Rise In Iraqi Deaths Undercuts Administration’s Claims Of ‘Momentum’ In The War
Rise In Iraqi Deaths Undercuts Administration’s Claims Of ‘Momentum’ In The War
Throughout this month, the administration has been touting a “trend” of decreasing violence in Iraq. The “violence is thankfully coming down,” said White House spokesperson Dana Perino on Oct. 18.
This morning, Gen. Raymond Odierno held a news briefing on the war in Iraq, declaring, “I believe we have achieved some momentum.” To bolster this claim, Odierno said he sees a downward trend in “civilian deaths”:
Iraqi civilian deaths have also declined in recent months. This has a great deal to do with the overall drop in violence but also has a lot to do with Iraqis coming together as a nation and not dividing along ethnic and sectarian lines. […]
With the civilian populace feeling more secure and cooperating with both Iraqi security forces and coalition forces, this has been able to keep the enemy off balance and our casualty trends began to decline. It is a trend that we are absolutely committed to continuing.
But Iraqi government figures obtained today indicate that the administration may have spoken too soon:
The number of Iraqis killed in insurgent and sectarian attacks rose in October, according to government figures obtained on Thursday, in a blow to a nine-month-old US troop surge policy.
At least 887 Iraqis were killed last month, compared to 840 in September, according to the data compiled by the interior, defence and health ministries.
The rise in deaths in October illuminates how the administration is blindly pushing claims that it is gaining “momentum” in Iraq, ignoring the volatility that is still pervasive despite Bush’s “crackdown.”
The media have also accepted the administration’s talking points. Today, the LA Times alleged that the reduced violence since before the “surge” reflects “the tactical successes of this year’s U.S. troop buildup.”
But as Matt Yglesias observes, “the relevant goalposts aren’t the timing of declines in violence but the causal mechanism by which they occur. If violence is declining because local areas have already been ethnically cleansed, then the reduction…hardly shows that the US military deployment is accomplishing anything worthwhile.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
49 Responses to “Rise In Iraqi Deaths Undercuts Administration’s Claims Of ‘Momentum’ In The War”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This morning, Gen. Raymond Odierno held a news briefing on the war in Iraq, declaring, “I believe we have achieved some momentum.†To bolster this claim, Odierno said he sees a downward trend in “civilian deathsâ€:
Does he have evidence to support this claim?
November 1st, 2007 at 5:03 pmIt may also be a function of how death statistics are categorized. The Iraqi government may not be using the very strange and limited definitions used by the US military in determining if a death was sectarian in nature (where on the body the person was shot).
Which from the start smacked of an attempt to manipulate the figures downwards, the way the administartion wanted them to go.
Unfortunately, as much as they try to redifine things (tourture is whatever we don’t do, sectarian deaths are down) it’s still the case that “reality has a liberal bias.” (S.Colbert)
November 1st, 2007 at 5:03 pmWould ThinkProgress stop interfering with the fantasies of Bushland? If someone from the Army says deaths are declining, then, dammit, deaths ARE declining!
Who cares that it’s because there are fewer and fewer people around to be killed?? Sheesh. Typical liberal media.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pmThat whole “things are going great in Iraq” crap is wearing very thin.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pmThe deaths of the Iraq people mean nothing to this Administration. They don’t consider them as human. Remember there was a time when America didn’t consider Blacks as human and worth less then animals.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pmahh, well, they’re not doin’ body counts, remember? 100 or 100,000 dead iraqis… i don’t matter - to the Fourth Reich the fewer iraqis alive, the fewer potential insurgents, right?
remember: “we’re going to be greeted as liberators.”
November 1st, 2007 at 5:21 pmMore propaganda prematurely coming from this White House and administration along with it’s sycophants in the military! Can we believe “anything” coming from this president at all?? I don’t believe we can.
Believe nothing you hear on the mainstream media or anything you read coming out of this administration’s “smoke and mirrors campaign”. It’s all bullshit.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:26 pmIraq is over and we’ve lost the war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people - face it and let’s move on. Bush owns this botched war - and always will. There is not “one single thing” Bush can tout as an accomplishment for 8 very long years in office. How sad for this country of ours.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pmThe Defense Department body counts are based on a monthly census. You simply count the number of living Iraqis at the end of each month and subtract that form the number at the end of the previous month. The difference yields the body count. There can be no flaw in that method, could there?
