. I hate to say I told you so, but I beleive I have been proven right.
Ten to one death ratio? Twenty, even thirty to one, would still be a net loss for us. Our economy and government is being drained and our military’s strength sapped by this insane adventure. I fully support confronting and defeating the forces of islamic extremism, but if we don’t fight smart and instead expect our glorious military to triumph whatever the odds, it is a fight we will not win.
As a final thought, I would point out that American deaths exceeded British in the revolutionary war, but look who won. I find it unendingly ironic that the pioneers of modern guerilla warfare are constantly stymied by it now that it is they who posess overwhelming firepower.
[Actually, you are wrong, wrong, wrong! As I have pointed out many times in America's North Shore Journal, my records are only picking up 1 out of 3 or 4 terrorists killed. The only reason that these graphs look as they do is that the military released actual numbers for the period of the Surge. The military is going out of its way to avoid announcing enemy deaths.
If you would follow the link to the Terrorist Death Watch site, you will see that every death has a citation. I have been very conservative, and not used figures from media sources.
Bill Clinton gutted our military. If you want boots, look for the half million or more troops that we no longer have a place for.
You will also note on this blog that I have noted the United Nation's definition of terrorism, and just about every dead guy on my list qualifies.
Four years is not a protracted war. Vietnam was a protracted war.
The Brits and Germans lost 5,800 plus to combat in the Revolution.
BTW, we won in Vietnam. The failure of the American government to reinforce the South when it was attack by Communist armor cost us SOutheast Asia, and is directly responsible for the Cambodian horrors.]
Body Count…
The Truth about American Deaths in
Iraq Apparently winning and losing a war is
measured by something other than body count these days. …
Hunter,
I disagree with most of your reasoning, but – unfortunately in my opinion -, there is an element of truth in what you say. The sentiment of support from the US public is truly not limitless (in fact, most Americans have the attention span of a half-hour sitcom).
As has been said above several times, the shame of the situations is that the MSM only reports US caualties. It’s like listening to a football game and the radio broadcaster only announces when the visiting team scores – as if our guys are sitting around waiting to be killed and are doing nothing positive.
I’m not a fan of kill ratios, necessarily, but this is one way to show that the activity is not all one sided.
FarOutWest…
Don’t confuse my “macho simpleton mindset” with a very focused eye on our enemy and what it will take to defeat them. Personally I’m not too fond of lying down and being eaten by the wolves, I much prefer to live in a democratic society without being forced into a Islamofascist Talibanesque dictatorship. If you think that this threat will merely go away if we just close our eyes then you are already dead. You need to read the writings/rants of OBL and every other Islamofascist terror group, including the government of Iran, and what their intentions are.
Feel free to pretend there’s no threat but there are plenty of us that will fight, even for you, before we lie down for these animals.
My family has shed blood and given lives in combat against AQ long before 9/11, the threat didn’t start with Iraq. Maybe you have forgotten about the Marine barracks in Beirut, the first WTC bombings, the Cole and hundreds of other attacks on Embassies, installations and citizens around the world. We didn’t start it but we damn sure better finish it.
Ah yes, Vietnam. The tragic, contentious conflict of yesteryear. I have no doubt that, if the United States had just poured enough materiel support into the South Vietnamese regime at the right time, it could have stayed afloat and, if not conquered the north, at least endured until it died a political death. What I would say in response to the old “stabbed in the back” refrain about why we ‘lost’ Vietnam is that that war was a defeat before the first American military advisor arrived.
Not to sound condescending, but it seems to me conservatives now and throughout history have had difficulty with the concept of the ‘Pyrrhic victory’ and why such a thing is never desirable. The mind boggles at the sheer volume of American war materiel sent to (and lost in) Vietnam. The communist Vietnamese guerillas were battle-hardened before even the French came to grips with them; they fought a hard, bloody insurgency against the Imperial Japanese during world war II. The failure of the French to reach a political solution with the nationalist wing of the Vietnamese political spectrum forced the nationalists into the arms of the communists, making almost the entire population hostile to western government. The failure of the French military should have impressed this upon American military planners; high-tech western weaponry and mechanized tactics do not provide a decisive advantage against a dedicated foe, with strong local support, in dense terrain. Therefore, unless extremely vital interests are at stake, that kind of battle should always be avoided by a mechanized, western military.
