Combat deaths decline in Iraq, reasons unclear...

[Tigermike 3,043]

Combat deaths in Iraq decline; reasons aren't clear

By Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Sunday, September 2, 2007

WASHINGTON — American combat deaths in Iraq have dropped by half in the three months since the buildup of 28,000 additional U.S. troops reached full strength, surprising analysts and dividing them as to why.

U.S. officials had predicted that the increase would lead to higher American casualties as the troops "took the fight to the enemy." But that hasn't happened, even though U.S. forces have launched major offensives involving thousands of troops north and south of Baghdad.

American combat casualties have dropped to their lowest levels this year, even as violence involving Iraqis remains high.

Military officials and observers are wondering whether the lower U.S. casualties are a sign of success or an indication that insurgents and militiamen simply chose a different battlefield when the Americans mounted their offensive in Iraq's capital. (Or it could mean so many of the bad guys had been killed it results in fewer acts of aggression. Or it could mean they know if they show their asses they will be killed.)

"Nobody here is doing cartwheels yet," said one senior military official at the Pentagon, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely.

One British analyst, using the example of the British drawdown of forces in southern Iraq, suggested that the lower numbers may mean that American troops are irrelevant to the many conflicts racking Iraq: ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods in Baghdad, massive bombings of religious minorities by Sunni Muslim extremists in northern Iraq and Shiite-on-Shiite-Muslim violence in southern Iraq.

Instead, he suggested, Iraq’s armed factions and politicians already are thinking beyond the troop buildup.

"Everyone is preparing for what happens" after U.S. forces leave, said James Denselow, an Iraq specialist at the London-based Chatham House, a foreign affairs research institute.

Supporters of the troop increase say the lower casualty figures show that the larger number of troops and the counterinsurgency approach of Gen. David Petraeus, the latest U.S. commander in Iraq, have turned Iraqi citizens against armed groups, putting them on the run and fracturing them.

"The population is progressively turning to coalition and Iraqi forces and making a positive difference in bringing security to their towns, villages and neighborhoods. They are pointing out extremist leaders, identifying caches and IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and asking to be a part of the legitimate Iraqi security force," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 commander, said last month.

Others, however, noted that while U.S. combat deaths have dropped, deaths among Iraqi civilians have remained constant and the "ethnic cleansing" — the street-by-street homogenization — of Baghdad's neighborhoods has continued almost unabated.

While the Shiite Mahdi Army militia has lowered its profile in the capital, it's battled the rival Badr Organization of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council for control of southern Iraq. Two southern provincial governors have been assassinated, many allege by the Mahdi Army. In northern Iraq, suspected Sunni insurgents killed more than 400 people in a coordinated attack on two villages, the largest terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington.

"We know a lot of them have left Baghdad," the senior Pentagon official said.

Understanding why American combat deaths are down is important, because the verdict on the buildup is a driving issue in the growing domestic debate over what to do in Iraq. Opponents use the lower casualty figure to argue that American troop deaths aren't worth the security gains in Iraq, while supporters say the figure shows that Iraqis are moving toward supporting the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

Most agree that a second reason for the decline is the dramatic change of conditions in Anbar province, where former Sunni insurgents have teamed up with American troops to rid the province of the group al Qaida in Iraq. About one-third of U.S. casualties have been in Anbar province, but that's shifted since the troop increase began. In August, about 10 percent of U.S. casualties occurred there, compared with 30 percent in January, when the buildup began.

Shiites are fighting each other for control of the southern provinces. Some Pentagon commanders have told McClatchy Newspapers that they think that rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army left Baghdad before the troop increase began to fight in the south. Throughout the buildup, Sadr has issued statements discouraging his followers from attacking U.S. forces and Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, most recently last week.

At the Pentagon, officials are quietly cheering the drop, but remain cautious: Casualties could spike again as early as this month, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which traditionally has been a violent period in Iraq. Ramadan is to begin this year around Sept. 12.

Publicly, officials say the drop in U.S. deaths is a combination of all these factors.

"I think the surge forces have clearly contributed to security. They've created a climate in which people feel more comfortable cooperating with American forces. We've seen a dramatic increase in the number of tips about insurgent activities, which has allowed us to stop and pre-empt attacks before they take place. I think you're also seeing an increasingly capable Iraqi security forces," said Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman. "Did some run before we got there? Probably the smart ones did. Others were killed or captured, or they're still on the run."

