Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (153094)	12/1/2004 10:39:56 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

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?