Put simply, while it may have been desirable to prevent a communist takeover in Vietnam (Pol Pot et al.), the fact that the ‘domino theory’ was bunk (ignoring as it did the uniqueness of the French Indochina situation) combined with the low strategic value of Vietnam compared to, say, the Middle East or the Balkans, means to me that in a world ‘beseiged’ by communism on many fronts, Vietnam was a lost cause. It cost us much, much more in terms of manpower and resources than it did the Soviets and communist Chinese. In addition to poisoning civillian support for anything to do with the Cold War, the Vietnam conflict depleted American resources at a much faster rate than the Soviets and Chinese, who hardly had to commit any of their soldiers at all, thus giving the United States a compound disadvantage in the arms race, hampering political support and depleting equipment at the same time.
Does this make me cold, inhuman, to consign so many to death and tyranny for the sake of strategic advantage? Perhaps, but a wise man once said “He who defends everything defends nothing”, and besides, we Americans cannot claim to have come charging to the rescue during every single humanitarian crisis of the 20th century (though we do try). Conservatives often accuse progressives of being naive or soft, but it is the height of arrogance to believe we can right every wrong.
The benign, good-natured interventionism of the post-WWII period is only a hairs breadth from imperialism in practice. This should give interventionists pause; not because imperialism is immoral, but because it is proven to be ineffective. America commands the industrialized world, but the rest of the world, the ‘third’ world, while not beyond our influence, is not within our power to control. I firmly believe that, had the South-Vietnamese government been sustained militarily, it would have fallen politically due to the unique social stresses which pushed Vietnam towards communism in the first place. Beyond Indochina, resentment to U.S. involvement in the politics of third-world nations almost always meets resentment and resistance. For every ‘dollar’ of American influence, two or more must be spent in a third-world nation for the same value one would hold in an industrialized nation.
Does this mean we should never, ever intervene in any way in the third world? No. But money does not grow on trees, and gutting all the social programs in the western world could not buy an army large enough to enforce our will over every last corner of the globe. And most importantly, a high-tech military can never lie down in one spot, forfeiting its formidable mobility and CnC advantages, and allow its low-tech adversaries to smother it.
Congress “Supports The Troops”…
Today America was once again reminded how very sincerely Congress supports our armed forces: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Thursday that he told liberal bloggers last week that he thinks outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace…
Hunter,
I agree with you that, in retrospect, Vietnam turned out to be a geography of less political importance than was believed in 1960’s. But to suggest that this totally discredits the domino theory is wrong.
Please also realize that Vietnam was a war that began by Kennedy and was escalated by Johnson – neither of these two were considered “conservative.” They were, in fact, quite the liberal politicians.
Finally, in Vietnam, the biggest error, in my opinion, was that the politicians attempted to manage it from Washington, rather than letting the commanders in the field set the battle strategy. Very similar to what Pelosi and Reid are attempting to do with Iraq, now. During vietnam, the public outcry against the war was much, much more widespread then the current situation – just look at the relative size of the protests.
[...] the fact that the domino theory was bunk (ignoring as it did the uniqueness of the French Indochina situation) combined with the low strategic value of Vietnam compared to, say, the Middle East or the Balkans, means to me that in a … …READ MORE… [...]
Stevend-
I find it extremely disingenuous to suggest that because Kennedy and Johnson (who are indeed known for their liberal domestic policy) began the war in earnest that liberalism as an ideology and liberal politicians had as much to do with starting the Vietnam war as did conservative politicians. Lets be realistic. Support for the Vietnam war was almost exclusively the purview of conservatives. It was, after all, Ike Eisenhower who made the original commitment to French Indochina. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe then, as now, the further to the right one was politically, the more likely one was to support Vietnam.
