American casualties in Iraq rise sharply

The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest level in nearly two years as American GIs fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that U.S. commanders warn could lead to civil war.

Last month, 776 U.S. troops were wounded in action in Iraq, the highest number since the military assault to retake the insurgent-held city of Fallujah in November 2004, according to Defense Department data. It was the fourth-highest monthly total since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The sharp increase in American wounded — with nearly 300 more in the first week of October — is a grim measure of the degree to which the U.S. military has been thrust into the lead of the effort to stave off full-scale civil war in Iraq, military officials and experts say. Beyond Baghdad, Marines battling Sunni insurgents in Iraq's western province of Anbar last month also suffered their highest number of wounded in action since late 2004.

"September was horrific" in terms of the toll of wounded, and if the early October trend continues, this month could be "the worst month of the war," said John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based Web site that tracks defense issues.

The worsening violence in Baghdad has led some Pentagon officials to criticize decisions by the U.S. military since early 2005 to transfer responsibility for security in large swaths of Baghdad to Iraqi forces while cutting back on American patrols.

"We made decisions to take an indirect approach, which is great if you want low U.S. casualty rates," said the Pentagon official. However, he said: "Passing responsibility to Iraqis does not equal defeating terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency. Period."

In 1964 while campaigning for Goldwater I attended a rally in South Orange New Jersey. On entering the arena I observed throngs of people who could not get in because the arena was filled to overcapacity. They were exuberant in their support for Barry Goldwater. When I got home that night and turned on my television, I was astonished to find the very same people who were rabid for Goldwater were presented as people protesting against him. I never forgot the experience and I have never again wholly believed the mainstream media.

I have no doubt that the New York Times and Washington Post and the rest of a lot will skew the news, shape it, and sometimes even create it to fit their left-wing agenda. I believed this in 1964, I believed this in Watergate, I believed this in Vietnam, and I believe it now. I am not a fool.

But even the Washington Post has its own rules of the game which it observes. Within those rules topline papers like the Post and the Times play according to Hoyle. When they quote someone for attribution you can be damn sure that the quote is accurate unless the person comes out and says it is not. So in the original article under discussion today, there is no doubt that the police unit had to be disbanded for treachery, there is no doubt that casualties are up, there is no doubt that more Americans had to be thrown into the breach and there is no doubt that all this is contrary to Secretary Rumsfeld's stated prediction. From other sources, we know without doubt that Senator Warner has expressed the same sentiments on the record that this article alleges "anonymous sources" to have expressed in the Pentagon. It can be no doubt that Anbar province is a hell of a mess whether or not you believe the characterization of the intelligence report which describes it as irretrievably lost.

There is no doubt the general Abizaid regards the situation as precarious and near civil war because he so testified under oath in public. These are things not made up by the mainstream media, these are real, hard, facts. I wish they were otherwise and I'm waiting for some poster to give me reasons why they are otherwise besides simply railing against the press. Southack has come up with an argument as has MNjonnie. That is to the good.

One has to balance those kinds of arguments against the incessant deluge of story after story and fact after fact which supports the hypothesis that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. I cite the Baker commission merely for its very existence. Do you really think that Bush would ask Baker to prepare a whitewash? I don't. I think Bush knows that our policy is not working and he needs to fix it and he has turned to the man his family always turns to in the time of transcendental crisis, James Baker.

I hoped to open discussion on the merits but I see that is sadly not possible and that is a very great pity for both the conservative movement and for freerepublic.

"you cannot wage asymmetrical war of attrition in places like Iraq and hope thereby to forestall 19 terrorists, recruited out of 1.3 billion Muslims, attacking America." - nathanbedford

One does not beget nor prohibit the other. We can easily wage a war of attrition in Iraq. We're already flying more than 1,000 UAV's and UCAV's per day in Iraq alone. Those UCAV's will be pounding targets in Iraq long after U.S. personnel have left, if needed.

And the number of volunteer suiciders is small. 1.3 Billion Muslims can find perhaps 4 individuals per day willing to go Boom. Having them blow up in Iraq is preferable to blowing up inside the U.S., too.

