I guess the new metric for our “progress” in Iraq is American troop casualties:
American combat deaths in Iraq have dropped by half in the three months since the buildup of 28,000 additional U.S. troops reached full strength, surprising analysts and dividing them as to why.
U.S. officials had predicted that the increase would lead to higher American casualties as the troops “took the fight to the enemy.” But that hasn’t happened, even though U.S. forces have launched major offensives involving thousands of troops north and south of Baghdad.
American combat casualties have dropped to their lowest levels this year, even as violence involving Iraqis remains high.
This is like a trip down memory lane for me. In the past, I, too, looked at our casualty rates as they seemed to decline, and hoped things were getting better. Here I was in February of 2005:
This month, there have been 18 coalition casualties, meaning that the Coalition of the Willing has suffered an average of 1.38 casualties a day. This is the lowest average since March of last year, and dramatically lower than the casualty rate from the previous six month. For some perspective, last month we lost an average of 4.1 soldiers per day, in December 2004 we lost 2.48, and in November we were averaging 4.7 fatalities per day.
And again, a month and a half later, I continued to be optimistic:
In the month of January, before the elections, the loss rate was 4.1 soldiers per day. Immediately after the election, in February, the rate dipped to 2.1 per day.
Currently, we are losing an average 1.2 soldiers per day to hostile and non-hostile casualties. The number of wounded appears to be declining as well.
Two and a half years later, and we are averaging double to triple that number. Clearly, we have turned another corner. Charles Bird tries to be upbeat with this data, but I do not share his optimism.
Regardless, the point of this is not to minimize the fact that the recent drop in troop casualties is a good thing. It is. I am always firmly on the side of fewer dead American soldiers. However, as a metric for whether or not we are succeeding in Iraq, American troop casualties is a pretty meaningless metric by itself. After all, there is a sure-fire way to reduce the number of American casualties- bring them all home. Does anyone think that would mean things are all of a sudden rosy in Iraq? What would seem to me to be more important is what they are dying for, rather than how many of them are dying.
Over the next few weeks we are going to hear all sorts of things that seem to indicate progress, but that really does not leave me very hopeful. Yes, I am glad things seem to be, for now, calmer in the Anbar province. But how did they happen? Was it from a national political reconciliation? Of course not:
COOPER: The president flew to Al Anbar Province. We’ve talked about it a lot. He touted the security progress that has been made there. Undeniable, things are getting better. What is working in Al Anbar and how and really, frankly, can it translate into the rest of Iraq?
WARE: Well, certainly, one of the president’s war counsel — I believe it was Secretary Gates himself — said that really the success of Al Anbar Province predates the surge. It’s really an Iraqi initiative. And what that is is that the Sunni Baathist insurgency turned on al Qaeda and it offered America the same terms of negotiation that it first offered four years ago in 2003 in that it was willing to work with America, but not with the Iraqi government.
And America, after four years of bloodshed, was finally ready to accept those terms. So it’s the Sunni insurgency that has turned Al Anbar around and made it safe. And having just returned from that province ourselves, having been with those insurgents, we watched with our own eyes as the insurgents go in one door of a training camp and emerge as the so-called Iraqi police. So they’re keeping those streets safe that President Bush referred to — Anderson.
I wish I knew the name of that one famous Baathist who used to run Iraq, but we have turned so many corners his name just seems to escape me.
Regardless, I applaud the President for visiting the region. I don’t care if it was a photo-op, I am not under the illusion that he actually learned anything (and if he did learn anything, he will soon forget it or lie about it – I see that Paul Bremer joins the ranks of people with a book to sell), and I am well aware this was little more than a PR build-up for the Petraeus/Crocker stay the course speech next week. His being there was good for troop morale, his being there was something those guys in the military will remember the rest of their lives. Any way you slice it or dice it, I am glad he went.
But that doesn’t change the realities facing us in Iraq. We are at the end game, and there are a few things that can not be nuanced, or can not be put through a PR spin machine.
1.) The surge has to end. It really isn’t a matter for debate. The military can not sustain it. End of story. We are down to one more Friedman Unit, maximum. Maybe if we had a massive military build-up, maybe if we had had a draft several years ago, maybe if we had done something- anything. But right now are at the limit of what the military can do. No amount of stories about safe markets in the Green Zone (Potemkin or otherwise), changes that.
2.) The reason for the surge, to provide time for a national political reconciliation, seems to have failed. The GAO report (the unvarnished one leaked to the press last week, at least) points to a widespread failure to achieve these goals. These were goals agreed to by the administration, and now the only course of action for the administration and supporters is to haggle with how we define progress. Inspires a great deal of confidence, doesn’t it?