Second: I believe the oft-repeated notion that politicians ruined the war with micromanagement to be, like the same ’stabbed in the back’ myth in post WWI Germany, a way to deflect blame from the basic inadequecies of the defeated military. There was nothing Germany’s politicians could have done or not done to avert their defeat; they were outmatched from the first day.
You cannot blame the ‘hippies’ and politicians for the U.S. military’s basic failings in Vietnam, the failings which turned the rest of the nation against that conflict: The U.S. military had no experience in counterinsurgency and was incapable of ‘winning hearts and minds’ as they put it. Furthermore, in actual combat with guerillas, the firepower and mobility focused U.S. army was at a fundamental disadvantage and often found itself fought to a standstill or stymied by poorly equipped indigenous fighters.
Though never defeated on the battlefield exactly, make no mistake; the U.S. military was beaten in Vietnam. They were defeated in the chronic underperformance of the well-equipped ARVN, they were defeated in the unquestioning willingness of any Vietnamese outside Saigon and a certain plateau to harm, hamper or confuse Americans whenever possible, they were defeated in the many emberassing setbacks dealt to the USAF by the comparatively tiny Vietnamese airforce. We were defeated in our inability to keep our soldiers under control and enforce discipline in a supremely chaotic environment (Mai Lai, et al.) Even if we held the battlefield at the end of the day, by simply facing us on our own terms and holding their own, the Vietnamese perceived a victory, and rightly so, for a narrow victory over a force with perhaps one tenth of your resources is nothing to be proud of.
To say that the U.S. military succeeded in everything it did, and that it was the politicians who caused defeat in Vietnam is to turn a blind eye to our military’s inabilities. The Army can beat any force in the world in the air or on open ground, but the same technology and doctrine which allows us to do so is more a hindrance than a help in a situation like Vietnam.
In summary,
1. We lost Vietnam.
2. Our military’s basic structure is a disadvantage in such a war.
3. The Soviets/Chinese got massive return for their investment in Vietnam. Our investment went right down the tubes.
4. Even if North Vietnam was finally assaulted and taken following the Tet offensive, we STILL lost Vietnam because of our proportional losses.
Hunter,
You seem to have a “defend liberals at any cost” attitude, which makes me think that you are missing the forest for the trees. Liberals or conservatives don’t win or lose wars. Democrats or Republicans don’t win or lose wars. Nations win or lose wars. In the case of Iraq, we had a united nation going into the fray. Then, as far as I can see, the dems put are putting their own political interests in front of the countries.
I did not blame hippies for anything and I’m not up-to-snuff on German Military tactics in WWI. So, I’ll agree with what you say there. That said, you reminded me that liberal Wilson led the US into WWI – and, just to throw fuel on the fire – liberal roosevel led the US into WWII. (If liberals hate war so much, they sure have a bad track record).
Regarding Vietnam, I believe Ike sent a hundred observers, which Kennedy turned into ten thousand trainers, which Johnson turned into a half a million soldiers, which Nixon – by congressional mandate – withdrew. Support for the Vietnam war, when it was popular, was as much a liberal as a conservative cause and villification when it was unpopular was also bi-partisan.
The US military in Vietnam, as has been pointed out many times on this thread previously, performed great – especially the soldiers in the field. Did they suceed at everything? No, of course not. Were there bad apples? Unfortunately, yes. But did they overall do what was needed/expected from them? Resoundingly yes. I find your criticism of them incorrect and incoherent.
I do blame the leadership (especially Johnson/MacNamara), for foolishly micromanaging the Vietnam conflict. We should never have had half a million soldiers. We should have had enough soldiers needed to secure the borders and then fought a battles against an insurgency (which is what Patreus is proposing in Iraq). Staying in concentrated masses and seek and destroy is a bad tactic. The army can fight either way (again, yur criticisim is incoherent).
