Reality Check for Operation Iraqi Freedom II

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The GAO is wonderful because its often just the facts based on data available not politics. Yet another ringing endorsement for removing ourselves from Iraq sooner rather then later

You guys are making OBL look like a genius I bet most of these attacks are not on our troops. Arent US troop casusalties down?

[Odin]

You guys are making OBL look like a genius I bet most of these attacks are not on our troops. Arent US troop casusalties down?

Attacks and casualties are two different reports Gwain, I am generally suspect of anything that comes out of the government post Bush and WMD, but the GAO usually uses good data from what I have seen in the past.

[Sjakihata]

You guys are making OBL look like a genius I bet most of these attacks are not on our troops. Arent US troop casusalties down?

Does it matter if us troop casualties are down if the civilian losses are going up, you think?

[Ser Clegane]

Arent US troop casusalties down?

US casualties in Iraq

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Thanks thats why I asked. I looked and could only find an article stating they were down in march. Their not terribly up either considering the violence seems to have escalated. Again I wish the Iraqis would vote on whether they want us to stay or not. Please let then say go.

[Xiahou]

Thanks thats why I asked. I looked and could only find an article stating they were down in march. Their not terribly up either considering the violence seems to have escalated. Again I wish the Iraqis would vote on whether they want us to stay or not. Please let then say go.

I think a rise in casualties is also expected to follow the change in tactics. The surge strategy involves troops moving from large bases into smaller neighborhood ones and having a more visible presence on the streets. It only follows that this would increase casualties at least somewhat.

[Zaknafien]

lets not forget the 64,000--70,000 iraqi civilians killed thus far in the war.

[Del Arroyo]

The figures most definitely represent the number of attacks and not the number of casualties. The rate of both Iraqi civilian and security force casualties are considerably higher than the rate of Coalition casualties. Most attacks on Coalition Forces do not result in casualties-- for example, indirect fire which lands in an empty area or even which never gets to hit the ground, would be counted as an attack, even though no casualties or damage resulted.

[Navaros]

lets not forget the 64,000--70,000 iraqi civilians killed thus far in the war.

I seem to recall a thread on this board that had data which put that number way higher, to the tune of 500 000 IIRC.

I'm guessing the ludicrously low-balled number in the above quote is from a US government source rather than a truthful source.

[Odin]

I seem to recall a thread on this board that had data which put that number way higher, to the tune of 500 000 IIRC.

I'm guessing the ludicrously low-balled number in the above quote is from a US government source rather than a truthful source.

Boy Zak will love this ! Imagine the massive glass of water he will need to swallow this pill? Zak using a low ball U.S. government number !

Sorry man, but so far this is the post of the day for me.

[Zaknafien]

Oh, I agree it is much much higher, but those are documented cases that can be proven. THe others are mostly "reports", and indirect deaths due to disease, starvation, etc.

Point is, the USA is responsible for a humanitarian and refugee crisis in Iraq that will take a generation or two to begin recovery. That's much more than Saddam ever killed, by the way.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

[ShadeHonestus]

US casualties in Iraq

Thanks for the link. I would add that with dealing with such small numbers (not meaning to minimize the human cost but in meaning the reality of math) the fact that "wounded" have not been released for 2006 or 2007 leaves the door wide open to degrees of increase if at all or even to a greater degree than some think it currently is. Deaths to wounds ratios are not always equally and absolutely proportional.


-edit-
So its safe to say death totals are higher, but the full picture of casualties is unclear.

[Ser Clegane]

the fact that "wounded" have not been released for 2006 or 2007 leaves the door wide open to degrees of increase if at all or even to a greater degree than some think it currently is.

But there are numbers for "wounded" - apparently just the methodology of reporting has been changed

[ShadeHonestus]

But there are numbers for "wounded" - apparently just the methodology of reporting has been changed

Which is what I'm considering as this was a discussion on increased attacks, wishing to differentiate that which occur in combat. Non-combat wounds cover a ton of ground. Unfortunately deaths are not broken down in this list either, but I'm sure it could be researched.

[Ser Clegane]

Which is what I'm considering as this was a discussion on increased attacks, wishing to differentiate that which occur in combat. Non-combat wounds cover a ton of ground. Unfortunately deaths are not broken down in this list either, but I'm sure it could be researched.

If I understand the notes correctly the numbers for "wounded" for the last 3 years have been "wounded in action" only.
The numbers during the last 12 months have been higher than those in the previous 12 month period it seems (just looking at the graph - I haven't actually added up the numbers)

[ShadeHonestus]

If I understand the notes correctly the numbers for "wounded" for the last 3 years have been "wounded in action" only.
The numbers during the last 12 months have been higher than those in the previous 12 month period it seems (just looking at the graph - I haven't actually added up the numbers)

Oh okay, I misread the triple *'s and quadruple *'s notes.

The deaths being the ones not differentiated, but in fairness these get readily reported.