You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
19,000 Enemy Killed in Iraq
2007-09-28
I'm a little annoyed. I've asked for this information repeatedly. Still... I have 4,724 in 2007 in Iraq, pretty close for all the work I've done.
More than 19,000 militants have been killed in fighting with coalition forces since the insurgency began more than four years ago, according to military statistics released for the first time.

The statistics show that 4,882 militants were killed in clashes with coalition forces this year, a 25% increase over all of last year.

The increase in enemy deaths this year reflects more aggressive tactics adopted by American forces and an additional 30,000 U.S. troops ordered by the White House this year.
Posted by:Chuck Simmins

#16  TOPIX NEWS > USA WILL ATTACK IRAN SOON + IRAN ATTACK IMMINENT; + JPOST > JIBRIL: ISRAEL WILL ATTACK SYRIA VERY SOON.Specific Israeli attack option debatable, but Jibril claims any attack on SYria by Israel will be resisted [by force of arms] by Iran, Hizbullah and Paleos. WAFF.com > HOW WW3 MAY BE FOUGHT. US-Iran conflict expands beyond region.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-09-28 23:56  

#15  19,000 less terrorists in the world.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-09-28 15:39  

#14  tu: Harry Reid on Nancy Pelosi, I may have to gouge my eyes out.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2007-09-28 14:34  

#13  I wouldn't wish Harry Reid on Nancy Pelosi.
Of course, I don't have to...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-09-28 14:27  

#12  Sorry Chuck,

Didn't read the article correctly 19,000 post toppling of the Regime so we are looking at 26 - 27K Sorry about that!
Posted by: Rightwing   2007-09-28 14:23  

#11  Hey Chuck we are finally getting somewhere.

You're numbers have us at 5,890 plus the 7,600 min we killed during the invasions and the estimated 2,000 from 2004-2006 and there is a minimum of 15,490. With this release if it's close pushes the enemy KIA close to 40,000 not bad at 10:1 vs Ameriiki Tribe. Will you adjust the site or use the same methodology.

Brian
Posted by: Rightwing   2007-09-28 14:18  

#10  Looked at one data point (Nov 2004, 2nd Fallujah) and lists only 960 killed for the whole of Iraq. Sounds fishy, since an estimated 1200 were killed in the first week if Fallujah 2 alone and estimated over 2000 killed pre and post Fallujah. Even Wikipedia lists 1350+ killed while in the same breath (laughably) claim only 159 killed in the Battle of Najaf (Aug 2004). The Marines claimed 300+ KIA in 2 days in Najaf and the Army did the bulk of the fighting.
Posted by: ed   2007-09-28 14:16  

#9  My bad. In the scramble I failed to note that USA Today DID use the correct number of our KIA. I just assumed that the error common to all previous reporting was in this story. It is not.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2007-09-28 14:12  

#8  Remember that many of these individuals represent the cream of the crop of terrorism from a dozen different countries, so killing each foreigner results in the improvement of security and stability in at least two countries.

Not to mention foreign agents, like al-Quds.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-09-28 14:07  

#7  OK, table comparing our losses vs their losses now up at Terrorist Death Watch. Our losses are high for 2003 since I have no way to match them to the dates and battles where the enemy losses were recorded.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MEDIA WILL USE ALL LOSSES FOR THE YEAR, AS USA TODAY DOES, INCLUDING THE NON-HOSTILE DEATHS. Please feel free to contact any media outlets using the higher numbers and point out their error.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2007-09-28 14:06  

#6  Ok, so it was 4%, told you so.

What do you have against Chuck, tu?

I think tu is suggesting he does that as a rewarding career move AFTER inflating the figure, not as a way of demeaning his work, unless I'm missing your own tongue-in-cheekness.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-09-28 13:56  

#5  What do you have against Chuck, tu?
Posted by: lotp   2007-09-28 13:52  

#4  You should multiply the figures you got by 1500 and publish them in Lancet. Make some real money.

Or go to work for Harry Reid...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-09-28 13:36  

#3  Nice work, Chuck.

Even better work, Coalition forces. Ooah!
Posted by: Seafarious   2007-09-28 13:28  

#2  Nice to have your figures confirmed, ain't it? 96 percent's pretty good accuracy, considering we often have to use Rooters as a source.

You should multiply the figures you got by 1500 and publish them in Lancet. Make some real money.
Posted by: Fred   2007-09-28 13:28  

#1  Kudos for your accuracy! a 2% or so (I hope, I'm mathematically challenged) is insignificant, for someone working only from open sources.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2007-09-28 13:25  

00:00