As applied to the situation in Iraq, I think it would be a mistake for the govt. to apply timelines for withdrawal. It’s the worst idea possible. If we have to quit in a year, then let’s get the hell out ASAP and save our resources. Why? Because within 5 years of a premature withdrawal, there will be a lights-out, take no prisoners war and we will be sucked into it.
[...] Más: The Truth About American Deaths in Iraq [...]
I LOVE BUSH!!
Hunter you are wildly off mark.
Eisenhower sent advisors to many other countries as well as South Vietnam. As have every other president since.
It was JFK and LBJ that planned and executed that war. It should also be noted that the Democrats controlled both houses during those years.
Like the Democrats in March 2003 the Republicans were the loyal opposition, but the Bush Administration gets the credit with planning the liberation of Iraq (although the Dems controlled one of the houses, I dont remember which one). So lets put things in a proper perspective here.
Ironically it was the Democrats that sold out South Vietnam. However, I disagree with Steven about the conduct of U.S. troops in the war. While the French couldnt match the Communists outside of the Vietnamese cities, our troops successfully took the fight to the enemy’s own turf and bested them every time. The South Vietnamese guerillas (Vietcong) were effectively defeated and the North Vietnamese regulars resorted to disguising themselves as guerillas in order to maintain the appearance of a popular revolution.
After all, its all about “appearances” in guerilla/terrorist warfare.
So if we had honored our obligations to the South Vietnamese government after our troops pulled out the NVA invasion would have failed, but the Democratic Party (that planned the war in the first place) did everything they could to defeat our allies.
It was a pity and in that regard similar to the Iraq War.
“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.”
Exactly… and that has been going on for years.
While studying in Paris in the 70’s, I often had political discussions with several of my fellow students. One of the students, a Morrocan I came to know a bit better than others, had a really skewed view of life in the US(shaped, in part, by the good ole’ American film industry). I challenged him to come and study here, to experience first-hand life in the US. Of course, that wouldn’t do! It would be too dangerous for him, he wouldn’t be able to walk down the streets safely. He told me that the US must be destroyed, that it didn’t matter how long it took, the battle would continue. If one generation didn’t accomplish that goal, the next would continue the stuggle.
Radical Islam’s battle against the US/the West didn’t start with the war in Iraq, with 9-11 or even back in 1993 with the first WTC attack. It’s been going on for literally at least a couple of generations, now. It just took 9-11 for most Americans to become aware of it.
“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.”
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
David Hannum (P.T. Barnum’s competitor)
Under Islamic law, a young man cannot have sex outside of marriage and he cannot take a wife unless he has a job. Since he only has a degree in Islam studies (if he has one at all), there is no job available except in religious circles. Islamist mosques typically are funded by individuals (sometimes well to do individuals, like Bin Laden or Muqtada al Sadre). If the young man doesn’t do things the way the check signers want it, then he has no job, and probably lose a limb in the process. So, he can’t have sex outside of marriage, and can’t have a marriage w/o a job, the prospect of 72 virgins and getting some Al Qaeda money to his family simply by blowing himself up starts to look pretty good.
This war cannot be won on the battlefield without the resolve of ALL Americans. The war will be won or lost in the media and they are doing a great job creating division in this country. Imagine the outcome if America was truly united. The politicians, the media and the people, in that order. We can not win until we ALL unite. The terrorists find new resolve every time an American politician, reporter or citizen speaks against the war effort, and they do this on a daily basis. The media and the politicians all have their own agendas. Unfortunately the first thing on their list is not winning this war.
Ask any solder returning from Iraq what they think of the American media.
God Bless George W. Bush for standing firm. Beware of Iran after his term because the Demos are worse than the French. Their heads will be in the sand until they loose it, then we will all have to pay the price to salvage what is left.
This was printed in the Orange County Register last year. Perhaps a bit off topic, but interesting.