November 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pmGeneral, please tell us how many “terrorists” have been taken into custody during the “surge?” Are Americans holding more than 200,000 yet?
November 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pmRemember - You can tell these Fascist War Pigs are lieing by watching their lips, if they are moving then they are LIEING.
If 2 million Iraqis are displaced to other countries, and 600 thousand of them dead, then you have years of them killing each other and cleansing their neigborhoods then in GW666’s eyes you see success. That’s GW666 Math though - 840 dead minus 887 dead equals only 47 dead.
Like I said, “That’s GW666 Math” or should it be “Meth”
Buck Fush
November 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pmAnd I fear that the propaganda will begin to get thicker as the waning days of this botched presidency move on - these neofascists have a great deal to lose if the Truth gets out in all of it’s ugliness - which it will as the whistleblowers continue to “out” a lameduck president and his sycophantic crime cabal.
These neocons know now that their very lives may be at stake here so expect that the internal warfare will escalate in this country. It will soon be Bush and the MSM against the people. After all, gaining control of the media is right out of Orwell’s novel. This they’ve handily done thanks to the media monopolies who are major Republicans.
The people are getting smarter though and use the internet (damn those internets!) to gain accurate data and inside information. Funny how very little of the true facts are found on any of the newscasts on television. It would behoove americans to go to the BCC news channels to find out what the sycophantic media whores won’t tell us.
Shut out the mainstream media - boycott the newspapers who carry this propaganda.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pmThree Muslim woman are sitting down exchanging pictures of their sons:
First Mother - “This is a picture of Ahmed, he’d be 29 by now but he became a martyr 4 years ago”
Second Mother - “This is a picture of Amir, he’d be 24 by now but he became a martyr 5 years ago”
Third Mother - “This is a picture of Sameed, he’d be 19 by now but he became a martyr 6 years ago”
First Mother (again) - ” Ah, they Blow up so young these days!”
November 1st, 2007 at 5:32 pmCheney to Chimpy: “Mission’s accomplished, Iraqi deaths are down…we need some more fun. Let’s bomb Iran!”
November 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pmnot “one single thing†Bush can tout - Veritas
Here’s ONE - OIL 96.53 a Barrel - Record profits for the Oil Companies.
Buck Fush
November 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pm“that form” in my post 8 should read “from that”
November 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pmActually, I’m amazed that they botched this coup on our democracy by underestimating the importance of the midterms. Before that the neofascists had control of the Congress and the Judicial System with the installation of the moron-twerp Gonzo and effectively had control of every aspect of our democracy…..along with the mainstream media. I’m amazed that they didn’t tank it when they had the opportunity to do so - their major mistake in calculations was to push their puppet through a second term via a hacked election - a little too much greed on their part - and then came the midterms to finish off the task of outing them and reversing the tide of fascism. When the historians describe this era in american history, these neofascists will be painted as the treasonous thugs whom they are….and they’ll all be named as such for future generations to know the full details of their “fascist charade”.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:35 pmYeah, right….Buckie….that one thing that feathers his nest in Paraguay along with the offshore accounts of everyone in his corrupt administration.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:36 pmIraqi deaths are actually “UP”…. (beep….thanks for playing, Perino et al). What a sick bunch of lying thugs we have in this administration.
CARDINAL RULE #1: BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING COMING FROM THE MOUTH OF ANYONE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION. IT’S ALL LIES.**
November 1st, 2007 at 5:40 pmViolence Ebbing in Iraq, Figures Show
Wednesday October 31, 2007 9:16 PM
Associated Press
BAGHDAD (AP) - Violent deaths of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians appear to have fallen sharply in Iraq in October, according to the latest Associated Press tally.
The AP’s figures mirror other reports that the levels of bloodshed are falling here. But the meaning of these statistics is disputed, and experts generally agree that the struggle for security and stability is far from over.
The number of Iraqi civilians killed fell from at least 1,023 in September to at least 875 in October, according to the AP count.