"You have not convinced me that our borders are secure against viruses, chemicals, or even small atomic bombs-and these are civilization shattering attacks, not to mention the catastrophic economic consequences." - nathanbedford

Our borders are not secure against viri, but then again, they don't need to be. Our existing medical and defense infrastructure is quite adequate to handle an infection/infestation.

Our borders are reasonbly secure against chemicals (witness our drug seizures). Some chemicals can get through, of course, but this is of little consequence because chemical warfare is a poor military tool, especially in the quantities capable of penetrating our borders. Nor would a crop duster blowing VX last very long against our defenses, and whatever was released would kill very few, anyway.

Our borders are 100% secure against an external rogue nuclear attack, be it from a missile or from a cargo ship or from an attempted land-border (smuggler) crossing.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1631.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/wh/Archive/2005/Jan/25-729366.html

"How am I supposed to respond to this? "

Recognize your error and change your ways. I have zero tolerance for someone smart enough to find this site, but is still malleable enough to have his opinions molded and formed by the MSM. I don't care if you're nathanbedford, Thomas Jefferson or my great uncle Kermit, there is no excuse for an educated American in this day and age to not recognize media manipulation in all its guises. And using our MSM as a foundation to support your conclusions is a victory for our lying media, and its grateful terrorist remoras who we are in the process of defeating all of the world.

Earlier you stated that there were fundamental facts contained in the original article in this thread to support the conclusions you've drawn. The problem is, your "facts" are half facts and twisted distortions pulled by the media to create a reality that suits its agenda but do not tell the whole story. Let's take a look...

You said the following..."The casualty numbers are real and not concocted by the media. That a police unit had to be disbanded for treachery is a fact. It is true "In March, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that Iraqi forces — not U.S. troops — would deal with a civil war in Iraq "to the extent one were to occur....More, the article asserts that commanders calls for 3000 Iraqi forces have yielded only a few hundred. This even though we have trained up 300,000 Iraqi forces." So lets take a closer look at your "facts" and fill in the whole picture...

1. "The casualty numbers are real and not concocted by the media."
There are two things that cause spikes in our casualty rate in Iraq. Ramadan, and when we conduct a large offensive operation. Since we first went into Iraq we've averaged 481 wounded per month. During the months touching Ramadan 2004 (Oct/Nov), that number hit 648 and 1429 respectively. In 2005 our worst month for casualties was the Ramadan month of October during which we suffered 605 wounded. So far in 2006 we've had 776 wounded in Sept and 300 in October. Concurrent with Ramadan in 2004 was our offensive in Fallujah, and in 2006 our offensive in Baghdad. We've lost an average of 62 good men killed every month since we entered Iraq. But again, our worst months are during Ramadan and our offensive operations. So are increased casualties during this current period a sign things are "disintegrating"? Are we seeing an unprecedented increase in effectiveness of the enemy we are fighting? Are we now losing? Only if you are a member of the MSM who has been forecasting failure and defeat in Iraq since months before we even went in. Only if you look at one piece of a much larger puzzle. Only if your readership and viewership numbers rely on the doom and gloom that comprises a majority of the output of our MSM. The reality is, we are currently at the apex of the same cycle we've experienced in Iraq for 3 years. Except that with each year we are able to hit them in more places with an increasing number of Iraqi Army forces working autonomously and in cooperation with our own troops. Next "fact"...

2. "That a police unit had to be disbanded for treachery is a fact." A few days ago, the Iraqi government pulled a brigade of 700 police out of service in an effort to crack down on police corruption. There are currently roughly 120,000 police in Iraq. 700 policemen is .6% of the Iraqi police force. The fact that the Iraqi government took action to fix its own police force is a positive development. A year ago, it was incapable of such a response. But when .6% of the Iraqi police force is disciplined by the Iraqi government, the MSM headline is "A BRIGADE of police were pulled from service in a clear indication that Iraq is plunging into anarchy and civil war." Do you think police corruption is a problem unique to Iraq? Ever been to South America? Ever been to Louisiana? The difference between corrupt police in Louisiana and corrupt police in Iraq is that in Iraq the government officials actually choose to do something about it. Next fact...