3.) If the GAO report was not depressing enough, there are other reported problems so large in scope that it is, quite honestly, too depressing to think about for too long. For example, the recent report stating that the entire national police force in Iraq needs to be scrapped. Or the report of the widespread corruption in Iraq (corruption is the norm). Or the myriad other problems, to include the complete breakdown in public health (and, in fairness, cholera outbreaks are the norm this time of year) that coincides with our inability to provide longterm stability.
4.) Things are so bad, the military seems to have dedicated precious man-hours to try to convince us things are not really that bad. Staged visits, complete with background bios of the VIPS, are the norm.
Iraq is a mess. It will continue to be a mess for the foreseeable future, and there seems to be very little we can do in the short term to fix the many problems, and we are hamstrung in the sense that there literally is nothing we can do in the long term other than cross our fingers and begin the inevitable drawdown to keep the military from completely disintegrating. I state all of this not because I hate America, not because the liberal media wants us to lose, and not because I have Bush Derangement Syndrome. I say this, because when I look at the evidence, there is no other conclusion to be reached. I want us to win, if for no other reason than I feel very, very responsible for us being in Iraq. But I simply do not understand how sane people can look at the evidence and conclude the only problem we face is a liberal media lying about our inevitable victory.
Most important, we have no options left, really. That doesn’t make me happy, and it certainly does not make me proud, but it does mean that I am going to greet the rosy scenarios fed to us over the next few weeks with some massive servings of salt.
So should you.
*** Update ***
According to the comments, even the new metric is being willfully misinterpreted.
*** update ***
And, as if on cue, the Weekly Standard begging for nuance.
*** Update ***
The Instapundit, blogging from another planet:
KATIE COURIC REPORTS progress in Iraq. Tom Smith comments. And Petraeus is talking about a troop reduction by March, though he’s been saying that for a while. Still, this has got to be depressing for those who were hoping for bad news.
It is bad enough he doesn’t recognize bad news. The assertion that those who do are praying for it is what takes the cake. I guess all that really is left to do is smear.
demimondian
Speaking of servings of salt…the numbers in the McClatchy article may themselves be in need of some salination, in the eyes of John Marshall, at least.
demimondian
Sorry, that should read: Josh Marshall.
[No Supreme Court Justices were harmed in the production of this comment.]
Pb
Seeing as how they’ve only gotten worse, I suppose that’s as good a metric as any other. Oh, and WTF is up with that fake graph (that even cites icasualties as a source!)? 57? More like 83! Nice try, MSM hacks…
crayz
They’re citing combat deaths only, but when large numbers of troops are dying in helicopter crashes because it’s too dangerous to drive on the streets, that’s a dubious distinction
myiq2xu
You just don’t understand the GOP math.
This is how it works: If the deficit for this year was projected to be 1 trillion dollars, but turns out to be only $750 billion, then the GOP brags about reducing the deficit by 25%.
So if the
Roach MotelWhite House projected a casualty rate of 200 per month without the “surge,” but it is actually only about 100 per month, then the surge “reduced” casualties by 50%!Now drink your kool-aid and quit being a defeatocrat.
Wilfred
here’s another metric:
1) Denial – this is not happening, 2003-2006.
2) Anger – against Iraqis, al-Queda, hippies, left-wing scum; pretty much constantly but reached its peak just before the surge.
3) Bargaining – currently, we´re here – Another Friedman unit, until the end of the year, until spring 2008, wait for Petraeus’ report (remember his 2004 pre-election editorial in the WP?) etc.
4) Depression – Coming shortly (my current state, actually).
5) Acceptance – One hundred years from now.
The Other Steve
You just haven’t given this enough time. In six months or so this thing will turn around and we’ll finally be seeing the light around the corner of the tunnel.
Dreggas
And don’t forget now we have “mini-benchmarks” as well.
See there may be 18 benchmarks, of which only 11 were met, but if you each of those 11 contain 2 “mini-benchmarks” why that is 22 met which is a lot bigger than 18 but of course there’s the pesky notion that the 7 unmet have 2 mini’s each which means 22 are met and 14 aren’t but still the 22 is a big number and big numbers impress…
Ah fuck it, what a bunch of cock sucking douche bags.
jnfr
There has been no drop in troop deaths. They’re trumpeting a seasonal adjustment that happens every year.
Year over year, every month in 2007 has had more deaths than in 2006.
Kynn
Also, seasonal variations. Overlay this year with last year and the picture isn’t pretty at all.
In fact, I did that very thing. I also added in the CORRECT number of fatalities according to icasualities — 87 — rather than the falsely reported 57.
You can see it here:
Fixed graphic.
Kynn
Ah, I see in the comments on the article that the author and creator of the graphic are parsing out which deaths are “combat-related” and which are not.