That’s the lowest monthly toll for civilian casualties in the past year, and is down sharply from the 1,216 recorded in October 2006. The numbers are based on daily reports from police, hospital officials, morgue workers and verifiable witness accounts …
The drop in deaths among U.S. military personnel in Iraq was even more striking, according to AP’s records - down from 65 in September to at least 36 in October. The October figure is by far the lowest in the last year, and is sharply lower than the 106 deaths recorded in October 2006.
The relative period of calm - if that’s what it is - came during the Muslim fast of Ramadan, a time when militants have in the past escalated their attacks on U.S. forces.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ worldlatest/ story/ 0,,-7039753,00.html
November 1st, 2007 at 5:53 pmWow, Exley, an even more meaningless post than usual. Brilliant.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:55 pmAccording to Exley’s post, it is time to start bringing our soldiers home.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:00 pmExley, maybe the lower numbers are indicative of the ethnic cleansing and the exodous of millions of Iraqis to a safer place (Syria maybe). I am very happy about the lower numbers, but if they are only lower because there are fewer humans available to kill, we shouldn’t get too excited about our success. If present trends continue, the Americans might be the only folks still left in Iraq. Maybe we will win by attrition.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:12 pmDeaths in Iraq ‘continue to fall’
BBC News
Thursday, 1 November 2007, 14:26 GMT
The troop surge in and around Baghdad began in February
The number of violent civilian and military deaths in Iraq has continued to drop, figures for October suggest.
There is no single reliable source for statistics but a number agree on a marked improvement, correspondents say.
They say this is generally attributed to the US and Iraqi troop surge in and around Baghdad that began in February.
Analysts say other key factors are the halt in operations by Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr and the abandonment of al-Qaeda by some western Sunni tribes.
The BBC’s Jim Muir Baghdad says different sources do have different casualty figures for October but they all agree that the number of Iraqis killed by violence was again at a much lower level, as it had been in September.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7073160.stm
November 1st, 2007 at 6:13 pmStratRat,
Your theory is discussed in the Associated Press article. It is possible.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:14 pmU.S. forces are sticking closer to their bases, substituting air/artillery strikes for foot patrols. Fewer targets=fewer casualties.
NEXT LIE PLEASE!!!
November 1st, 2007 at 6:21 pmInteresting bits of information from another BBC report:
“Although most violence in Iraq is sectarian - Iraqi killing Iraqi - most of the violence directed against US forces comes from Sunni insurgents. The roadside bomb - or IED - remains their preferred method of killing Americans.
Suddenly, there’s a thud and smoke on the road ahead. The first vehicle in the convoy has been hit. “Stop, stop, stop,” comes the command over the radio. “Anybody hurt?” Only the thick bullet-proof glass has been damaged, it turns out. Everyone inside is fine.
For years American soldiers complained that their vehicles made them vulnerable to roadside bombs. After a huge Pentagon programme to provide better protection, you rarely hear that complaint in Iraq these days.”
Also:
“On the way out, the head of the village tells me he is not angry at the Americans. He much prefers them to the Iraqi forces. When the Iraqi police and army come, he says, they break things and steal. The Americans don’t do that.”
Full article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7063603.stm
November 1st, 2007 at 6:22 pmWell, those numbers don’t mean much as yet Exley.
Back in march of 2006 it was 31 and in march of 2005 it was 35 both lower than october 2007 of 39.
And the US deaths by year.
2003 486
2004 849
2005 846
2006 822
2007 842
BTW 2007 still has several months to go.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:27 pmhttp://icasualties.org/oif/
For years American soldiers complained that their vehicles made them vulnerable to roadside bombs. After a huge Pentagon programme to provide better protection, you rarely hear that complaint in Iraq these days.â€
Comment by Exley — November 1, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
All I can say is it’s about frickin’ time. Too many soldiers getting seriously injured or killed because they had inadequate equipment.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:29 pm#28 gummitch
I agree with you 100%.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:30 pmFirst is it me or is it getting difficult to believe anything this administration puts out when a few days later they backpedal and change the story.
Second, on good information the patrols are finding a safe place to wait, call into the base every hour til their duty is done. If no one else looks out for them they will do it for themselves. Pretty damn sad when the brass touts a lying, sack of crap, to our military as someone with alot of energy.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:32 pmSo why were the first V-Humvees given to the Iraqis two years ago and just a few months ago our guys started getting them?
