GI Fatalities in Iraq

Frank de Libero put together the chart you see reproduced above. It compared GI deaths in Iraq in any given month of 2007 to the deaths in the corresponding month in 2006. In summary, January '07 was deadlier than January '06. February '07 was deadlier than February '06. March '07 was deadlier than March '06. April '07 was deadlier than April '06. May '07 was deadlier than May '06. June '07 was deadlier than June '06. July '07 was deadlier than July '06. And August '07 was, well, deadlier than August '06.

That shouldn't come as a surprise, as the "surge" strategy specifically contemplated risking higher American death rates (and having Americans kill more people) in order to accomplish some larger political goals. Unfortunately, those goals weren't achieved so we just have more dead people.

Comments

Turned a corner.

Last throes.

Six more months.

Posted by Ugh | September 6, 2007 9:47 AM

It's sad watching American's willing to throw away other's lives and money for their egos.

Grasping at ever changing reasons to stay.

Posted by guachi | September 6, 2007 10:01 AM

It's positively Kaganesque.

Posted by FS | September 6, 2007 10:06 AM

This is a wonderful example of American myopia, ignoring fatalities of our allies in Iraq. Not only is this rude, but it also gives a less accurate view of the picture.

This graph shows total fatalities for Coalition troops in Iraq. It does not include August, which at 88 was unchanged from July. Note the totals from Afghanistan, whose trend is even grimmer than Iraq's.
http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/pdf/iraq_fatalities.pdf

Looking at all Coalition forces is important, as the "surge" of US troops just offset other nation's going home.

Graph of total Coalition troop strength in Iraq:
http://www.defense-and-society.org/charts_data/iraq_force_levels.pdf

Posted by Fabius Maximus | September 6, 2007 10:15 AM

It would be interesting to see this chart data compared with force size to get some idea of GI death rates. Otherwise, it's hard to know how to respond to it.

While I generally agree that long-term prospects of peace for Iraq aren't very good, this piece by Lt. Col. David Kilcullen gives me some pause.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/

Kilcullen's argument implies that the Sunnis are now our allies, but there's a pretty good chance that this is purely out of convenience. It seems like they're merely trying a different tack in order to acquire some power (especially firepower) in advance of the US's departure. They're repositioning themselves for what I'm sure they see as the next big battle with the Shia. (The same might be said of al-Sadr and his militia. Their unilateral suspension of activities could simply be a re-grouping and preparation for the next phase of the civil war.)

Anyway, it's long but worth the read if only to get a sense of what's behind the optimism (provided you believe it's authentic) from Petraeus.

Posted by Kurzleg | September 6, 2007 10:16 AM

Not only are deaths for each particular month higher in 07, but every month in 07 is higher than any month in 06!

I'm curious about the methodology O'Hanlon employed to determine that deaths had recently declined since it doesn't appear to be counting.

Posted by scudbucket | September 6, 2007 10:16 AM

Kurzleg,
You might find of interest this brief review of Kilcullen's article, comparing it to Gordon's article in this week's NY Times Sunday Magazine.

http://www.defense-and-society.org/fabius/long_war_III.htm

Posted by Fabius Maximus | September 6, 2007 10:21 AM

I'm curious about the methodology O'Hanlon employed to determine that deaths had recently declined since it doesn't appear to be counting.

i think the numbers above count total deaths, whereas the "deaths are declining" numbers are only counting combat deaths.

ex. hostile/non-hostile deaths. here are the hostile deaths, monthly, over the last year:

Aug-06 59
Sep-06 65
Oct-06 102
Nov-06 67
Dec-06 98
Jan-07 80
Feb-07 75
Mar-07 72
Apr-07 107
May-07 123
Jun-07 99
Jul-07 74
Aug-07 60

Posted by cleek | September 6, 2007 10:25 AM

You're going to need a bigger chart with an exponential scale to chart the deaths soon, when we atttack Iran.

But you won't get the information, because the Bushies will have declared a National Emergency, and democracy will be gone.

Posted by GKAM | September 6, 2007 11:17 AM

It's very difficult to assess "progress" in war simply by looking at casualties. In WWII, Germany's casualties declined after 1942 and their defeat at Kursk, while America's rose sharply after the Summer of 1944 (D-Day).
Similarly, in the Civil War, the scale of butchery ramped up once US Crant commanded forces.