Many Americans are too young to remember, but the history of terrorism against Americans (and our allies) may help us understand the reasoning for ““The War in Iraq””, and many others need to be reminded. See the web-site listed below if you want a history lesson or a reminder of the Americans and others who have been murdered in the name of Islam.
http://www.geocities.com/ktkris.geo/victims.html
Americans have been attacked by Islamic Extremist (terrorists) over four dozen times in the last 40 years before 9/11. Over 1200 Americans were killed and thousands injured (for non-Americans, you can almost triple these numbers). We have done virtually nothing about it. Why? Because they are cowards who strike and then hide. They are using the same strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places in the world. They hide in countries that will protect them or they are in regions of those countries that are very isolated with little or no government control. These terrorist groups were not Al Qaeda, so don’t be fooled into thinking this war is against them alone. Let’s not forget about Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatwa, Hezbollah, PFLP, PLC; and there are many, many more. They have all attacked and killed many Americans for decades. They hate what we are, not what we do, so don’t think that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists; it is merely bringing them out of their hiding places, finally. We have waited for this opportunity for too many years. But there is a much larger problem. The terrorists know they can not defeat the American war machine. They can only hope to kill as many of us as possible to bolster their support in the Islamic world to win over more recruits while they wait for their ultimate strategy to succeed. You see, their only hope is to use the free western media against us, and its working. The terrorists remember how we lost in Viet Nam. It works like this. Just get the media to report all the soldiers dying, which will eventually outrage the American public, who in turn will protest against the war until the government gives in and brings all the soldiers home (so they can get re-elected). Then all the terrorist groups can claim victory and get even more powerful.
Wake up America, don’t let this happen. Their vision of the future is parallel with the Taliban government of pre-9/11 Afghanistan. But first they must KILL the infidels. That’s us. Think about the things we know about the terrorists: They have hated who we are (infidels) for half a century, they want us dead, they will commit suicide to kill us, they believe they will go to heaven if they do so. We have seized laptops and literature that proves they are trying to acquire a nuclear weapon or the technology to make one. It is inevitable that they will succeed one day if we don’t act now. North Korea, Iran or Pakistan could supply this technology one day. Another coup in Pakistan is possible in the next few years, Iran will soon have a nuclear reactor, and you know what they think of us. Will we wait for a nuclear explosion in a major US city before we understand what their goals are?
We are in Iraq not only to fight a long time enemy that has killed hundreds of our loved ones, but to change the face of the Middle East by opening their minds to religious and cultural tolerance. This can be done by giving them a taste of real freedom and financial security for their families. The region has the financial wealth to accomplish this with the right government in place. This is why a diverse, democratically elected, non-corrupt government is Iraq is critical. This is what changing the hearts and minds of the people is all about. And it will spread throughout the Middle East. They are hungry for freedom but many are afraid to express such ideas.
Open your eyes America, don’t let the media affect your good judgment. They have their own agendas which has priority over our National Security.
God Bless America and its Warriors
on 07 Jun 2007 at # Francis
“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.”
See you lost the minute you started “talking” to the insurgents. They just want you dead. They don’t give a rats ass what you think or believe. It’s ALLAH all the time and ALLAH all the way.
Have all the Liberal turds out there lost their collective minds to think that we can “Talk” to these delusional Muslim Terorist? Just kissy kissy and find out what they want and all will be well?
God help this nation.
[...] Re: Terrorist death tolls I have been trying to get ANYTHING on this subject. The news reports numbers of terrorists killed in single engagements, but the labels vary quite a bit and NOBODY seems to make tallies, provide estimates or otherwise compare. This link makes an attempt and there’s the usual discussion attached, but it’s clearly an advocacy site, so who knows? Any help with this would add to the discussion. The big question is why the main stream doesn’t even seem to be interested? Americas North Shore Journal [...]
Enemy Body Count
The administration has recently changed their position on reporting enemy casualties. so here you go, try this link:
http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/2007/06/the-truth-about-american-deaths-in-iraq#comment-7576
[...] other news. 6.550 terrorists killed in Iraq since 1 Jan 2006. Such a waste. Just think if they were actually trying to make life better in Iraq, instead. The [...]