Where did 120,000 weapons disappear to? Why did parents have to provide protective gear for their kids? Tell me again how well this administration is doing for our service men and women. Tell with a straight face.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pmWas Hitler concerned that too many Jews were dying. Why would you expect Bush to care how many Iraqis are killed. His grandfather taught him that the only thing that matters is how much money the family makes, dead people don’t vote.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pmI didn’t read the entire LA Times article, but the sub-head on the front page did indeed note that a slowdown in the death rate may be as much a function of the completion of ethnic cleansing as anything to do with the “Surge”.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:39 pmI don’t think math is a prerequisit to be a general, among other things.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:40 pmhttp://men.style.com/ gq/ features/ landing?id=content_6180
A million freed Iraqis. With no job or no homes and no help. Somehow Im not feeling the compassion conservatism here. How is this freeing the Iraqi people exactly? They are not terrorists, are not evil, were not even our enemy. Their crime? Being born in Iraq. Did they attack America? No. Did they fly planes into WTC? No.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:40 pmAll I can say is it’s about frickin’ time. Too many soldiers getting seriously injured or killed because they had inadequate equipment.
Comment by gummitch — November 1, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
I would say that too many people are being killed because we are engaged in the illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. Heck, we can’t even play the “colony card”.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:45 pmThings are so peaceful in Iraq, diplomats are not refusing to do a tour of duty there. Soldiers are not being killed like the three more who died today.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pmOdierno has no respect from me - I read Fiasco where he was featured numerous times. Knowing Rambos like him and traitors like Petraeus are in charge there under Prez Dumbya, diplomats are not stupid, suicidal people.
I did hear one blip regarding the Diplomats refusing to go to Iraq early this a.m. Anyone hear anything during the day?
November 1st, 2007 at 7:22 pmThis is a little lengthy, but here is a more complete recounting of Gen. Odierno’s briefing this morning:
“Over the past four months, attacks and security incidents have continued to decline. This trend represents the longest continuous decline in attacks on record and illustrates how our operations have improved security since the surge was emplaced. Of note, this four-month decline includes Ramadan, a time during the previous three years when enemy activity has traditionally spiked. Also total attack levels are back before their levels since the first Samarra mosque bombing in February 2006 — an event that ignited a wave of sectarian violence. …
“As you can see on this chart, Iraqi civilian deaths have also declined in recent months. This has a great deal to do with the overall drop in violence but also has a lot to do with Iraqis coming together as a nation and not dividing along ethnic and sectarian lines. Sectarianism is still present but it has diminished, and we are seeing more evidence of the populace identifying themselves not as Sunni or Shi’a but as Iraqi. One of the key tasks we set for ourselves was to protect the population.
And while we welcome the reduction in civilian casualties, it is still too high and still must be further decreased…
This slide depicts coalition forces killed in action over the past 12 months, and nothing is more important to any of us than the lives of our courageous servicemen and servicewomen. Even one coalition death is too many, but we are experiencing a five- month decline in combat deaths. While this is encouraging, we will not be satisfied until we drive this to zero …
“As we assess the security gains made over the past four months, I attribute the progress to three prominent dynamics. First, the surge allowed us to eliminate extremist safe havens and sanctuaries, just as importantly to maintain our gain. Second, the ongoing quantitative and qualitative improvement of the Iraqi security forces are translating to ever-increasing tactical successes. Lastly, there’s a clear rejection of al Qaeda and other extremists by large segments of the population, this coupled with the bottom-up awakening movement by both Sunni and Shi’a who want a chance to reconcile with the government of Iraq.”
November 1st, 2007 at 7:27 pm“Orwellian” is woefully inadequate to describe The Lyin’ King’s administration. With utterly straight faces, they routinely tell us that black is white, up is down, night is day.
The only thing sadder is the media’s continued willingness to obediently accept whatever pile of manure the administration dishes out. The only question the media seems capable of asking is, “Thank you, sir. May I have another?”
November 1st, 2007 at 7:41 pmExley - You are asking a public to believe when absolutely everything connected to this administration is a lie ? Career military are not going to blow years of service with truth.The retired Generals are telling us it is “my way or the highway” with Bush/Cheney.
