Replies

“Not only are the number of US casualties trending downward...”

They are not. A regression line of the data beginning in March 03 through July 07 shows a slope of .7525 and an R^2 value of .1871. With a sample population of over 30, these values are significant. Another item that could be addressed are the number of July casualties, although (as correctly stated) they are the lowest in 7 months (in three cases by 1 and in one case by 2) they are significantly higher than in any other July: 07 = 80, 06 = 43, 05 = 54, 04 = 54. 03 = 48; approximately 1.5 times the next highest July.

By your methodology, if you performed a linear regression on the monthly deaths from WWII from 1941 to 1946, there would be a positive trend (upward slope) in 1946 after the war had ended. You can not detect a recent trend by inclusion of data from 4 years ago. Certainly, there is insufficient data to demonstrate a recent downward trend and I don't need to perform a spreadsheet statistical analysis to come to that conclusion.

Your analysis is mathematically correct, but meaningless. What was happening in Iraq four years ago bears absolutely no resemblance or relevance to what is going on now. Force levels, weapons, training, strategy, tactics, and operational realities have all shifted significantly, as have counterforce levels and operations. Casualties, being a product of all of these things cannot be understood solely by quantitative analysis.

The reason that US casualties is down between May of this year and today has little, if any, correlation with past history and everything to do with the military elements of the surge. A historical example will suffice: US military casualties were far higher in the European Theatre of Operations in 1944 than they were in 1943, and much higher than in 1942, trending upward beginning in June '44 and continuing upward through January/February of 1945. We must have been losing the war, right?