Everybody touch wood!
There has been a sharp decline in Iraqi and US death in Iraq and this is mostly attributed to the fact that more and more Sunnis are turning against the terrorists. This what might have prompted Bin Laden to appear again and give a message to his killers in Iraq.
“I’ve never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we’ve made in Iraq. The only people who are going to win this counterinsurgency project are the people of Iraq. We’ve said that all along. And now they’re coming forward in masses,” Lynch said in a recent interview at a U.S. base deep in hostile territory south of Baghdad. Outgoing artillery thundered as he spoke.
Lynch, who commands the 3rd Infantry Division and once served as the military spokesman in Baghdad, is a tireless cheerleader of the American effort in Iraq. But the death toll over the past two months appears to reinforce his optimism. The question, of course: Will it last?
As of Tuesday, the Pentagon reported 28 U.S. military deaths in October. That’s an average of about 1.2 deaths a day. The toll on U.S troops hasn’t been this low since March 2006, when 31 soldiers died — an average of one death a day.
In September, 65 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.
Of course terrible civilian casualties such as these can very easily turn this hopefully constant trend.
Hopefully,the next Arab country that tries democracy won’t have its population terrorized by Saudi fanatics.
Comment by Perry — October 24, 2007 @ 2:09 am
BP, excellent post.. I agree, hopefully this trend will continue. This is their country, but unfortunately they have forgotten what it is like to live under freedom and not military or civilian dictatorships. …stay safe…
Comment by tapline — October 24, 2007 @ 5:56 am
This is really the first time that I can recall that both U.S. military casualties and Iraqi civilian deaths have seen a strong decline simultaneously. I’m not going to get my hopes up over the long term but I will cross my fingers.
Comment by tommy — October 24, 2007 @ 7:00 am
from : http://www.juancole.com:
First of all, the assertion that US troop deaths have fallen is extremely misleading. In fact, It is only late October and already more US troops were killed in Iraq in 2007 than in all of 2006. Indeed, 2007 will almost certainly hold the record for the year of the most US military deaths since the war began.
According to the Iraq Casualties Site, these are the yearly numbers of death of US military personnel in Iraq:
Year US Deaths
2003 486
2004 849
2005 846
2006 822
2007 832
It is true that October is on track to be the least deadly for US troops since March of 2005.
It is, however, not clear why exactly US troop deaths have fallen so much in October. It is possible that they are being given few military missions and spending more time on base.
Indeed, the sort of ground missions that might involve hand to hand fighting and high US casualties may have been replaced by air strikes against suspected insurgent targets. US air strikes on Iraq are up by a factor of four in 2007 over 2006, according to Newsay. The US launched 1,140 bombing missions in 2007 through the end of September, as opposed to 229 in all of 2006. The US has flown as many as 70 such air missions a day this October, more than at any time since the November, 2004, assault on the Sunni Arab city of Fallujah.
Obviously, for an Occupation military to bomb a densely-populated city that it already largely controls is a violation of human rights law. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq has just condemned the US for using this tactic, which inevitably kills children, women and other non-combatants. You can’t drop a bomb on an urban apartment building without killing lots of people, not only inside the building but also all around it. The bomb turns bits of the building into deadly projectiles. I am told that the US Air Force takes no responsibility for these aerial strikes when they are called in by army troops on the ground, and makes no assessment as to whether proportional force was deployed or excessive civilian casualties were incurred. So you have a convoy of soldiers in humvees driving through deeply hostile Sadr City, and someone starts sniping at them from a building. Obviously, running into the building is dangerous; it could be booby-trapped, or snipers could have set up there. I wouldn’t want to do it. So the tendency would obviously be to take out the snipers by taking out the building they are using. That makes military sense. It doesn’t make sense in the international law of occupations.
The US military spokesmen are always going on about precision strikes and reducing civilian casualties. I know they are sincere in thinking they can do that, but they just aren’t dealing with a simple reality. They are bombing apartment buildings in densely populated cities!
The US military, then, may be artificially keeping US military deaths down this fall by resorting to many more aerial bombings. These bombings have repeatedly drawn forth powerful condemnations from the elected Iraqi political authorities and are unlikely to be viable much longer.
Comment by pim berg — October 24, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Pim Berg–
If what you say is true, that the US is resorting to more airstrikes and fewer ground sorties, and that by their very nature these airstrikes slaughter innocent civilians, why is the civilian death toll lower over the smae reporting period as well? If I am reading the article BP posted here corerectly, that is the case.
