Monday, August 27, 2007

Iraq body count running at double pace

The "surge" in Iraq may have had some success in bringing down the levels of violence in Baghdad, but the overall death toll from sectarian attacks in Iraq is now double what it was a year ago.

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings — the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month's Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken.

In street-level terms, it means life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable.

For those arguing that the surge is working the figures do not make easy reading:

• Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year — an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year.

Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. AP reporting accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006. The United Nations and other sources placed the 2006 toll far higher.

• Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago.

_According to the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, the number of displaced Iraqis has more than doubled since the start of the year, from 447,337 on Jan. 1 to 1.14 million on July 31.

The figures appear to validate initial fears that the "surge" would merely displace the violence in Iraq to the northern territories. Last year 22% of the killings occurred in the northern provinces, this year it accounts for 35% of the killings.

Nora Bensahel, a military analyst at the Rand Corp., said that northern Iraq had become increasingly destabilized over the past few months.

The insurgents have made a "concerted effort to concentrate attacks in other parts of the country," Bensahel said, in part to escape the increased U.S. troop presence in Baghdad and in part to give the impression that no place in Iraq is safe.

Mostly, she said, the insurgents have shifted their focus to the Baghdad suburbs, but they are particularly keen to undermine the notion that northern Iraq is a "success story" for Washington and its key Iraqi partners — including the Kurds who have maintained a near-autonomous state in the north since the early 1990s.

Staging attacks in the north "has a symbolic effect," she said.

This is a problem I have always had when I listen to the pro-war supporters telling me that the situation is improving in Iraq. Their conclusions appear always to be based on subjective analysis and are rarely backed by concrete figures.

This is the problem I have with US politicians being led around Iraq by the US army and then returning and letting us know what they "have seen". Such views are always subjective and proof of progress should surely be reflected in the actual figures coming out of Iraq.

The headline of this article - taken from Yahoo - states a greater and more inarguable truth than any amount of politicians telling us what they have seen.

Click title for full article.

6 comments:

Unknown said...

You suddenly seemed concerned for the well-being of the Iraqi people. What do you think will happen if the US were to retreat? The British retreat from Basra under cover of darkness would give a slight inkling as to where things might head, as instead of turning their compound over to the government, it was quickly taken over by JAM forces. I read an article this morning that said the Brits probably brokered a deal with JAM to leave them alone while they were running away, but I can't seem to find a link to it (it may have been USA Today).

The number of British casualties soared as they reduced their numbers and Basra descended into essentially gang warfare, which of course is quite contrary to the quaint little theory the defeatists had that stated the military was actually making things worse. Well, Basra illuminates that lie perfectly as a once stable part of Iraq was completely destabilized by British incompetence.

So what does the British fiasco serve to tell us? That greatly reducing forces without getting rid of the militias first is a recipe for disaster, the government will crumble, even more Iraqis will be slaughtered in sectarian warfare, the zealots will take over, and that as we reduce our forces, casualties will increase.

Run away! Run away!

Kel said...

Jason,

As I have previously stated, the withdrawal will have horrible consequences, just as the withdrawal from Vietnam had horrible consequences.

However, this is a result of the original decision to invade, a decision you supported.

Accept the consequences of what you have foolishly supported. Of course, none of this need have happened had Rumsfeld employed enough troops. But he didn't, and the defeat naturally followed.

Unknown said...

As I have previously stated, the withdrawal will have horrible consequences, just as the withdrawal from Vietnam had horrible consequences.

However, this is a result of the original decision to invade, a decision you supported.

Accept the consequences of what you have foolishly supported.


So you are saying in effect that the bloodshed resulting from an American military retreat will be catastrophic, but oh well, you shouldn't have invaded in the first place. Such a humanitarian.

But he didn't, and the defeat naturally followed.

The defeat of the British troops naturally followed? You must be referring to the British, since any remotely knowledgeable observer is able to point out the obvious fact that claims of an American defeat, aside from being completely detached from reality, are far from the truth and can only be indicative of an anti-Bush and/or anti-American mania. There is of course a state between victory and defeat, and that's where the conflict lies. It's course has yet to be run and it's result yet to be determined, except of course by the extremist loons.

Kel said...

My position is that the horrible consequences will occur when the US leaves unless the US achieves victory and leaves behind a settled stabilised nation bereft of sectarian violence.