Iraq will be had to judge because both sides set ridiculous "success criteria". Right-wingers say they wanted a secular democracy friendly to their "Special Nation" Israel, with oil flowing so cheap it would pay for the war. Clearly impossible.
But Lefty "success criteria" were equally impossible: No US casualties. No "innocent enemy civilian" casualties. "Up-armored vehicles immune to explosives", (pure fantasy vehicles to anyone with a knowledge of armor and anti-armor devices). And of course, a "stable, progressive Iraq living in brotherly harmony with all."

That shouldn't come as a surprise, as the "surge" strategy specifically contemplated risking higher American death rates (and having Americans kill more people) in order to accomplish some larger political goals. Unfortunately, those goals weren't achieved so we just have more dead people.

No Matt, we don't "just have more dead people". We have a mixed bag.
(1)We got Libya to renounce nuke weapons.
(2)And uncovered the AQ Kahn Network that put the full spotlight of our allies on Iran and the NORKs.
(3)To the amazement of Arab conspiratorists, we did fully withdraw from Saudi Arabia and many admitted that speculation that the US was not in KSA to protect it from Iraq doing another invasion but to seize the oil or kill for the Monarchy - was wrong.
(4)The Kurds made out well.
(5)For the average Shiite, things are a lot better.
(6)Because it has struggled mightily, the US, particularly it's military, has enjoyed an exponential learning curve about the ways of the ME and counterinsurgency they never had before, and paid for it in what in any large war would be considered "light losses".
(7)Most importantly, next to the nuclear weapons program sucesses we started to get after whacking Saddam's forces - is what is now appearing to be a solid victory by the US AND Muslims against what Al Qaeda calls it's "Central Front". The news reports in Egypt, Al Jazeera, Pakistan's The Dawn are of the stories of Sunni Arabs that are telling of the horrid existence they endured under Al Qaeda. How unacceptable, how intolerant, murderous and Takfiri they are. Why Sunnis had to conclude working with the infidel to reclaim their rights was better than living with the cancer of Al Qaeda.
The Sunni rejection of Al Qaeda in Iraq is possibly as significant as the Algerian rejection of GIA radical Islamists in THAT 2nd Algerian Civil War.
(8)In Iraq, we have gotten intelligence windfalls - of Islamist ratlines in Europe, KSA, and Syria. We have nailed, along with Muslim & European intelligence agencies, many networks, financiers, logistics, and media resources that AQ carelessly exposed in their urgency to move Jihad combatants to "The Central Front".
(9)After we went in, KSA made a decision that it cannot tolerate radical, violent Islam like it once did without endangering it's future. The Saudis, since 2003, have rounded up more Jihadis than any other country and now are in an ideological battle over what limits to Wahabbist ideology need to be consented to.
(10) As a kewpie doll benefit of screw-ups, of course, we learned that every global intel agency, not just the CIA - have something less than "infallible" intelligence - somethings can be fixed, but the nature of intel and counter-intel means there can always be deceit triumphing and surprises should be planned for. We also got the benefit of discrediting the Neocon cabal, the Sharanskyites, the Wilsonites, and Team Bush.

With the successes, of course, we have to accept that we have had so many problems that we likely would have been better off if we had not used the military in Iraq, but had gone with an extensive political, ideological, and communications offensive that only rarely used the military in engaging radical Islam - instead.
Still, woulda, shoulda...we are there now, with sunk costs and sacrifices it would be better to recoup as much as we can rather than wholesale abandon.
We have to accept that we paid in frayed alliances, a divided nation again as we had under the McGovernites, light casualties, and significant, heavy fiscal damage on America from the war and Bush's reckless spending.
No cakewalk.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 6, 2007 1:43 PM

I was wondering where the heck you got those numbers in that chart until I realized that, quite naturally, it stops before the large increase in rates casualties starting in October 2006. The chart would look radically different if you included all of 2006. October and December had higher casualty rates than any month but May of 2007.

What was going on in October of 2006? Not the surge, of course, since that didn't get started until April of this year. According to NPR, we were fighting a bloody battle to retake Ramadi, the city the Times of London now calls the safest city in Iraq outside of the Kurdish north. Maybe something has changed.

There's also that interesting change in the seasonal trend. If you look at the numbers since 2003, there's always been a sharp drop in casualties in July when the weather got too hot for insurgent activities followed by a resugence in August.

Not this year. August was essentially level with July and both months are down from the prior months (btw, what is that 107 estimator nonsense?).

It's going to be interesting to see if the new tend holds, particularly since, at least for now, the rate of casualities is down for September sharply. If it does hold, something really has changed in Iraq.

Posted by Strick | September 6, 2007 3:09 PM

(1)We got Libya to renounce nuke weapons.

