Dec. U.S. Casualties in Iraq

[Sam Or I]

I know the month is not over, but this December will most likely be the month with the 2nd lowest U.S. Casualty of the war.

February 2004 currently is the lowest month with 20 U.S. servicemembers killed. Currently the second lowest is June 2003 with 30 U.S. servicemembers killed.

As of now, 19 Servicemembers have been killed this month.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Well, even if political goals haven't been met, and the country is still fragmented, and U.S. logistics are starting to look a bit squiffy, and... whatever else there is, it is nice to know that at least less people are dying today than were dying last year.

[Androsphinx]

Oh, right. Because US troops are the only people in the entire country. No-one else counts, as long as fewer of "our boys" are dying.

[Phantasee]

From what I understand, the Brits have reduced casualties recently as well. I haven't actually seen the recent numbers, mind. And the rest of the Coalition of the Willing have pretty much bugged out already.

[Sam Or I]

here is a fairly accurate link to the Coalition Casualties.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

As for the Coalition of a whole, this month may be the least amount of Total Coalition Casualties. (Feb 04 had 23, so far for Dec 07 is 20)

For Iraqi Casualties, the data is to rough, but it will also most likely be the least amount for Iraqi security forces and civilian deaths of the war. Right now it is at 460, last month was the lowest at 560, but these are very rough in accurate numbers.

[Androsphinx]

From what I understand, the Brits have reduced casualties recently as well. I haven't actually seen the recent numbers, mind. And the rest of the Coalition of the Willing have pretty much bugged out already.

The fact that the British troops have handed over most of Basra probably helps with this. I'm not disputing the fall in casualties, I just took exception to the conflation of "US troops" with "everyone we can be bothered to care about in Iraq"

[Androsphinx]

Edit: Although March, April and December '05 were all better months for Iraqi civilains

[Ritterin Sophia]

Is it me or does there seem to be an unspoken agreement to at least try to limit combat on months of religious importance?

[Sam Or I]

Edit: Although March, April and December '05 were all better months for Iraqi civilains

I don't doubt you, but can I have the link? I have been mainly getting my info from the source posted above. Dates going back further would be nice. (icasualties only went back till '06. )

[Androsphinx]

Same site. Just scroll down until you see "Iraqi Security and Civilain Casualties", or somesuch, and it'll give you more details going back to early '05.

[Androsphinx]

Because I love you

[Sam Or I]

I feel sheepish now.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Is it me or does there seem to be an unspoken agreement to at least try to limit combat on months of religious importance?

I seem to recall so. and as has been pointed out before, you see less fighting in a lot of places, because the ethnic cleansing by various factions has largely been accomplished. It's as if WWII France boasted about how military casualties have gone down now that they've surrendered.

And there's no reason to assume that any of the other factors keeping down the death rate are anything but temporary.

[Zwinmar]

Security goes up drastically during holidays. I know the USMC learned from the Tet Offensive during Vietnam.

[Enforcer Talen]

All the briefings I could recall had warnings of higher insurgency during religious holidays.

Of course, since their favorite time to attack was during prayer time, we werent really surprised.

[Sea Skimmer]

The fact that the British troops have handed over most of Basra probably helps with this. I'm not disputing the fall in casualties, I just took exception to the conflation of "US troops" with "everyone we can be bothered to care about in Iraq"

You know, overall British troops suffered more in 2007 then any previous year of the insurgency, with the months after the announcement that said troops would be withdrawing from several bases being the worst of the war. The insurgents aren’t stupid; they greatly stepped up attacks so that they could create the impression of driving the British out, which is mostly true. British forces in Iraq have no UAVs, counter battery radar at only one base, a handful of poorly armed helicopters, and no doctrine of wide ranging ground patrols, which means they effectively have no defense against rocket and mortar attacks at all.

here is a fairly accurate link to the Coalition Casualties.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

As for the Coalition of a whole, this month may be the least amount of Total Coalition Casualties. (Feb 04 had 23, so far for Dec 07 is 20)

They have detailed listings of causes of death too; and it seems that five of American deaths are from accidents or suicides, indicating that the drop off in insurgent effectiveness is even more dramatic then it looks. Wounded rates are way down too.

[CmdrWilkens]

The fact that the British troops have handed over most of Basra probably helps with this. I'm not disputing the fall in casualties, I just took exception to the conflation of "US troops" with "everyone we can be bothered to care about in Iraq"

You know, overall British troops suffered more in 2007 then any previous year of the insurgency, with the months after the announcement that said troops would be withdrawing from several bases being the worst of the war. The insurgents aren’t stupid; they greatly stepped up attacks so that they could create the impression of driving the British out, which is mostly true. British forces in Iraq have no UAVs, counter battery radar at only one base, a handful of poorly armed helicopters, and no doctrine of wide ranging ground patrols, which means they effectively have no defense against rocket and mortar attacks at all.

In contrast though they do have the most effective "we don't give a shit" rapid response. They literally roll IFVs and MBTs down the streets and THROUGH Iraqi vehicles if they don't get out of the way in a combat response situation. Since they started doing that the locals very quickly learned to get the fuck outta the way when they go on rapid response.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The fact that the British troops have handed over most of Basra probably helps with this. I'm not disputing the fall in casualties, I just took exception to the conflation of "US troops" with "everyone we can be bothered to care about in Iraq"

You know, overall British troops suffered more in 2007 then any previous year of the insurgency, with the months after the announcement that said troops would be withdrawing from several bases being the worst of the war. The insurgents aren’t stupid; they greatly stepped up attacks so that they could create the impression of driving the British out, which is mostly true. British forces in Iraq have no UAVs, counter battery radar at only one base, a handful of poorly armed helicopters, and no doctrine of wide ranging ground patrols, which means they effectively have no defense against rocket and mortar attacks at all.

In contrast though they do have the most effective "we don't give a shit" rapid response. They literally roll IFVs and MBTs down the streets and THROUGH Iraqi vehicles if they don't get out of the way in a combat response situation. Since they started doing that the locals very quickly learned to get the fuck outta the way when they go on rapid response.

Define "effective". Somehow I don't think running over random Iraqis with tanks is going to lower recruitment for the groups that want to kill British soldiers. Or produce any willingness to cooperate with the British.

[The Yosemite Bear]

defined as: We learned to play with professional terrorists in our own back yard.

[The Guid]

Yes but the British army did not "defeat" the IRA by any stretch of the imagination.

[Surlethe]

How do the monthly combat deaths stack up to the surge?

[Sam Or I]

Well 1 more coalition Casualty now.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes but the British army did not "defeat" the IRA by any stretch of the imagination.

The entire 1968-1998 phase of the war in Ireland killed about 3,500 people in total, the worst year seeing about 500 deaths, equivalent to about a bad month and a bad day in Iraq respectively. The British have dealt with a number of guerrilla wars, but rarely have they faced an enemy who actually had the ability to engage in conventional warfare with a large arsenal of heavy infantry weapons, as opposed to just rifles and machine guns.

[Lord of the Abyss]

defined as: We learned to play with professional terrorists in our own back yard.

What does that have to do with running vehicles over with tanks, as CmdrWilkens said they do in Iraq ? I've certainly never heard of the British responding to a terrorist bomb in London or even Ireland by driving over traffic jams with tanks.

Either he's exaggerating what they do in Iraq, or it has nothing to do with their previous experience with terrorism.