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
Home Front: Politix
AP : 2007 Is Deadliest Year for US in Iraq
2007-11-06
BAGHDAD (AP) - The U.S. military on Tuesday announced the deaths of five more soldiers, making 2007 the deadliest year for U.S. troops despite a recent downturn, according to an Associated Press count.
At least 852 American military personnel have died in Iraq so far this year—the highest annual toll since the war began in March 2003, according to AP figures.

The Grim Milestone™ passed despite a sharp drop in U.S. and Iraqi deaths here in recent months, after a 30,000-strong U.S. force buildup. There were 39 deaths in October, compared to 65 in September and 84 in August.

Five U.S. soldiers were killed Monday in two separate roadside bomb attacks, said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, director of the Multi-National Force-Iraq's communications division.

"We lost five soldiers yesterday in two unfortunate incidents, both involving IEDs," Smith told reporters in Baghdad's heavily-guarded Green Zone.

Some 850 troops died in 2004, mostly in larger, more conventional battles like the campaign to cleanse Fallujah of Sunni militants in November, and U.S. clashes with Shiite militiamen in the sect's holy city of Najaf in August.

But the American military in Iraq reached its highest troop levels in Iraq this year—165,000. Moreover, the military's decision to send soldiers out of large bases and into Iraqi communities means more troops have seen more "contact with enemy forces" than ever before, said Maj. Winfield Danielson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.

"It's due to the troop surge, which allowed us to go into areas that were previously safe havens for insurgents," Danielson told the AP on Sunday. "Having more soldiers, and having them out in the communities, certainly contributes to our casualties."
Posted by:anonymous5089

#11  Oh, for even just a little perspective:

[Vietnam War] US Military Battle Deaths By Year:


Prior to 1966 - 3,078 (Total up through 31 Dec 65)
1966 - 5,008
1967 - 9,378
1968 - 14, 589 (Total while JFK & LBJ were on watch - 32,053)
1969 - 9,414
1970 - 4,221
1971 - 1,381
1972 - 300 (Total while Nixon was on watch - 15,316)

Source of these numbers is the Southeast Asia Statistical Summary, Office of the Assistant Secretary or Defense and were provided to the author by the US Army War College Library, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17023.

Numbers are battle deaths only and do not include ordinary accidents, heart attacks, murder victims, suicides, etc.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-11-06 19:33  

#10  Actually, alot depends on what happens in Nov. and Dec. But if the current downtrend in casualties continues, the casualty rate in 2007 will be signifantly less than they were in 2006.

Once you take the larger number of combat troops in 2007 into account, the casualty rate per 1000 troops is down from last year.

Al
Posted by: Frozen Al   2007-11-06 19:12  

#9  And the deadliest year in the Pacific was the last one if I recall correctly. Clearing the Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima weren't walkovers. Which would have been dwarfed by a direct assault upon the home islands had not fate intervened in the form of another option.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-11-06 16:42  

#8  This sort of reporting is one of the major reasons there is a steady decline in newspaper circulation. People just don't trust what they read in the paper has any relation to facts.
Posted by: RWV   2007-11-06 14:20  

#7  They continue to count the non-hostile deaths.

When you're working with numbers this small, it doesn't take much to cause a blip. One attack that kills 5 Americans could be a 12% increase month over month.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2007-11-06 14:17  

#6  Teevee news last night covered the funeral of a 52-year old DC National Guardsman, killed by a roadside bomb after only 9 days in theater. He was a father of 6, granddad of 2.

:(
Posted by: Seafarious   2007-11-06 14:06  

#5  This week seems to have had a number of deadly attacks against us - more than the past few months. Statistics? Complacency? Re-establishment of effective cell networks? There have been a LOT of seemingly successful raids, caches found, etc., but obviously some key players are still on the loose.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-11-06 13:33  

#4  All that's missing is "quagmire".
Posted by: danking70   2007-11-06 12:55  

#3  I miss times when there were reporters in news biz. Now it's just journos in media biz, reporters went almost extinct.
Posted by: twobyfour   2007-11-06 11:21  

#2  This is the kind of news commentary we should welcome. Even the most ignorant Oprah fan will recognize this as an outrageous misrepresentation and subesquently question the author's credibility. Keep it up, diummies.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-11-06 11:06  

#1  Notice, the downturn in violence and other casualties are not reported. This however is.

Rope. Tree. Journalist.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-11-06 10:55  

00:00