Here’s a version of the graphic with just the overlay, not the extra deaths which apparently don’t count.
myiq2xu
That statement is wrong!
Fixed!
Kynn
These statistics at icasualties.org seem to be the source of the combat/non-combat distinction carefully drawn by the author.
Which leads one to wonder why they’re not asking the question:
Why are non-hostile deaths in August so high? Why was August 2007 the 3rd most deadly month OUT of combat for the military in Iraq?
I can think of a lot of possible reasons, starting with a greatly overtaxed military that is literally falling apart after more than four years of continuous military occupation.
Zifnab
~ DKos
I agree. It totally depends on what metric you are using. And, after looking at the graph, I see alot of ups and downs. Where was the troop surge that caused all the lack of bloodshed in Nov 06? Why did we have so many casaulties in the middle of the surge, but not at the beginning or the end? Is this all part of surge magic? Did the surge actually start saving American soldiers back in March and April?
Was it really the surge that saved all those soldiers, or the magic pet rocks Bush was handing out? Who can tell?
PK
Bottom line-The whole Iraq venture is a fiasco! The only thing undetermined is how many more are going to die before the US withdraws.
jenniebee
Was watching Becket on TV last night. A very good line in it, I thought it was very nice:
It never ceases to amaze me how much good advice comes from playwrights. One does have to sort through an amazing amount of boy meets girl muck to get it, but the good ones record the hard-won wisdom of the time along with the romantic folderall (which, I suppose, is its own kind of wisdom).
I know I’ve posted this before, but it’s a gorgeous piece of martial advice from the Great Bard:
Henry V, Act III, Scene VI. It should be part of the USO repertoire, that play should. It’s all about war, and enthusiastically so, so ought to appeal. Oh, for a muse of fire!
Kynn
Also, after Pat Tillman, does anyone trust the government and the military to NOT fudge the figures?
Switch an extra 10 deaths from “hostile” to “non-hostile” deaths, and you get a lot of headlines showing that the death count is way down. Publish a correction in October and the official numbers get updated, but you’ve already gained the political advantage you wanted from the false numbers.
Am I being paranoid? I would have thought so a few years ago. But ask Kevin Tillman about what his family was told about his brother’s death, and you’ll become convinced that, yes, this IS an administration that will manipulation information about military deaths in order to score political points.
Wilfred
Bird writes:
Tells us what, exactly? What does the fact that 90% of AQI is Iraqi tell us about Iraqi society? Bird is almost stupid enough to write for the Weakly Standard.
Hey, I got eleven questions wrong out of eighteen on my final. Looks like I came up short.
myiq2xu
We’re making such lovely progress in Iraq the
Roach MotelWhite House wants to expand its successful program of Peace through War into Iran.I’m going out back to start digging a bomb shelter.
Pb
Kynn,
As someone else mentioned above, the extra non-hostile deaths in August are due to helicopter crashes…
Punchy
Once again, you’re a fool to believe this. Why won’t Bush just up the max deployment time to 18-20 months? One quick look at history…9 months–>12–>15–>?
That’s a very easy and predictable trend to interpret. There is simply no way he removes troops while he’s president.
Oregonian
Great post, John.
I think the graph on Kevin Drum’s site should be posted on the front page of every newspaper and website in the country. Given the seasonal nature of the conflict in Iraq, the ONLY way to really evaluate a change in troop deaths is to compare the numbers from one month to the numbers from the same month a year earlier. By that metric, it’s impossible to claim that things are improving in Iraq.
For EVERY month of 2007 we have had more US troop deaths than we had in the corresponding month of 2006. That point really needs to be made clear to every member of Congress.
Andrew
Yeah, it doesn’t count if you die on the way to or from combat if your helicopter accidentally crashes.
myiq2xu
Or if the IED doesn’t kill you but the fire that engulfs your vehicle afterwards does.
John Cole
A couple of comments about accidents in theatre:
1.) I can understand the logic in not including accident deaths in the total of casualty reports- accidental deaths happen in the peacetime military as well. What would be useful is to compare the number of peacetime accidental deaths with wartime accidental deaths and see if there is a difference.
I guarantee there is. Military accidents almost always happen for a reason. They happen because people are tired. They happen because people are stressed. They happen because people are on edge and rushing and because equipment is not maintained. All of those things INCREASE in a combat zone. So, while it is fair to state that yes, accidents happen in peacetime, it is also more than fair to attribute many of the in-theatre accidents to their proximate cause- war. Thus, I would argue that they should be counted.
Regardless, from a political standpoint, try telling Pvt. Smith’s parents his death doesn’t count because he didn’t die to an IED, but because he ran off the road and went into a canal and drowned after 3 weeks of 18 hour days in a combat situation.
2.) What matters is consistency. Were they counting accidents before and they are not counting them now? Or vice versa.