Comment by Uchuck the Tuchuck — October 24, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Actually pim it is not misleading at all. For the past 2 months that is september and october USA casualties have been down. While it is true that overall this year it has been the deadliest. If we go by month then casualites are going down and going down fast. The primary reasons that have been suggested is that with combination of the surge offensive and the anbar awakening they have been able to successfully weaken the enemy ability to attack.
While at the same time getting record amounts of intelligence coming in from the locals. You also have jam militia basically cooling off its attacks you might say.
Also if you had been paying attention to the surge. You would know that the primary objective was to get the soldiers out of their bases. So actually the answer is no they are not just staying in their bases and just resorting to airstrikes. They are actually instead been putting the soldiers at more risk because of instead of doing a mission and then returning to base they have been staying the night in the neighborhood leaving them completely exposed.
However though you are right about more airstrikes. The USA military is simply being more aggressive.
As for the bombing in civilian areas. If there is an enemy target it is not illegal. Also how many airstrikes are carried out each day that result in the loss of civilian life? It is quite obvious that the vast vast vast majority do not end up with civilian casualties.
The vast majority of air strikes are not called in until the force surronding the building have made sure that the surronding area doesn’t have civilians that would be within its blast radius. Now this doesn’t always happend but that is usually how it is done.
“That makes military sense. It doesn’t make sense in the international law of occupations.”
How does it not make sense in the internation law of occupations?
“They are bombing apartment buildings in densely populated cities!”
Old news buddy they have been doing this since day one, so what is your point? Ever heard of something called shock and awe?
“The US military, then, may be artificially keeping US military deaths down this fall by resorting to many more aerial bombings.”
Nope the reason that has the most support has to do with the anbar awakening and the surge offensive operations.
Comment by Noliving — October 24, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
Forgot to add that is not illegal to bomb in civilian areas if there is a decent amount of enemy combatants. So lets say there is only one combatant then yes that is illegal air strike.
But lets say there is 5 or more then the air strike is legal in that sense.
Comment by Noliving — October 24, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
It’s not my opinion but Juan Cole’s opinion as you could see at the beginning of my comment.
But I think I have to agree with him.
In my humble opinion bombing civilian areas is always a crime. Even killing two insurgents with a collateral damage of 20 or more women and children still is a war crime.
(And don’t tell me that these insurgents are hiding between civilians, even then it’s a crime)
Comment by pim berg — October 24, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
I know its not your opinion but considering at the end of your orignal comment you seemed to happend to agree with him.
Sadly the enemy doesn’t agree with you when it comes to restraint in attacking in civilian areas.
You may consider it a crime but international law does not.
If I had it my way along with the USA military way, they would meet like in the old days of the revolutionary war where armies would meet out in vast open fields and plains.
Comment by Noliving — October 25, 2007 @ 2:50 am
Pim, Juan Cole is so biased against Bush and the Iraq war that taking what he says with a grain of salt is advised.
Now, on the matter of safeguarding civilians in military occupied territories, read Part IV here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/d67c3971bcff1c10c125641e0052b545
I assume that Cole asserts that based on the above, actual military operations in civilian areas are prohibited? The laws of war apply until the hostilities end fully (which has yet to happen) so Cole’s claim only works during the year between the end of hostilities and the end of occupation, which is the theoretical starting point of full sovereignity of the occupied country.
Cole conveniently neglects the laws of war, which state quite clearly that military operations in civilian areas (including bombing) are valid as long as the military gain is within proportions of predicted harm to civilian populace. If the harm to civilians is certain to be greater than the military gain, such a military act is deemed illegal.
Both you and Cole seem to think of ten-ton bombs. You seem to believe that any use of airborne weaponry is certain to harm at least a hundred civilians nearby. Well, have you ever heard of missiles? Or laser-guided bombs, for that matter? Bombs can be quite small, too.
Thus the assertion that air-based attacks are illegal is faulty in its very base. Not only does this argument assume overkill bombardment, it also implies that an army operating in an occupied country is a police force, with insurgents being mere criminals which must be faced as such.
Comment by Roman Kalik — October 25, 2007 @ 5:51 am
You have to be pretty dense to think a platoon of soldiers clearing a building with grenades, AT-4s, and rifles is going to automatically be easier on the civilian population.
