4,000

[Darth Wong]

Just putting this here for perspective, with no value statement attached.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

page 10.

Table 4. US Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 through 2006

Adding up years 1992 to 2000 you get 8035

Adding up years 2001 to present you get 9550

That's misleading though, because the total size of the military was much larger in 1992 than it is now, since they were still drawing down after the end of the Cold War. In 1992 there were more than 600 deaths from accidents alone, due to the sheer size of the military. Today, the military is only two thirds of the size that it was in 1992. If you look at the death toll per year since the Iraq invasion, it is more than 1800 every year: much higher than it was at any time during the 1990s. Also, the period from "2001 to present" actually excludes 2007 (that charts ends in 2006), and it includes several years before the Iraq war began: years with low casualties because of the shrunken military. That skews the numbers; many of the armed forces deaths were things like traffic accidents, which could have just as easily happened to them as civilians. And by saying "2001 to present" instead of 2001-2006, you are simply altering the facts.

Convert the figures into per-capita figures and use the period from 2004 to 2006 to characterize the Iraq War, and you get a better idea of what's happening.

[The Spartan]

Why'd this war have to start in the first place?

Because a politician had to show up his daddy and enough people, I'm sorry to say myself included, bought it completely enough that there was simply no stopping it.

[cosmicalstorm]

Just putting this here for perspective, with no value statement attached.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

page 10.

Table 4. US Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 through 2006

Adding up years 1992 to 2000 you get 8035

Adding up years 2001 to present you get 9550

That's misleading though, because the total size of the military was much larger in 1992 than it is now, since they were still drawing down after the end of the Cold War. In 1992 there were more than 600 deaths from accidents alone, due to the sheer size of the military. Today, the military is only two thirds of the size that it was in 1992. If you look at the death toll per year since the Iraq invasion, it is more than 1800 every year: much higher than it was at any time during the 1990s. Also, the period from "2001 to present" actually excludes 2007 (that charts ends in 2006), and it includes several years before the Iraq war began: years with low casualties because of the shrunken military. That skews the numbers; many of the armed forces deaths were things like traffic accidents, which could have just as easily happened to them as civilians. And by saying "2001 to present" instead of 2001-2006, you are simply altering the facts.

Convert the figures into per-capita figures and use the period from 2004 to 2006 to characterize the Iraq War, and you get a better idea of what's happening.

Yes, and additionally I belive the official casualty counts from the Iraq-war does not include accidental deaths due to things like traffic-accidents and such, otherwise the current deathtoll would be even higher.

[Adrian Laguna]

Looks like we're going to lose more people in Iraq than we did putting down the Filipinos. Though the death toll as a percentage of troops having served in theater will probably remain higher for the Philippine-American War.

Oh, and BTW, that's the war that Iraq should be compared to, not Vietnam.

[Sea Skimmer]

The really sad thing about paying off insurgents is that it's working, but it's not being credited for the improvements. Instead, people credit the Almighty Surge.

Not like the truth could be a combination of factors or anything hun?

The surge was vital to allowing the Anbar Awakening to happen, because it provided a basic level of presence in many areas that was previously lacking and which was vital to allowing local forces to have any hope of fighting back against some relatively large insurgent and terrorist groups. In the cities meanwhile, particularly Ramadi, which was thought to be all but lost to insurgents the sudden tripling of US forces forced insurgents into a do or die situation. Some insurgents chose to join up, others decided to keep fighting in a suddenly more aggressive war, thus causing the spike in US losses and yet eventually downturn in total violence.

If the surge hadn’t happened the awakening probably would not have happened either, and it would also have been quite possible to have the surge without the awakening. If not for the insane brutality of the terrorists (and yes I do differentiate between terrorists and insurgents, even though the line is heavily blurred) in Iraq then the awkeneing certainly wouldn’t have happened

The ceasefire imposed by the Mahdi Army was also very important, and didn’t involve any bribes. This ceasefire came about mainly because al-Sadr was losing control of his organization. Many random bands of criminals and IED cells were using the Mahdi Army banner but had no actual affiliation with the group, damaging its reputation and ability to sustain its self. This combine with the US killing a bunch of his field commanders (several key ones got nailed before the surge ever began) meant that a coordinated response to the US surge wasn’t going to be possible. The Mahdi Army would have been ground up as a large organized force, and that meant al-Sadr risked losing his long term political relevance, something he clearly values (show by previous ceasefires, and the recent extension of the current one) more then killing Americans or getting killed in jihad.

The fact is that despite all of the "you can't negotiate with these people" rhetoric from the Republitard set, you can negotiate with these people, and only a fool totally closes that option.

That depends on who the them is, the old ‘never negotiate with terrorists rule’ is as true today as ever. Ask the Israelis and Columbians how successful negotiation with hostage takers is at preventing future hostage takings for example. Insurgent groups that mainly gun down Iraqi police and plant IEDs to blow up hummves can be negotiated with, but your sure as shit aren’t going to find operatives from Al-Qaeda in Iraq willing to join up with local defense battalions.

[Darth Raptor]

Does anybody here expect the perpetrators of this crime against humanity (both US and Iraqi deaths) to be held accountable?

And if so, by whom?

I don't expect them to face any serious consequences in their lifetime. They might not be able to leave the US (lest they wind up like Pinochet) but they'll retire to their ranches and their undisclosed locations to live out the remainder of their years in opulent luxury. Real life isn't fiction. The bad guys often do get away with it.

That said, I do expect history to eventually recognize the Bush presidency for what it was. Since these are people who are admittedly banking on some kind of positive legacy fifty, one hundred or a thousand years from now, I can take some paltry solace in that.