Hi Neocon; Re: "Guess we will have to wait and see."
November just tied the April 2004 record for deaths in Iraq. And that's despite being a shorter month by a day.
So the peaks are not declining. And if you look at the intervening months, the valleys are drifting higher. Let me update my 3 month averaged figures:
US fatalities in three month periods:
03/2003 thru 05/2004: 175
06/2003 thru 08/2004: 112
09/2003 thru 11/2003: 155
12/2003 thru 02/2004: 107
03/2004 thru 05/2004: 267
06/2004 thru 08/2004: 162
09/2004 thru 11/2004: 293
Thus the last three months have been the worst of the war so far. Here's the figures for the war divided into 6 month periods:
03/2003 thru 08/2004: 287
09/2003 thru 02/2004: 262
03/2004 thru 08/2004: 429
09/2004 thru 11/2004: 293 (3 months only)
As you can see from the above, we are only 137 deaths away from setting a new 6 month record, and we still have 3 months to go in the 6 month period. In other words, the war not only continues unabated, its intensity, as measured by US casualties, continues to mount. Not only that, but since we are recruiting Iraqis to fight on our side, the total casualties inflicted on us and our allies, if one counts the Iraqis, has been skyrocketing. This is not a war that we are winning.
For most of 2 years, the administration has apparently believed that the worst part of the war was over, but the truth has always been, at least so far, that the worst part was still in the future.
-- Carl
P.S. Let me repeat what I wrote 2 months ago, well before the Falloujah offensive ran the totals up:
...
Maybe you want to claim that there will be no more spikes, or that any future spikes will be lower than the highest spikes we've already experienced. Since I expect us to withdraw, I believe that this is entirely possible. Our casualty rate is well correlated with the amount of operations we perform. In order for us to have a spike in casualties, we have to have a spike in operations. If we hunker down in our bases, our casualty rate will be (temporarily at least) minimized.
...
Bilow, September 21, 2004
#reply-20549268
This is still true. Compare with what you wrote:
Neocon, September 21, 2004
In fact, if one looks at the fatality rates, it becomes pretty clear. Fatalities sustained by US forces under hostile fire have remained pretty steady, with a low of 19 in February, and a high of 135 in April. The overall average has been a little more than 50, and the average for the last four months is less than for the couple of months of major operations. If what I say about guerilla warfare/terrorism is true, this clearly indicates that we are dealing with a much smaller force. This means that there is a smaller force to find and deal with, assuming the intelligence assets are developed to permit such a thing. #reply-20548838
What do you have to say now about what you said just 2 months ago? Were you wrong about the enemy force being smaller? Or do you think that the guerillas are becoming superguerillas and the few remaining enemy are accounting for more and more US fatalities? |