3. "It is true "In March, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that Iraqi forces — not U.S. troops — would deal with a civil war in Iraq "to the extent one were to occur." Here is his actual quote..."The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur it is, from the security standpoint, to have the Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they are able to do it." Why do you suppose the quote as you presented it was edited as it was? His actual quote was understandable enough. And your implication seems to be that Iraq is currently immersed in a civil war. That simply is not true, despite the MSM effort to force feed that idea to the American public. There is an active insurgency in Iraq that is finding itself confronted on more fronts than ever before by a growing and increasingly effective Iraqi Army, and US forces. The plan is and has been to work together to prevent a civil war and we are. Gen Abizaid offered additional support to Rumsfeld’s comments when he said the following…"It's my impression that Iraq is not moving toward civil war. The plan is for Iraqi security forces to take the lead on most military operations, like they're currently doing, and we'll be in support." That is exactly what is happening. Just a couple days ago Iraqi army forces conducted an autonomous operation in Kirkuk. In almost all of our operations in Bahgdad, US and Iraqi forces conduct combined patrols and operations. Rumsfeld's comments, supported by Gen Abazaid were dead-on accurate. Final fact...

4. "More, the article asserts that commanders calls for 3000 Iraqi forces have yielded only a few hundred. This even though we have trained up 300,000 Iraqi forces." The article does not assert that. That is your assumption possibly based on the media's assertion that we're doing this thing on our own. Here is what the article actually says..."U.S. commanders have appealed for weeks for 3,000 more Iraqi army troops to help secure Baghdad but as of Thursday had received only a few hundred, according to military officials in the Iraqi capital." There are currently over 9000 Iraqi soldiers serving in Baghdad. That's in addition to 12,000 national police and 22,000 local police serving in Baghdad. We have 15,000 troops serving in there including a large contingent guarding and working in the "Green zone". Maj Gen Thurman (note the use of an actual name) explains the situation in the following quote..."Iraqi soldiers generally join battalions in their geographic regions, and Thurman said that "due to the distance, (they) did not want to travel into Baghdad." He said the Iraqi minister of defense is working on the problem, and "I'm confident that they're going to meet that requirement here within the next few weeks, but it's going to take a little time." This is nothing like your implication that the Iraqi's haven't even contributed 3000 soldiers of the 300,000 (actual number closer to 128,000) that we've trained and equipped.

So there you have it. One of the primary tools of the MSM is to pull out selected pieces of a large picture, label them "facts" and create an entirely different picture than what exists in reality. Are they intentionally lying? Yes. By creating a picture that doesn't represent the whole truth, they are intentionally deceiving the public they are supposed to serve. It's dishonest, it's agenda driven, and it's unfortunately effective. You pulled out four "facts" from this single Washington Post article that you say "we know to be absolute fact." I've just shown the fallacy of that statement. The common tie between what you designate as "absolute fact" isn't that they are true facts. It is that they are selectively manipulated small pieces of a whole picture that has been used to deceive you into believing a false reality. And that is why I stated you are a media blow up doll. You are being used as a tool of their cheap and dishonest perversions. And in my opinion, you ought to know better.

1. "The casualty numbers are real and not concocted by the media."

These casualty figures are still real and they are still not concocted by the media. By my reckoning if we have 300 casualties by the eighth of October we are on course for 1162 casualties by halloween. Your comments did not go to refuting the numbers but to explaining them away. Well and good, that is debate. Do you really want a debate? The question is not facetious because there is nothing in which you have written anywhere that indicates he will tolerate contrary opinion. Why you feel it necessary to abuse someone for putting up numbers when they are real is beyond me.

In attempting to explain away the data posted by the mainstream media, in this case the Washington Post, you make much of the fact that these casualties occurred every year in Ramadan and have to do in the end more with aggressive operations. In your words: "But again, our worst months are during Ramadan and our offensive operations."

Let's see, what did the treacherous mainstream media Washington Post have to say in this regard in this article? Here it is:

"The Baghdad security plan and the general spiral of operations is driving us to be more active than we have been in recent months," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank. "We have more people on patrols and out of base, so we get more people hurt and killed in firefights," he said, explaining that U.S. military offensives — more than other factors such as shifting enemy tactics — tend to drive the number of American casualties.