U.S. officials said they'd arrested significantly more insurgents and militiamen since the buildup began, but they couldn't provide figures for enemy combatants killed.

Since the war began, Pentagon statistics have shown that combat deaths often rise at the beginning of major military operations and drop in subsequent months.

In May, when four of the five additional brigades were in Baghdad, there were 123 combat deaths. By June, the number fell to 93, then to 66 in July and to 57 in August, according to the Web site iCasualties.org, which keeps the most up-to-date statistics on Iraq casualties.

Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area research center, warned that reducing the number of troops could lead to an increase in casualties. He said the drop could be because the size of the built-up forces intimidated Iraq's various factions.

"Ironically, we may lose fewer soldiers the more we have exposed" to combat, Thompson said. "A large U.S. combat presence might reduce casualties by intimidating the enemy."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19401.html

[AURaptor 1,125]

I'm an expert. I see the reason is clear. The surge is working.

[otterinbham 0]

I'm an expert. I see the reason is clear. The surge is working.

I'm an expert, too. Why did this administration choose to fight the Iraqi insurgency in such a grotesquely stupid way for so long?

Seriously. Four years is a long time to finally get a clue and change tactics. We went from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay in the same amount of time. And everybody in asymmetrical warfare was standing on chairs, screaming at the top of their lungs for these tactics from the very beginning--only to be ignored by the administration's decision makers.

Anybody who knows anything about the place knew that it was a simmering cauldron of religious factions, each one of which was spoiling for the others' chitlins. Yet there was zero thought given to the political situation after the tanks rolled through Baghdad.

It was reckless, criminal stupidity. A shame that 3,500 soldiers had to die over four years before somebody figured out that the previous plan wasn't working.

[AURaptor 1,125]

I'm an expert. I see the reason is clear. The surge is working.

I'm an expert, too. Why did this administration choose to fight the Iraqi insurgency in such a grotesquely stupid way for so long?

Seriously. Four years is a long time to finally get a clue and change tactics. We went from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay in the same amount of time. And everybody in asymmetrical warfare was standing on chairs, screaming at the top of their lungs for these tactics from the very beginning--only to be ignored by the administration's decision makers.

Anybody who knows anything about the place knew that it was a simmering cauldron of religious factions, each one of which was spoiling for the others' chitlins. Yet there was zero thought given to the political situation after the tanks rolled through Baghdad.

It was reckless, criminal stupidity. A shame that 3,500 soldiers had to die over four years before somebody figured out that the previous plan wasn't working.

First of all, it's a war. Soldiers are going to die. And miscalculations happen in every war. So that can't be avoided. Not trying to defend the administration here, but there was ample evidence from the Gulf War 1 and the fall of Baghdad that folks w/ arms wouldn't have the stones to stand up and fight us. For us, standing on the outside, it's easy to make the call - now. That's the problem w/ trying to fight a politically correct war, I guess. Which is exactly what they should NOT have been trying.

[TexasTiger 12,967]

I'm an expert. I see the reason is clear. The surge is working.

I'm an expert, too. Why did this administration choose to fight the Iraqi insurgency in such a grotesquely stupid way for so long?

Seriously. Four years is a long time to finally get a clue and change tactics. We went from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay in the same amount of time. And everybody in asymmetrical warfare was standing on chairs, screaming at the top of their lungs for these tactics from the very beginning--only to be ignored by the administration's decision makers.

Anybody who knows anything about the place knew that it was a simmering cauldron of religious factions, each one of which was spoiling for the others' chitlins. Yet there was zero thought given to the political situation after the tanks rolled through Baghdad.

It was reckless, criminal stupidity. A shame that 3,500 soldiers had to die over four years before somebody figured out that the previous plan wasn't working.

First of all, it's a war. Soldiers are going to die. And miscalculations happen in every war. So that can't be avoided. Not trying to defend the administration here, but there was ample evidence from the Gulf War 1 and the fall of Baghdad that folks w/ arms wouldn't have the stones to stand up and fight us. For us, standing on the outside, it's easy to make the call - now. That's the problem w/ trying to fight a politically correct war, I guess. Which is exactly what they should NOT have been trying.

