US Mil Deaths Down in July vs Previous Months

Iraq Slogger ^ | 7/21/07

[Polybius]

What bothers me is the political mileage the Administration's enemies, both foreign and domestic, are getting from a relatively low rate of casualties. In 1968, U.S. casualties were running 400-500/week, and that in turn was relatively light compared with what a less-populous America sustained during 1943 and 1944.

On a single day on July 1, 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme, the British suffered 60,000 casualties with 20,000 of those being fatalities.

[MNJohnnie]

From a strictly Military point of view the terrorists are some of the most inept foes we have ever faced. A casualty rate of 2.5% is one the US Military can sustain forever.

In our post Vietnam hyper emotional 24/7 media hysteria pretending to be News the the cold mathematics of war have been lost in the noise being generated by pompous posturing, and drama queen hysteric of political demagogues and their politically corrupt media toady's.

[MNJohnnie]

One last intresting bit of data for you.

[JLS]

My view is not that the terrorists are so inept, but that the battle of Iraq has been won. It was won in a short period of time back when the government was overthrown. What we have suffered since are mopping up casualties.

And of course IF one does not fight a battle with abandon and IF one worries so much about collateral damage, then one should not be surprised that the mopping up is rougher than if ala WWII you bomb the population into submission. Of course the left’s purpose in focusing on collateral damage so much is to weaken the military and make the mopping up tougher and more dangerous.

[oyez]

It is obvious that Iraq failure will be Democrats trump card next year. Now they are in serious danger of loosing it.