No wonder you don’t want to hear about jihadis hiding among civilians –> that’s a war crime!
Did someone say small bombs? Scroll down to “The Hunters have been tested…”
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/warrior-ermp-an-enhanced-predator-for-the-army-03056/#more
Comment by Chip — October 26, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
Doh!
Ours is the M136-AT4. Just AT-4 is Russian.
Back to the point: this is no bargain when aimed near your apartment.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/at4.htm
Comment by Chip — October 26, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Even regarding military law (whatever law that may be, at least not the Geneva covention) it’s all about proportionality and the actions of the US army were not proportional.
As far we’re talking about 4th generation warfare we also should wonder if any military laws still apply in these situations. Learned military strategists are busy to find out how to handle this kind of warfare from a military point of view, but as far as I know, nobody cares about protecting civilians.
Comment by pim berg — October 27, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Pim, it’s the Geneva Conventions that speak about proportionality. And again, it’s the end result that matters, on a case-by-case basis, *not* how it may appear to you. Do you want to go through one case at a time, assuming that you have access to such data? Do you honestly want to play military gains vs. potential harm? No, it would seem that you prefer making empty statements instead.
As for 4th generation warfare, potential harm to civilians is always taken into consideration, be it by the people who plan the missions or by the people who participate in them. Ask any US soldier who served in Iraq. Not all armies or insurgencies operate under such codes (and they certainly limit you), and they can be used against you (which is why US medics in Iraq often go without any special medical emblem and with a regular firearm, as being identified as medics makes them an automatic special target there).
My guess, Pim? You didn’t bother reading the Geneva Conventions in the first place. Read them. And please, stop making assumptions regarding military strategy that you appear to be pulling out of your ass.
Comment by Roman Kalik — October 28, 2007 @ 5:10 am
I suspect pim only complains when Americans kill civilians. I doubt he’s ever said a peep about al qaeda’s habit of doing the same. I have yet to hear him say alqaeda are war criminals for their slaughter of 135 + people who showed up to demonstrate their support for Benazir Bhutto. Had American bombs from American jets killed 135 people in afghanistan I’d wager he’d waste no time in screaming, no pun intended, bloody murder. Pim is the type who only condemns when its american or Israeli’s who do something bad..
Comment by sickofdoublestandards — October 28, 2007 @ 7:33 am
I’ve got my information from people who were in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What they told me is that RoE’s differ by country. In my opinion that means that there are no international standards how to cope this kind of 4th generation warfare.
And I’m not using double standards.
It’s only that Al Quaida is not represented by any legal body I can refer to. But if “we” want to win “people’s hearts and minds” “we” should avoid killing innocent men, women and children. That’s what we were supposed to be in Iraq….?????
Comment by pim berg — November 1, 2007 @ 12:43 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement
Comment by pim berg — November 1, 2007 @ 12:48 am
…Pim, you spoke to soldiers, read the Wiki, yet learned nothing. Read the Wiki again, in particular the British part. RoE are always of a dynamic nature. They don’t just change from country to country, they change from unit to unit, mission to mission… There is always a basic, general version, and a specific version. This, Pim, is due to the fact that every situation is different and requires a specifically tailored approach. This has always been so.
Pim, not every situation requires the use of, say, curfews. Or roadblocks. Rules of engagement depend on the risks at hand, where the fighting is, how strong the enemy is, what tactics he employs (do you check the ambulance for arms or insurgents? Or do you know that ambulances aren’t misused and can then always let them pass quickly?). It also includes to what degree you operate independently and to what degree you have to obey local authorities, what they can or can’t ask you to do.
Rules of Engagement are specific, yet they have a general basis. A starting point. That starting point is important, as are the parameters that you allow to affect your specific RoE and how far it can change.
Your interpretation of them being different is not merely wrong, it also speaks of the ignorance that comes with being a desk-jockey. Think out of the box for a minute, will you?
Comment by Roman Kalik — November 1, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
Thanks boys3a5c40
Comment by free mp3 music downloads — November 28, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Yhanks you4aad9bd40593c14274ceeeefef9fdb01
Comment by http://musicdownloadsmp3.tripod.com/music_downloads.html — December 11, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Cool post.
I guess you’ll check out my blog..
Bye
Comment by Prostitution In The United States — December 14, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Sweet comment.
I know you will surf on my diary..
Regards
Comment by Big Bean Bags — December 15, 2007 @ 1:18 am