Reality Check for Operation Iraqi Freedom II

[Lemur]

GAO report on rebuilding Iraq. A noteworthy graphic:

[ShadeHonestus]

and yet the supply of electricty doesn't meet demand.

...demand for electricity has been stimulated by a
growing economy and a surge in consumer purchases of appliances and
electronics. In addition, electricity is subsidized in Iraq, which leads to
increased demand.

Does the increased violence include the increase in Al-Qaeda attacks against united tribal leaders trying to remove terrorists from the equation in building their nation? I believe it does. Has anyone else noted the increase attacks during our election cycle?

[Odin]

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

[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?

[macsen rufus]

Aside from the overall increase, which is blatant, it also seems to indicate that there's a growing proportion of the attacks being made against Iraqi forces and civilians. Guess that's the civil war that's not happening, then....

Being as I'm not going to read the full 64 page report in the five minutes before I go home, do those figures indicate number of attacks or number of casualties in attacks? 5,000 a month sounds hell of a lot, either way round, so what actually constitutes an "attack"? And I'm sure Iraqi civilian population is sustaining far higher casualties than the occupying forces, so is, say, a car-bomb in a crowded Baghdad market counted as "one attack" along with a sniper's bullet ricocheting off a hummer also being "one attack"?

I'm sure I'll have a lot of debate to catch up on tomorrow morning....

[ShadeHonestus]

Excellent questions all around imo. Its important to know what things mean. I remember when deaths from regular criminal activity and even some natural deaths weren't being subtracted from daily reported "death tolls" with retractions and revisions happening on page 10002, eight days later. This report does seem solid aside from making all relevant and necessary definitions.

And I'm sure Iraqi civilian population is sustaining far higher casualties than the occupying forces, so is, say, a car-bomb in a crowded Baghdad market counted as "one attack" along with a sniper's bullet ricocheting off a hummer also being "one attack"?

Indeed, does an attack on the occupying forces that also constitutes civilian casualties and civilian targets and vice versa get chalked up twice or which is determined what and what are the criteria. Going to eventually read more than the first paragraph of the methodology used and hopefully answer some of these....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

It does to me. As has been pointed out its to be expected that the closer they get to a real solution the more violence there will be. Ever hear of the Battle of the Bulge? Did that mean we should have packed up and left?

[ShadeHonestus]

Okay I covered the methodology and it just covers the scope of the financial reports as the primary focal point of the release. The graph above which appears in the release is provided by MNFI, haven't' delved far enough there for methodology yet.

[Tribesman]

I bet most of these attacks are not on our troops. Arent US troop casusalties down?

Nope they are up , both killed and wounded , so are the Iraqi military casualties .
So how much was you betting ?

[rotorgun]

It does to me. As has been pointed out its to be expected that the closer they get to a real solution the more violence there will be. Ever hear of the Battle of the Bulge? Did that mean we should have packed up and left?

You make a good point here Gawain, but I hardly think that the two situations are analogous. WWII was a far different matter from this little shin-dig going on in Iraq. I will admit that it is all about the national will to take casualties for the gains expected. So far, as this report indicates, I can't think if it is worth it. I certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice my life for such a miserable situation such as we have in Iraq. Yet still, we expend more lives, more treasure, more sweat-all for a country that could care less if we fell off the face of the Earth. If you feel that strongly about it, I'll be glad to sign you up with my unit, so that you can share the load any time.

See you in the trenches Gunga Din.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So far, as this report indicates, I can't think if it is worth it.

I dont either. In fact I never did. But that was before we invaded. Im still all for getting out. The problem is how.

I certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice my life for such a miserable situation such as we have in Iraq. Yet still, we expend more lives, more treasure, more sweat-all for a country that could care less if we fell off the face of the Earth.

I wouldnt either and I agree with you here.

f you feel that strongly about it, I'll be glad to sign you up with my unit, so that you can share the load any time.

Only if you go back in time and serve with mine in Nam

See you in the trenches Gunga Din.

[ShadeHonestus]

I will admit that it is all about the national will to take casualties for the gains expected.

Excellent that you make this point as this is exactly the aim of those who face us in Iraq and was one of the clearly stated reasons for the offensive stated by Gawain. In this scope alone I see that as a good comparison, however beyond that I won't endorse. WW2 comparisons are very difficult from the sheer scope to casualty totals to the war being felt by the civilian populations not in theater.

So far, as this report indicates, I can't think if it is worth it. I certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice my life for such a miserable situation such as we have in Iraq. Yet still, we expend more lives, more treasure, more sweat-all for a country that could care less if we fell off the face of the Earth.

I would differ slightly in my opinion as to whether this is worthless, but to each his own. I do find some encouraging items amongst the financial costs. Of course I could think of worse ways to die, like from that of congressional laziness and the 7,000+ Americans who die each year because pharmacists get prescriptions wrong.

If you feel that strongly about it, I'll be glad to sign you up with my unit, so that you can share the load any time.

Funny that you should ask this as I was contacted a couple months ago by some people about serving again.

[Lemur]

A little more reality.

More than three months into a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive designed to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, Health Ministry statistics show that such killings are rising again.

From the beginning of May until Tuesday, 321 unidentified corpses, many dumped and showing signs of torture and execution, have been found across the Iraqi capital, according to morgue data provided by a Health Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. The data showed that the same number of bodies were found in all of January, the month before the launch of the Baghdad security plan.

[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.

[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.

[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/

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

You just get worse and worse. How many in Iraq do you think want to return to the days of Saddam. According to your reasoning the allies are responsible for all the death and suffering in WW2 lol

[Zaknafien]

contrary to what the propaganda machines have spun up, sad-man wasnt all that bad for a brutal dictator. He was responsible for the huge increase in education and health care in Iraq, nationalizing the oil industry which led to record profits, and while he stole alot of it for himself, there was great investment in infastructure and the economy making it the most propsperous, literate, and educated middle eastern country aside from israel. Sure, he was brutal against his enemies, but the vast majority of iraqis had nothing to fear from his rule and most of the clamp-downs came only after the repressive sanctions were imposed by the US and others. As has recently been brought up, we were bombing them for the past 10 years.