You still don't get it. The problem was not a "PC war." One of the many, but main, problems was that we disbanded the Iraq army. Bush now claims that was somehow not the policy, but it happened anyway. Huh?

[otterinbham 0]

I'm an expert. I see the reason is clear. The surge is working.

I'm an expert, too. Why did this administration choose to fight the Iraqi insurgency in such a grotesquely stupid way for so long?

Seriously. Four years is a long time to finally get a clue and change tactics. We went from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay in the same amount of time. And everybody in asymmetrical warfare was standing on chairs, screaming at the top of their lungs for these tactics from the very beginning--only to be ignored by the administration's decision makers.

Anybody who knows anything about the place knew that it was a simmering cauldron of religious factions, each one of which was spoiling for the others' chitlins. Yet there was zero thought given to the political situation after the tanks rolled through Baghdad.

It was reckless, criminal stupidity. A shame that 3,500 soldiers had to die over four years before somebody figured out that the previous plan wasn't working.

First of all, it's a war. Soldiers are going to die. And miscalculations happen in every war. So that can't be avoided. Not trying to defend the administration here, but there was ample evidence from the Gulf War 1 and the fall of Baghdad that folks w/ arms wouldn't have the stones to stand up and fight us. For us, standing on the outside, it's easy to make the call - now. That's the problem w/ trying to fight a politically correct war, I guess. Which is exactly what they should NOT have been trying.

Actually, you're wrong. There was ample evidence that there would be an insurgency before we crossed the Iraqi frontier. It was wargamed consistently time after time after time during planning. White papers were written on the subject within the Pentagon on the political consequences of the collapse of Saddam. All were completely ignored when it came time to draw up the order of battle.

Further, I don't know where you get the notion that the Iraqis wouldn't fight us. If anything, our experiences in Lebanon, Vietnam, and Somalia proved that while purely conventional firepower would prove overwhelming, our adversaries could not be expected to fight us in a conventional manner. Short of killing everybody in the Middle East, there is no route to victory without a careful assessment of political ends--and a military strategy that is suboordinate to political strategy.

By doing so, we utterly failed to take into account more successful asymmetrical warfare in the past, such as the British in Malaysia and Kenya or even American experiences in the Phillipines. Yet through our first four years in Iraq showed a stubborn adherence to our original doctrine. The result was absolute chaos.

That's because counterinsurgency is much more a political struggle than a military struggle, a notion that has only recently dawned on the administration and the senior military planners--four years too late.

[AURaptor 1,125]

I'm an expert. I see the reason is clear. The surge is working.

I'm an expert, too. Why did this administration choose to fight the Iraqi insurgency in such a grotesquely stupid way for so long?

Seriously. Four years is a long time to finally get a clue and change tactics. We went from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay in the same amount of time. And everybody in asymmetrical warfare was standing on chairs, screaming at the top of their lungs for these tactics from the very beginning--only to be ignored by the administration's decision makers.

Anybody who knows anything about the place knew that it was a simmering cauldron of religious factions, each one of which was spoiling for the others' chitlins. Yet there was zero thought given to the political situation after the tanks rolled through Baghdad.

It was reckless, criminal stupidity. A shame that 3,500 soldiers had to die over four years before somebody figured out that the previous plan wasn't working.

First of all, it's a war. Soldiers are going to die. And miscalculations happen in every war. So that can't be avoided. Not trying to defend the administration here, but there was ample evidence from the Gulf War 1 and the fall of Baghdad that folks w/ arms wouldn't have the stones to stand up and fight us. For us, standing on the outside, it's easy to make the call - now. That's the problem w/ trying to fight a politically correct war, I guess. Which is exactly what they should NOT have been trying.

Actually, you're wrong. There was ample evidence that there would be an insurgency before we crossed the Iraqi frontier. It was wargamed consistently time after time after time during planning. White papers were written on the subject within the Pentagon on the political consequences of the collapse of Saddam. All were completely ignored when it came time to draw up the order of battle.

Further, I don't know where you get the notion that the Iraqis wouldn't fight us. If anything, our experiences in Lebanon, Vietnam, and Somalia proved that while purely conventional firepower would prove overwhelming, our adversaries could not be expected to fight us in a conventional manner. Short of killing everybody in the Middle East, there is no route to victory without a careful assessment of political ends--and a military strategy that is suboordinate to political strategy.