Talk with the guys on the ground, listen to what they say, the ones that have to do the dirty work. You may be a decent sort, but you are sorely misguided if you still support Bush.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:47 pmI am hugely relieved that violence is, reportedly, going down in Iraq. However, many of those same reports attribute the reduction to a lack of targets. For every Sunni who has decided to get along with the Shia, how many have simply fled? How many just avoid any street with a parked car? One would think that the Iraqis have learned how to avoid dangerous situations.
Another disturbing trend is the increased reliance on air/artillery strikes in lieu of foot patrols. This nasty little tactic (Oddly enough, they used to call it “terror bombing”. Ironic huh?) is disastrous to our, already fractured, reputation. Like the abuse of prisoners, I fear that this will prove catastrophic to any American, military or otherwise, who falls into the hands of a hostile group. Not to mention the alienation of allies and potential allies.
We will be cashing the checks, that Bushco is writing, for decades if not generations. And they WILL be paid in blood.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:57 pmTHEY JUST CANNOT GET ENOUGH DEATH!
…An Associated Press poll in February found that the average American believed about 9,900 Iraqis had been killed since the end of major combat operations in 2003. Recent evidence suggests that things in Iraq may be 100 times worse than Americans realize.
…the respected British polling firm ORB released the results of a poll estimating that 22 percent of households had lost a member to violence during the occupation of Iraq, equating to 1.2 million (Iraqi) deaths.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne…..6773.story
November 1st, 2007 at 8:27 pmExley if things are going so well, why do you think that general sanchez decide that NOW was the time to say things like “iraq was an umitiagated disaster and a nightmare” and the sure was a “deparate ploy”.. howse that political reconciliation that the surge was supposed to buy time for coming, anyway?
ps. you think the AP count being down has anythign to do with the new iraqi law making it illegal to report on terrorist attacks?
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 amABC News, in its regular nightly reporting, reported on all of the progress being made, no mention whatsoever of discrapancies in the numbers of Iraqi civilians dead. In fact, Charlie painted a very rosy picture, complete with charts and graphs.
Oddly, he turned to Andrea Mitchell, Alan Greenspan’s wife and a notorious rightwinger. Andrea repeatedly referred to the war in terms of Viet Nam. Rather than saying, “in Iraq today” and “in fighting in Iraq” etc. she repeatedly said, “In Viet Nam today” and “in fighting in Viet Nam today” until Mr. Gibson corrected her. Odd.
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:11 amThis General is lying because he doesn’t want to admit the real truth. Said I said “he’s lying”, having stars on his uniform doesn’t give him a license to bend or stretch the truth. He should avoid playing politics and tell the facts as they are and the he wouldn’t have to face such comments. I’m a veteran and I’ve known high ranking military Generals who lied and this guy is no exception. The problem with having Generals toe the “party line”, is you put them in a position to please their current boss, (the President), so they don’t tell the facts as they are.
If this General didn’t play cards, his career would be ruined and he’d be out a Commander of forces in Iraq. So there it is, that’s his reason for lying, plus he’s probably a Republican anyway. When Generals play politics we all lose. And as for the idiots who think I have no right to criticize this guy, my citizenship and service to my country in the military gives me that right. This may be a dictatorship under Bush, but I’m speaking up in spite of that fact.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 amVery well put. I think that even if violence is down, it is only temporary. Once we start moving out of these cities, as in the past, the enemy will emerge once again.
Sec Def Gates says the Political side is still LAGGING behind. Until that can be solved, all our troops are doing is HOLDING the enemy back.
Coonsey’s View
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:41 amPolitical Blog and Forum
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
>You are asking why someone waited until right after they retired from it to >criticise the Bush administration.
where did I say “waited” moron? if things are going so well, why was he saying it at all, at any point?
and I was referring not just to his criticisim of the bush administratation, but also to his desciption of iraq as a “nightmare.” if iraq isnt a nightmare now, why is he saying it is? isnt he worried about looking foolish?
if things are going so well in iraq, why not just critize the president? why go further and give “aid and comfort to the enemy” by portraying that situation as going poorly when in fact its going swimmingly.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 pm