I do not believe that this is achievable. And yes, I do blame warmongers like yourself for starting a war of choice and inflicting untold misery on the Iraqi people.

Oh, and by the way Jason, extremists are people who hold positions held by only a small proportion of the population. In this case it is you who is holding the extremist position.

74% of your nation think that the Iraq war is going very badly or somewhat badly. 61% think that the US should not have gone into Iraq, and 51% now think the conflict is simply creating more terrorists.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Oh, and the defeat I was referring to was the defeat of the US/UK coalition which I think was guaranteed when Rumsfeld failed to establish order. Anarchy blossomed and everything since has flown from that initial grave error of sending too few troops.

Unknown said...

My position is that the horrible consequences will occur when the US leaves unless the US achieves victory and leaves behind a settled stabilised nation bereft of sectarian violence.

But you don't seem to want us to do that. You give every indication that you would like us to fail and in fact are actively cheer leading for our defeat. Or, do you just recognize your above statement as fact, but regardless of that fact, still want us to fail?

inflicting untold misery on the Iraqi people.

Just to be clear, you believe that removing one of the most murderous dictators this planet has known as inflicting untold misery on the Iraqi people. You don't believe that the Iraqi militias, Baathists, and your jihadist friends have any part in the "untold misery" inflicted on the Iraqi people?

extremists are people who hold positions held by only a small proportion of the population.

Regardless of which polls you try to use to make whatever your point is, 30-50% isn't exactly "only a small proportion". And last time I checked, uninformed opinion of what is or isn't going on in Iraq, really has nothing to do with the reality of what's going on on the ground.

Oh, and the defeat I was referring to was the defeat of the US/UK coalition which I think was guaranteed when Rumsfeld failed to establish order. Anarchy blossomed and everything since has flown from that initial grave error of sending too few troops.

This is what I love about armchair generals with no military experience. The theory of what Rumsfeld and his people were aiming for was perfectly valid, and in fact our quick and overwhelming victory was proof of that. But of course hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to now say something else should have been done. No credit for the situation was given to Hussein who apparently actually planned on his forces melting into the population and waging an insurgency. But while the armchair generals with no military experience certainly can now say what they would have done differently, they are completely silent when given the chance to offer anything resembling an intelligent plan on how to proceed given the current situation. It's much easier to look backward.

I guess if you are claiming defeat of the US/UK coalition as a result of the UK being defeated, there's not much I can do to argue that.

Kel said...

You give every indication that you would like us to fail and in fact are actively cheer leading for our defeat.

I have never supported your cause, regarding the entire war as an illegal venture; but it is in no-ones interests, especially the people of Iraq, for the US to fail. However, I think you have failed for all the reasons previously given.

Just to be clear, you believe that removing one of the most murderous dictators this planet has known as inflicting untold misery on the Iraqi people. You don't believe that the Iraqi militias, Baathists, and your jihadist friends have any part in the "untold misery" inflicted on the Iraqi people?

I don't believe your nation's interests in going in there had anything to do with removing a murderous dictator as your country's obsession with the Iraqi Oil Law proves.

And, of course, the Iraqi militias have caused untold misery; my point is who unleashed them? The US and the UK did when they removed Saddam from power.

Regardless of which polls you try to use to make whatever your point is, 30-50% isn't exactly "only a small proportion".

My point is that the opinions which you label "extremist" are actually in wider circulation than your own.

This is what I love about armchair generals with no military experience. The theory of what Rumsfeld and his people were aiming for was perfectly valid, and in fact our quick and overwhelming victory was proof of that. But of course hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to now say something else should have been done.

It's not only armchair generals but actual generals who are lambasting Rumsfeld's tactics.

Nor is it fair, as you are implying, that people are simply being wise after the event. There were numerous people including General Eric Shinseki who stated that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to do the job. He was promptly replaced for saying so.

So, no-one's being clever after the fact. The truth is that Rumsfeld was dumb before the fact.

He was told he didn't have enough troops for an occupation, so citing the fact that the military victory was swift is missing the point. The aim wasn't to invade and leave - if it were, your point might be valid - the aim was to invade and occupy. And Rumsfeld was warned that he didn't have the forces to pull that off. He went ahead anyway...