Maybe you would like to retract your comments, at least about the casualties.

Of course the point of all this is not whether we have more or less casualties this month or last, or whether that's because of Ramadan , or because we are conducting offensive operations in Baghdad, the point of this is that there is no assurance that three years hence we will not be fighting during Ramadan and justifying this year's casualties because we sustained an equal amount in previous years! My God, is that our justification for the status quo of this war?

If you look at my original post you will note that the very first sentence reports that I'm pinging MNjonnie as an expert on the casualty situation in Iraq so that he can comment on the report. You may choose to think that I'm naïve in quoting, or God knows, for even reading, the mainstream media. I put up these numbers so that people like MNjonnie who are knowledgeable can comment upon them. You might contrast this approach, with its intellectual honesty, with your approach which is almost prescriptive and nearly demands a prior restraint against reading anything published by the mainstream media. I will stick with the free marketplace of ideas, thank you.

2. "That a police unit had to be disbanded for treachery is a fact."

The statement was true when quoted in my post and it remains just as true today. Again, you have not attacked the statement as a matter of fact, you've merely tried to explain it away, to minimize it. Great, that's what we are supposed to do in debate. In rebuttal, it might be noted that the police in Iraq are notorious and many articles have come out, one of the most recent of which, describes their murders in Iraqi hospitals. I will post it if I can find it.

In the meantime let's analyze your rebuttal. You say, "The difference between corrupt police in Louisiana and corrupt police in Iraq is that in Iraq the government officials actually choose to do something about it." By way of sur rebuttal, I would observe that the actual difference between corrupt police in Louisiana and corrupt police in Iraq is the difference between venality and treason. The police brigade was not disbanded, after all, for fixing parking tickets. Now, the issue has been engaged, let the reader judge. You would have a greater point in your castigation of the established media and of me for quoting it if I hadn't taken care to be scrupulously honest in my original post. I fairly and cleanly distinguished between sourced quotes and anonymous quotes. I deliberately drew the reader's attention to this distinction. I didn't fudge a damn thing, I did not conflate, I left the reader to judge sourced and unsourced facts for himself and it was fairly done because everything was honestly labeled.

3. "It is true "In March, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that Iraqi forces — not U.S. troops — would deal with a civil war in Iraq "to the extent one were to occur." Here is his actual quote..."The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur it is, from the security standpoint, to have the Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they are able to do it." Why do you suppose the quote as you presented it was edited as it was? His actual quote was understandable enough. And your implication seems to be that Iraq is currently immersed in a civil war. That simply is not true, despite the MSM effort to force feed that idea to the American public.

It is clear to me that the author of the article has a point of view and that is that Iraqi forces are just flat not up to the job. Therefore, I agree with you, it is surprising that she omitted the phrase about Iraqi security forces, "to the extent they are able to do it." It seems to me the incorporation of that phrase would have emphasized her point that the Iraqi forces are in fact not "able to do it."

Then you accuse me, somehow I suppose based upon this quote, as follows: "And your implication seems to be that Iraq is currently immersed in a civil war." In this quote this is the only way in which I mentioned a civil war, "There is no doubt the general Abizaid regards the situation as precarious and near civil war because he so testified under oath in public." I supplied a quote for Abizaid in coroboration. I did mention civil war in my original post but equally no fair-minded reader can find in "implication" that Iraq is in Civil War. In fact, I explicitly set the issue aside:

Without arguing whether or not we are now in the midst of a civil war or even whether these recent Baghdad operations which produced the spike in casualties constitute a civil war, the facts on the ground are contrary to Rumsfeld's prediction, it is US forces -- not Iraqi troops -- who are dealing with the strife.

For the record, I'm not particularly much interested if Iraq is" civil war" or bloody insurgency or whatever you want to call it. The label "civil war" is probably important only in so far as it affects domestic opinion here at home and is probably not a useful term to throw around.

"More, the article asserts that commanders calls for 3000 Iraqi forces have yielded only a few hundred. This even though we have trained up 300,000 Iraqi forces."