By doing so, we utterly failed to take into account more successful asymmetrical warfare in the past, such as the British in Malaysia and Kenya or even American experiences in the Phillipines. Yet through our first four years in Iraq showed a stubborn adherence to our original doctrine. The result was absolute chaos.

That's because counterinsurgency is much more a political struggle than a military struggle, a notion that has only recently dawned on the administration and the senior military planners--four years too late.

I'm not 'wrong'. The Iraqi soldiers were laying down their arms and going home in whole sale manner. In both Gulf Wars.

[autiger4life 3]

I'm not 'wrong'. The Iraqi soldiers were laying down their arms and going home in whole sale manner. In both Gulf Wars

See that it though, the Iraqi Army laid down weapons for the most part. But we aren't fighting the Iraqi Army. We are fighting Iraqis and Saudis and Iranians, and Jordaians. And the Administration did know about the insurgency, not even they are stupid enough to believe that everyone would say, "Oh, we have been in turmoil for hundreds of years, we hate each other because of religon.....Kum by Ya My Lord" Of course their would be fighting, but the Admin didn't want to say that. You think the votes would have gone through if we knew 4000 Americans would die?

First of all, it's a war. Soldiers are going to die. And miscalculations happen in every war. So that can't be

Actually its an armed conflict. Congress still has not officially declared war. Second, Somlia was a miscalculation. Veitnam and Iraq are not miscalculations. They are huge, massive, screwups that were avoidable and based on history predictable.

On a side note, did anyone else look at the number and go 57 ?! I still can't get over the lives that have been lost. I hope they are not in vain. People are scared to say it, but a lot of families have been destroyed in the US and for what? More destroyed families in the middle east, a world that in completely unstable. Its a truly horrible thing to think about.

[Captain Liger 0]

First of all, it's a war. Soldiers are going to die. And miscalculations happen in every war. So that can't be

Actually its an armed conflict.

Think so? I'm not convinced. Pretty sure it's a war.

[otterinbham 0]

First of all, it's a war. Soldiers are going to die. And miscalculations happen in every war. So that can't be

Actually its an armed conflict.

Think so? I'm not convinced. Pretty sure it's a war.

So, Captain, you're the real expert on this thread. What do you think of the change in tactics? And why do you think it's taken so long to execute them?

[Captain Liger 0]

First of all, it's a war. Soldiers are going to die. And miscalculations happen in every war. So that can't be

Actually its an armed conflict.

Think so? I'm not convinced. Pretty sure it's a war.

So, Captain, you're the real expert on this thread. What do you think of the change in tactics? And why do you think it's taken so long to execute them?

Oh, I wouldn't say I'm an expert. I haven't read nearly enough books to be an expert.

What do I think of the surge? I suppose it's working... at least that's what my friends who are there now are saying. I had my doubts at first. I think there's one of two things going on right now: 1. We really are screwing up the plans of the bad guys and they couldn't organize a detail to clean the john right now OR 2. They're just buying their time till we draw down again and then they'll rear their ugly heads again. I honestly don't remember what the troop level was when I was there last (3/04-3/05) but I remember that not having enough troops on the ground wasn't a problem. We had a pretty good hold on the sector I was in. In one sector in downtown Baghdad there was a street outside the wire that you could walk down and not worry about a thing. After we rotated out that's when the "drawdown" happened and we lost a lot of ground we had fought so hard to tame. Most people don't remember that a slight drawdown did occur after OIF II and as a result we essentially lost Baghdad and Baquba to name a few. That's what eventually led to the "surge."

What do I think took so long to change tactics? Far from it for me to say. We can sit and speculate all day and call the President an idiot till we're blue in the face but everyone here needs to understand that standing at the helm of this war isn't the simplest thing in the world. Do I get frustrated with how things have gone and how they've been managed? Sure. I get downright pissed a lot of the time but I just have to trust that the administration and my generals are making the best decisions possible at the time they have to make them. I'm glad I'm not the President. I wouldn't want the burden of having to make the decisions he has to make. Trying to get an armored cavalry squadron trained, equipped and packed for a war is stressful enough. I can't imagine trying to manage the entire war plus manage the country. No thank you.