Number of US soldiers killed in Iraq almost doubles in January

[sabra]

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Military Fatalities: By Month

Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
1-2008 38 38 1.23 31
12-2007 23 1 24 0.77 31

[TooBigaTent]

1. Still very, very small. So small that it is not a major factor in the popularity of

the war.

Does anyone have a figure for all military deaths that happen here per month due to illness, injury, auto accident, etc? I would be willing to bet that it is more than 23, or 38.

People are fed up with the course of the war, not that the US illegally invaded another country in the first place. If everything had gone hunky-dory, the support for it would still be high.

[tekisui]

2. Many people, including myself, were fed up with the conception,

marketing, launch and course of the war. Very, very small? Nearly 4,000 US soldiers have died in this illegal war, and one is too great a price.

[TooBigaTent]

10. Insignificant compared to the million Iraqis killed and countless millions whose

lives WE have ruined. And compared to any real war, 4,000 is a drop in the bucket.

US military personnel signed up for the war and willingly participated. They knew the risks. The iraqi civilians, however, were drafted against their will by a foreign country (U.S.) to die.

[Make7]

3. December 2007 was the second lowest for fatalities since the start of the war.

Why not compare this January to January of last year? Or January in the years prior to that?

 Month   US Fatalities
----------------------
1-2008    38
1-2007    83
1-2006    62
1-2005   107
1-2004    47

Comparing the fatalities from the second lowest month to any other month but one is going to indicate an increase, but it might not be the approach that leads to the most accurate impression of the overall situation.

- Make7

[Johonny]

4. I think

the person is pointing out McCain was using the Sept-Dec trend as proof the surge was working. An end to the trend in January would certainly seem to make McCain's use of such short term number look really stupid. If the Sept-Dec trend meant the surge was working? If so, then does the uptake in January mean it's suddenly stopped working? Or are such such small month to month trends completely meaningless to understanding the surge? The MSM apparently isn't interested in trying to get answers to this.

[Make7]

6. If that is the case then I agree. However ....

... that could have been explained more clearly in the OP (if indeed that was the point).

I don't think the US fatality rate is even the proper metric to use to determine the effectiveness of the surge. Was the goal of the surge to reduce US fatalities?

- Make7

[sabra]

8. I agree with your points... my post was more of a counter to the MSM - GOP

who use this metric to claim "we are winning"

I feel this blog gives a good perspective on what is going on:

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/01/awakenings-agon.html

[Make7]

9. I just wanted to make sure we don't end up doing the same thing.

Without initially knowing what your OP was a response to, I wanted to point out that short term trends are not an accurate picture of the situation. Essentially the same thing you were doing. :)

:dunce: Make7

[sabra]

7. yep, what he said :-)

:hi:

[KansDem]

5. The "surge" works both ways...(nt)