This statement too remains true. I agree with you that the reporter should have made the context clear that there are already other Iraqi forces fighting in Baghdad. Then the argument would have been, how is it that reluctance of soldiers to serve somewhere else in their own country can outweigh the need to pacify Baghdad? Why have Rumsfeld's prediction or policy to use Iraqi troops in these circumstances been put to naught for such trivial reasons? Most importantly, what does this have the say about our whole policy in Iraq, which is to train up Iraqis so we can stand down ? This is all fair fodder for debate.

Incidentally, I note you quoted Maj Gen Thurman. Did you read his quote in the mainstream media? how do you know he actually said it? How do you know what you claim you know and have asserted in your comments? Did any of your "facts" come from the mainstream media? Surely you're not going to try to convince FReepers that only you are competent to distinguish what is trustworthy in the mainstream media. They won't stand for that.

At the end of the day it comes down to humility. Either we trust our fellow citizens, especially our fellow FReepers, to have the discernment to separate the spin from fact, or we arrogantly censure them and keep them ignorant. Seems to me, in presenting our viewpoints or in quoting these questionable media sources, our job is to be intellectually honest, to point out was sourced and what was not sourced, not to conflate one with the other. By any measure, I have done that in these series of posts.

"By my reckoning if we have 300 casualties by the eighth of October we are on course for 1162 casualties by Halloween."

Sure...if casualties were inflicted on a linear schedule. But it is impossible to predict such things more than just saying historical trends show an overall increase in casualties during Ramadan and US offensives.

"Your comments did not go to refuting the numbers but to explaining them away."

No, I did not "explain away" the numbers. The numbers, in and of themselves are not wrong. It is the limited context in which they are provided that creates the false reality. The MSM (and you) have implied the current increase in casualties indicates Iraq is falling apart. The fact is, this same thing has happened every year at this time (to an even worse degree in 2004).

"there is nothing in which you have written anywhere that indicates he will tolerate contrary opinion."

I might accept your "opinion" if you hadn't claimed your statements were "absolute facts". "Absolute fact" is not opinion. And presenting only a few facts leads to poorly supported opinions. You choose to follow the MSM practice of selecting only portions of a whole picture to support your opinion. That opens you to having that opinion challenged. If you take offense to having your opinion challenged, try basing it on the whole picture rather than an MSM provided soda straw view.

"Why you feel it necessary to abuse someone for putting up numbers when they are real is beyond me."

I am beginning to understand how you are so easily duped by the media. The context in which numbers are presented can change their meaning in an instant. You (and the MSM) choose to look at pieces of data instead of the whole picture.

"Maybe you would like to retract your comments, at least about the casualties. "

Maybe you should read the whole article. The first three paragraphs all describe a surging US casualty rate stemming from our effort to prevent a civil war. From the article..."The sharp increase in American wounded — with nearly 300 more in the first week of October — is a grim measure of the degree to which the U.S. military has been thrust into the lead of the effort to stave off full-scale civil war in Iraq, military officials and experts say." Ramadan is not mentioned anywhere in the article and the clear implication is things are getting progressively worse. If our casualty rate drops significantly in December and January (as it has done in the past) will the MSM print an article describing how conditions in Iraq are obviously improving? Fat chance.

As for the rest of your post...as I pointed out very clearly to you, my main argument with your commentary is that you listed several statements from the referenced article and declared them "what we know to be absolute fact." It is true that you have listed "facts". But the facts you've listed do not present a whole or accurate picture. As I stated, the "facts" are half facts used to support an agenda and present a twisted picture of reality. I would be factually correct in saying the human body is 60% water. But if that is the only fact I list in describing a human, have I provided an accurate picture of an incredibly complex creation? I would be factually correct in saying more Americans die of lightening strikes than Belgians. But is it then correct to conclude that Americans have a greater chance of being struck by lightening than Belgians? The MSM is expert at pulling out selected "facts" and using them to build a false picture. They've done that in the article we are discussing...and you seem to buy it hook, line and sinker. There isn't much I can do about the MSM, but I feel no obligation whatsoever to accommodate Freepers who follow the same practice. If you don't like it, try building your opinion using all the facts. The whole picture. Its amazing how much you'll learn when you stop relying on MSM sources and start doing your own research.

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.