By invading Iraq? You'll believe any old bullshit they serve you, won't you?

Posted by Steve | September 6, 2007 3:47 PM

To anyone who's interested, KIA numbers typically spike in October b/c of Ramadan and in December b/c of unit relief in place schedules. As units arrive to replace units (relief in place, RIP) that are leaving a temporary mini-surge is created - more units on the ground to stir shit up and over-aggressive commanders at battalion and company level, getting out there, learning their area of operations, and getting blown up. This year's typical December spike may get pushed back to spring given the new RIP schedules with the extended tours. Another factor re: enemy activity patterns is that some of this is event driven - elections during previous winters and major operations in Fallujah and Najaf in 04 also drove major spikes. Consensus in the field seems to be that summer heat does in fact cause a dip in enemy activity.
To Chris Ford - are you the JAG POG motherfucker, son of a GO, remf that I think you are? If so it's a small world, and it's good to know that shitbags in the rear are so supportive of the mission. Enjoy the AC, cocksucker.

Posted by Matt | September 6, 2007 4:25 PM

Also, the harsh language for CF is kind of a joke - posted before I could insert something to indicate sarcasm. There's no emoticons on this keyboard!

Posted by Matt again | September 6, 2007 4:39 PM

For Strick if you're interested in this stuff:
A few more things, then back to work. Other trends of interest:
- Per month, enemy activity tends to spike during the last week of each month (this pattern is hard to make sense out of)
- During Ramadan, VBIEDs (vehicle borne improvised explosive devices - suicide car bombs) are typically initiated on Fridays. Consensus is that martyrdom on FRI during Ramadan equals a quick trip to heaven, virgins, etc.
- Metrics that should be evaluated by concerned citizens and vigilant media include the following: number of Sunni Iraqi police and security forces realtive to Shia, number of Sunni IP/ISF commanders relative to Shia, number of Sunni listed as potential insurgents or detainees vs. Shia insurgents/detainees, location and likely sectarian identity of insurgents using EFP IED's (the ones that are supposedly from Iran), and numbers of MITT (military instruction and training teams) assigned to IP/ISF companies and battalions. My guess is that a closer evaluation of this info will undeniably demonstrate that we're participants and enablers in a sectarian civil war, that Iran's involvment re: EFP's is being grossly overstated by the administration, and that we're not making a significant effort towards standing up the Iraqi military and police as promised. Most folks already "know" all of this already but actual data would be nice. Every batallion captures this data within their area of operations, and a theatre wide roll-up is probably out there somewhere, probabaly with the Combined Intelligence Operations Center (CIOC) in Baghdad.
- Another interesting metric to track alongside freindly KIA/enemy attacks is number of detentions/enemy killed. Increases in the former number have traditionally mirrored increases in the latter. Some have suggested that this indicates a causal relationship, i.e. the more you capture and kill the more you piss off, which creates more insurgents that you have to capture/kill. A viscious and stupid cycle. Who knows whether or not the realtionship between the two is this causal or not. The takeaway is that terrorists/insurgents (whatever you want to call them) are not finite, and given our actual approach to counter-insurgency - and the time/staffing constraints we're operating under, it's highly unlikely that we'll come out ahead over there. It's time to cut our losses and get out. Let the Young Republicans and hard-core Bushies go over there if they want to save face.

Posted by Matt | September 6, 2007 5:47 PM

Yeah, Chris Ford views this entire effort as a resounding success.

I'm sure Iran will please him even more when that starts. Just think of all the Muslim civilians who will get killed - at the cost of only, what, a few score thousand US troops! Such a deal he offers us!

No doubt when some nuke explodes in the US he'll claim it's perfect for catching more "Al Qaeda networks"...we'll really have them on the run then!

Christ, what an idiot...It's people like Chris Ford who have doomed the United States, straight up. Almost makes one wish the Muslims would take over here and butcher all the stupid ass Christians who support this crap. Stupid ass Muslims could hardly be worse.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 6, 2007 8:23 PM

Matt, you sound very well-informed! But drawing conclusions from a dataset of 54 points (months in Iraq since our invasion) is difficult. It's too small a sample, with much statistical "noise."

Also, looking at Coalition KIA I see a different pattern than you do looking at US KIA. Since US troops have replaced those of our allies, keeping overall numbers steady, using Coalition totals gives a better picture.

There are definite troughs around February and July, peaks around April and November. The heat probably causes most of this pattern.

Posted by Fabius Maximus | September 7, 2007 9:59 AM