Casualties in Iraq

Good deeds from the Associated Press:

This year’s U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

Obviously, someone forgot to tell the AP that Michael O'Hanlon has seen some secret data the Pentagon put together which proves them wrong. They did get this:

However, Brig. Gen. Richard Sherlock, deputy director for operational planning for the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said violence in Iraq “has continued to decline and is at the lowest level since June 2006.”

He offered no statistics to back his claim, but in a briefing with reporters at the Pentagon on Friday he warned insurgents might try intensify attacks in Iraq to coincide with three milestones: the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S., the beginning of Ramadan and the report to Congress.

But who needs statistics to back up a claim like that when unsupported assertions made by interested parties can do just as well?

Comments

this, combined with the McClatchy quote in your recent post on O'Hanlon (which I have seen before) come together to form a very heartening change in the way this reporting is getting done.

It may sound bland and lame, but shouldn't the blogosphere proactively show appreciation for things like this in some material manner?

Posted by glenstein | August 25, 2007 9:50 PM

Internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled, from 499,000 to 1.1 million, since the start of the troop surge. But, the surge is working.

Posted by Pritesh | August 25, 2007 9:56 PM

Sure, Pritesh, but the Bushpigs will say those displacements are a sign of progress. No one with a knowledge of recent Middle Eastern history could fail to appreciate that, of course! After all, the displacement of Palestinians has hardly caused a ripple.

'cough'

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 25, 2007 11:40 PM

Give the BBC some props too for their ongoing series 'Monitoring the Surge'. They have data going back weekly for 2 months coinciding with the beginning of the full strength surge. Here's an excerpt from their 8/22 report:

The seven days from 16-22 August proved to be one of the most devastating since the surge reached full strength in June.

A total of 493 Iraqi civilians died - the highest number recorded during the period - and 669 were wounded - also a record - as the death toll from the previous week's multiple bombings mounted and a mass grave was found in southern Falluja.

Posted by joejoejoe | August 25, 2007 11:55 PM

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/ap-upchucks-on-military-misreports-on.html
AP Upchucks on Military- Misreports on Surge Gains

Posted by Michael Pugliese | August 26, 2007 12:58 AM

That last paragraph you quoted is a hoot! "There have been fewer deaths! *cough* by the way, there may be more deaths soon." I can just feel the progress.

Posted by Royko | August 26, 2007 1:10 AM

The only way to get these military morons to shut up is for the press to DEMAND to see the exact figures - and THEN doublecheck them and expose them when they're impossible - which is exactly what the military will do - lie with made-up figures.

And THEN the press needs to state directly - these figures from the Pentagon are FALSE. They don't have to say "lie" - the public will know what is meant.

If only the press would at all times act like the time they sandbagged Rumsfeld about his "imminent threat" quote. He denied he ever said it, they instantly whipped up on screen his exact quote. He sat there for at least thirty seconds. Nobody said a word. He was utterly dumbfounded that the press would nail him to the wall like that!

That's the way to treat these lying bastards.

Never happen, though. Because any press organization that did that would never get through the doors of the Pentagon again - and they know it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 2:55 AM

Even if the Pentagon's numbers turn out to be inaccurate, "lowest levels since June 2006" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the surge. It fits in with the 10 year ($1 trillion?) estimate from General Petraeus. I don't think that is the kind of progress most people were hoping for when the surge started.

Posted by Archit | August 26, 2007 8:31 AM

After you kill a certain % of people, there are going to be fewer deaths. That's progress like Grandma used to make.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 26, 2007 10:21 AM

Have any terrorists (or even "terrorists") done anything timed for any anniversary of the September 11 attacks? Is my memory faulty? Why do people keep saying the terrorists care about anniversaries -- and on the Gregorian calendar yet? If they were so obsessed with anniversaries, wouldn't they be using the Islamic calendar for them?

Posted by KCinDC | August 26, 2007 10:52 AM

Radical Islamists and their "tip of the spear" - the unlawful combatants, both say that anniversaries of important Islamic days are great times to kill infidels because it heightens awareness inside the Ummah that a new strong horse seeks new great victories in the Prophet's name.

And they do go by the Islamic calender - the fanatics at least. But that doesn't matter because the days and years track in parallel with Gregorian calender days once Muslims learned the length of a year. So our particular days like 9/11 mean little other than it being a fine day for radical Islamist and their combatant wings in their calender.

What days we have in infidel lands independent of Great Days in Jihad is those dates when Muslims see infidels as weak or distracted and more vulnerable to attack. Which is why they pick Christmas as a good date to attack in medieval days, along with Lent. Why they picked their 1973 War to start on Jewish days because they knew the Jews went to "holiday routine" and were less able to fight an attack.

Of course, Muslims claim their holy days are sacrosanct and fighting can only happen when they are winning (The Ramadan War) or killing Muslim apostates, secularists, and heretics.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 26, 2007 11:32 AM

Chris, it's not true the the days track between the calendars. The Islamic year is only 354 days long. That's why Ramadan rotates around the Gregorian calendar. So by the Islamic calendar the anniversary of the September 11 attacks would be about 11 days earlier on the Gregorian calendar each year.

According to this converter, September 11, 2001, was 23 Jumaada al-Akhirah 1422 AH. The 6th anniversary was 23 Jumaada al-Akhirah 1428 AH, which was back on July 8, 2007. Was there a terror alert then?

Posted by KCinDC | August 26, 2007 11:44 AM

Show some respect. Like so many warbloggers, Chris Ford is an expert on Muslim folkways, religious rituals, motivations, history, and so forth. He speaks fluent Arabic. Unlike liberals he has deep understanding of the Muslim plot to conquer the west and establish Sharia law worldwide. Go on Chris, enlighten us more.

Posted by mq | August 26, 2007 12:02 PM

Chris Ford, you are crazy prejudiced purveyor of hate. Completely hateful psychotic, beyond all help.

Posted by Jennifer | August 26, 2007 12:16 PM

Chris Ford, the psychotic, teaches us what the hatred of prejudice is all about. Also, what hateful psychosis is all about.

Posted by Jennifer | August 26, 2007 12:19 PM

Perhaps Mr. Ford will tell us who did what in Karachi on September 11, 2002.

Posted by CharleyCarp | August 26, 2007 12:25 PM