Posted on 02/03/2004 6:22:24 PM PST by RJCogburn
American soldiers are dying at a rate of more than one a day in Iraq, despite some commanders' recent claims to have broken the back of the insurgency.
The toll in January was 45 - five more than in December - despite hopes that deposed President Saddam Hussein's capture would stop the killings from roadside bombs and other attacks.
The number of deaths in January will rise to 47 when the Pentagon changes the status of two soldiers who are missing and believed to have died in the Tigris River on Jan. 25. That would make the second highest monthly total since last April when daily combat from the U.S.-led invasion was under way.
All told, 528 U.S. troops have died in the war, including three so far this month. The worst month was November, when 82 died. In October there were 43, September had 30, August 35.
Of 39 deaths in January that the Army attributed to hostile action, 23 involved attacks with homemade bombs, which the military calls "improvised explosive devices," and which have been the insurgents' weapon of choice, according to a review of Pentagon casualty reports.
The Army has put great emphasis on defeating the threat from homemade bombs, often detonated along roadways used by Army convoys. Usually a remotely transmitted signal sets them off.
To counter the threat, more soldiers are using Humvee utility vehicles with extra armor, and troops are wearing an improved version of body armor that provides more protection against bomb shrapnel. Some vehicles also are equipped now with devices that jam the electronic signal used to detonate the bombs.
Most of the attackers are thought to be remnants of the Baath Party that ruled Iraq under Saddam for more than three decades, although some may be foreign terrorists.
When U.S. troops captured Saddam near his hometown of Tikrit on Dec. 13, some thought that would take the punch out of the resistance. By early January, U.S. commanders were publicly emphasizing that the number of attacks on U.S. troops had declined, as had hostile deaths.
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, told reporters on Jan. 6 that "we've turned the corner" in the counterinsurgency effort in his area of responsibility, the western part of Iraq, which includes a part of the "Sunni Triangle" west of Baghdad.
The number of attacks on his forces had declined by almost 60 percent in the past month, he said then.
Two weeks later, Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, said, "The former regime elements we've been combating have been brought to their knees." His troops operate in an area north of Baghdad that includes Tikrit, a focus of anti-U.S. violence.
But in fact, many of the fatal attacks against U.S. forces in January were in Swannack's and Odierno's areas. On Jan. 24, for example, three soldiers from Swannack's force were killed in an improvised explosive device attack in the town of Khalidiyah, east of Ramadi, in the Sunni Triangle. Three days later, another such attack near the same town killed three more soldiers. Still another who was severely wounded in the same attack died in a hospital two days later.
On Jan. 31, three soldiers from Odierno's 4th Infantry Division were killed when their vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device while traveling in a convoy in the city of Kirkuk.
The depth and effectiveness of the insurgency is difficult to measure with only statistics, which tend to fluctuate over time. It appeared a few weeks ago that many U.S. commanders had hoped the dropoff in guerrilla action would usher in a less violent period for U.S. troops.
That has not happened.
In an eight-day span, Jan. 9 to Jan. 16, only three American soldiers died, and two from nonhostile causes.
But in the two weeks after that, 26 died - all but three in hostile action.
L. Paul Bremer, U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, said Tuesday he still believes security has improved.
"I think the situation has improved importantly since the capture of Saddam Hussein," he said.
In the four weeks after Saddam's capture, the number of insurgent attacks against American troops throughout Iraq did fall to an average of 18 per day from 23 per day in the preceding four weeks.
But on Tuesday, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations for the U.S. military in Baghdad, told reporters that the daily average had climbed back to 23 in the past week.
Attacks against Iraqis also are on the rise, although it is not clear that all those are related directly to the insurgency. The two near-simultaneous suicide bombings in the northern city of Irbil on Sunday, for example, killed 101 people, U.S. military officials said Tuesday, including top Kurdish political figures.
Reportedly. This is the key word. It was also reported recently in Britain that 2,000 died during a cold snap. My wife is in the medical industry here and had a chance to question some of those numbers and the authors of the report admitted that almost all had died of something like heart attack or old age but they died during the cold week so the cold got tagged as an attibuting cause.
I don't believe for a minute that 14,000 people died because of the heat in France. The numbers were politically useful to Chirac to put pressure on the short work week and liberal vacation policies of the French health system. Without the 'disaster' it would be very hard to convince anyone to change what is- from their perspective- a good deal.
Americans readily believe the numbers because they hate the French. This is my opinion.
Indeed. Which means that the "just sloppily blockade Iraq and meanwhile protect the Saudi regime" option has had its cost as well. Included in that cost, at least partially, are the 3000 murder victims of 9/11/2001, as well as the economic damage to this country which resulted. I have to wonder why the anti-finishing-Iraq-war people seem so willing to pay that cost, year in and year out. Was making sure that the Hussein dynasty stays in power over Iraq that important?
Because the alternative (keeping Saddam Hussein in power, and protecting the Saudi regime from him) also, if somewhat indirectly, resulted in Americans dying. "No Americans dying as a direct or indirect result of the Iraq situation" was not an option on the table. Would that it had been.
Since the Iraquis were not willing to die to secure freedom for themselves, why should any American have to die to secure it for them?
Because keeping Hussein in power (which is the approach we were taking) was causing us problems, and was going to cause us much worse problems in the near future, when the political will to keep up even the facade of a blockade eventually collapsed, as it was going to.
In a sense I agree with you, I could give a rat's ass about the freedom of Iraqian people if that's all there had been to it. But I don't believe that it was. Best,
Personally I hope we don't let them do this. They might "figure out" something which will only cause us more problems down the road, and I certainly hope we don't let them.
We are not going to change an entire mindset rooted in centuries of belief just because, Gosh, we want to.
We did in Japan by the way. Best,
What I wonder is if there were articles like this during WWII.
I agree. Let me know who's trivializing or marginalizing deaths/casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I can get properly mad at them.
For starters I suppose I'll nominate all the people who are trivializing the deaths by saying that they were needless and have accomplished and will accomplish absolutely nothing. What an insult to them and their families.
I will also nominate the people who trivialize these deaths by reducing them to number-bombs to throw at George Bush in the hopes of getting a (D) elected. I agree that military deaths should not be used in such trivial ways, as crass political footballs.
If you have any more examples, let me know. Best,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.