I heard the "42 killed since Katrina" report and thought it was an odd way of reporting on the war.
I like the statistics provided in the last quote. Does anyone have any idea where to find the DOD statistics on attcks per month?
It can sometimes be misleading to say the number of incidents is down x%. It is especially significan to note differences in the underlying population over the time periods reported. For instance if casualties were down 50% from last year that would sem to indicate a significant casualty rate improvement. However if the underlying population of troops in combat had been lowered by 75% the casualty rate per troop in compat would be much worse in the second reporting period. The number of troops in Iraq has probably stayed relatively constant so this is probably not the case. I would like to see the number of casualties per attack or incident of combat per month.
With AIDS the incidence of mortality and morbitiy decreae with technological advances, abstinence, use of condoms, and education. Similarly, the the casualty rate should drop with better armor, better weaponry, combat ready troops, and less atacks.
Readers of this blog have diferent measures of success for this war. Your components of success might include a constitution, fair elections, training of an Iraqi army. We would all agree this must be done with a minimization of the rate of casualty among our troops.
If minimizing our casualties were the only measure of success we would all agree that we must withdraw our troops now.
Inevitably, our troops will come home. Hopefully sooner than later. Hopefully alive rather than dead.
"Inevitably, our troops will come home. Hopefully sooner than later. Hopefully alive rather than dead."
On this I completely agree. Except for the use of "Hopefully". That is terrible grammer. Who taught you English, Mr. Eagle?
Have a good trip to the Golden State.
Thanks for the reality check on news from Iraq, especially Wretchard's (as always) factually intelligent article.
A grammarian I am not.
I found the site Wretchard got his numbers from. The SIGACTS from the Dept of Defense only go up to Feb 05.
Does anyone know where the current SIGACTS are reported by the Dept of Def? Also where can I find # of troops in Iraq by month?
I think to some extent Wretchard is splitting hairs. For anyone to say that the number of casualties continues to rise is not a false statement so long as troops continue to die. Especially if you are looking at it from the perspective of total casualties or total mortalities from the beginning of the operation.
I still think the best way to measure the trend in casualty rate is casualties per troop month or casualties per SIGACT per troop-month.
The whole idea of counting the number of dead rubs me the wrong way. We keep hearing these numbers as if someone is keeping score. Well, at want score do 'they' win and we lose? Is it 5000 coalition dead? Too high? How about 4000? Why not 500 or 5? What makes the 3000th death more significant than the 1st? This is absurd.
'The count' is a figure that opponents of a free Iraq bring up like a trump card when they want to make us feel bad or guilty. Our military personell who die in combat gave their lives for a grand cause. Whether you agree with the war or not you must agree that ridding Iraq of Hussein is good, and that bringing democracy is good. The only argument can be over method and that has been chosen already. So accept that we're in this war and now try to support our victory.
Those who died for the war _volunteered_ to be in the armed forces. That's a stunningly important fact. They don't want our sympathy. But we owe them our gratitude and respect. The people of Iraq know this.
'The count' misses the point. It is a way to de-personalize the sacrifices that each soldier has made and in that respect I find it offensive.
Each coalition soldier who died in Iraq gave the supreme sacrifice for a valiant cause. Let us not dishonor their individual sacrifices by 'keeping score.'
Behind each casualty figure are names , a faces, and families and friends back home. To review the Dept of Defense casualty figures in search of evidence of improvements in the execution of the war was is not meant to be disrespectful or to dishonor the fallen.
The drop off in casulaties this last month could be due to better preparedness, better equipment, and less attacks. Closer scrutiny of the numbers could confirm this and possibly lead to finding ways to further improve the execution the war. This does not dishonor the troops.
As a taxpayer, and as an uncle and friend of troops serving in Iraq I expect that we will provide our troops the best possible training and equipment to wage the war.
When I heard that Hummers were sent over there without armor, troops were not given body armor, and that few troops new Arabic in critical positions interfacing with Iraqis, I saw it as evidence of poor planning and execution on our part. We've probably made efforts to correct this. A lower number of casualties in a given month may be evidence of this.
To me other questions remain that could provide some insight. How many SIGACTS per month have occurred? How many casualties per SIGACT per months occur? Are SIGACTS categorized? Why can't I find SIGACTS per month reported for the period following Feb 2005? Knowing these numbers could lead to data that could point to ways to reduce furthur casualties. This does not dishonor our troops.
It is possible for one to disagree with the war and to want the war executed as best we can. To not care how the war is executed would dishonor the sacrifice our troops are making.
I don't usually hear or read much from the right but criticism of those who don't agree with the war. We are all unpatriotic traitors, of some evildoing communist or socialist strain. This doesn't matter in light of those who have died or been injured. If we aren't going to bring them home, then the least we can do is make sure we provide them with the best we can.
It simply isn't a matter of liberalism or conservativism to care what the numbers are. To care about your fellow man,how they died, and how they were injured, has never been dishonorable and is not disrespectful to the troops.
Certainly we haven't let our political differences blind us from the fact that neither of us would think of intentionally dishonoring or disrespecting those who serve our country. Certainly we both want the best for our troops.
DDT,
I'm glad that your interest in 'the count' is for safety tracking. Unfortunately I get the impression the most of the anti-war crowd and the media in general are more interested in 'the count' as a measure of GWB's failures rather than the troops' preparedness.
DDT,
>>>I don't usually hear or read much from the right but criticism of those who don't agree with the war.
This is because 'unpatriotic traitors, of some evildoing communist or socialist strain' are the best organized, garner most of the media attention and are thus the most effective. Those of us who support our war effort are forced to respond to ridiculous, ill-considered and ill-informed criticisms. Most of the criticism surrounding our war effort -- including your own -- isn't meant to be constructive. Quite the contrary. For the most part, if its not an attempt to bash Bush, its a pathetic attempt to vindicate an ant-war stance or disparage the US.
Why don't I hear suggestions from war critics on how we can go about doing things better in Iraq? About how we can accomplish victory? Why is every casualty or set back portrayed as evidence the war was a mistake? Why wasn't any degree of satisfaction expressed when elections are held successfully? Why isn't the Afganistan political situation or constitution scrutinized by war critics in the same way as Iraq? Or portrayed as hopeless? And even if you think the war was a mistake, what good does whining about imperfections in its execution do?
Just like the 'insurgents,' most war critics are looking backwards from their own narrow perspective. This is no coincidence. Neither want to see the US succeed. Much of the insurgent activity is specifically designed to reinforce the perception of those who opposed the war. Its designed to sap our morale. Many war critics are deliberately complicit in this. How dispicable.
Whatever the dangers they now face, prematurely withdrawing our troops from Iraq isn't the answer. Making the world safe for our troops isn't the number one priority for the US -- making the world safe for our citizens is. Too many loose sight of this.
Commenting by HaloScan