3.) As tours are extended, expect the incident rate for accidents to increase.
whippoorwill
And the war shall go on until an almost guaranteed democrat presidency in 2009, whereupon the people will demand the plug be pulled on Bush’s most bloody excellent adventure in Iraq.
And the howls and shrieks from the neocon wizards will say ,damn the defeatocrats, we were this close {no further that the width of a hair] to complete and righteous victory.
But all is not lost, His Excellency George the Malevolent will repair to his Democracy Center in Texas, where he will teach all the little children the virtues of peace.
myiq2xu
Fixed
Zifnab
The military head-count game just seems to remind me of the federal budget deficit game. I mean, if we don’t count deficits caused by war supplementals and we don’t factor in effects from the tax break and we assume no one loses their jobs and everyone ponies up 100% of what’s owed to the IRS… then we’re still only $150 billion in the hole. Which is a lot better than last year, let me tell you.
This counting game of goalpost moving and evaluation evaluating seems like it consumes more of the President’s time than actual honest-to-god wartime planning. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the President just passed down an order to his generals that all soldiers were required to button down and buckle up for the three months leading up to Magical September, just so he could skew the numbers legitimately. It’s not like we planned on passing any benchmarks, so who gives a crap if patrols are reduced and soldiers stick to the Green Zone more often, so long as Bush gets the numbers he is looking for. I mean, that’s just as likely as him rigging the numbers. Less ground patrols, more air patrols, and if a helio goes down, we’ll just mark it off as a non-combat loss, then call it a day.
Punchy
But because accidents aren’t being counted in the official stats, that means TEH SURGE IS WORKING!! Fewer deaths (reported) means progress (in Crazy World), there we must stay for even LONGER tours to prevent more deaths. To shorten them might get soliders (combat-relatedly) killed!
Maybe all the non-deaths that we dont report will cancel out the deaths that we do, so that deaths actually go negative. That’d be awesome.
myiq2xu
A death only “counts” if one of our troops is killed on the battlefield between 12 noon and 4pm on odd-numbered days by a non-Iraqi wearing the approved al Queda uniform.
Deaths that occur more than 15 minutes after the injured troop is medevac’d also do not count.
Randolph Fritz
Bring in the UN–they’re the only people who might have a chance, now. We’d have to provide a lot of the peacekeepers, though, and probably put them under UN command–there aren’t going to be very many nations willing to spend the lives of their citizens in a war the US wanted so badly.
Jake
This is why John makes the Wingy Heads go boom. His memory lasts longer than five minutes and he can admit he made mistakes. Thanks.
Right, but the Admin. needs to show that The Surge iz Succeederating and that means a very conservative count of troop deaths (they sure as hell can’t point to anything the Iraqi government has done). If they thought it would be expedient they’d count everything from suicides in theatre to slip and falls in the bath-tub.
But you know what? Even if the clearly combat related were ten times higher that would only show The Enemy iz Ruthless Killerz, and would prove they’d follow us home if we didn’t stay and Bush would … continue to do what he wants to do.
Tsulagi
So this is what justifies our continued presence in Iraq? Plus soon another $200B? That our burn rate through service members may (or may not) have dipped down a little for the past month or two? Pathetic.
myiq2xu
Who wants to be the last to die for a failed policy and a failed presidency?
Would you want your legs (or your son’s) blown off so that George Bush can strut around in a codpiece?
croatoan
“Casualty” includes both killed and wounded. There have been 30,928 American casualties in Iraq according to the latest icasualties figures, 3,742 killed and 27,186 wounded.
icasualties currently shows only one American KIA in Iraq so far this month. It would be nice to believe that attacks have dropped, but I would not be surprised if the Pentagon was holding off on reporting fatalities this month until the “Petreus Report” next week. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but it seems unlikely for fatalities to suddenly drop from almost three a day last month to one every three days this month unless the insurgents took off for Labor Day weekend.
American combat fatalities dropped in July 2007. They also dropped in July 2006 and July 2005, because it’s friggin’ hot in the summer.
The Associated Press and Christian Science Monitor reported in December 2006 that Saudi Arabian citizens were supporting the insurgency with money that was used to buy weapons, “including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles.” Five helicopters were shot down in Iraq in late January/early February 2007.
Davebo
Keep in mind that when counting Iraqi fatalities, the US (which doesn’t count Iraqi fatalities but…. they are way way down) leaves out deaths from car bombs, shia on shia violence, and sunni on shia violence.
Which leaves us with…
HyperIon
well, no options where we get a pony.
lots of options where we get pony shit.
Thomas Ricks spoke in seattle about a month ago and basically said this. At the end of his talk, he apologized for being so unrelentingly pessimistic.
Xenos
… the victims of the giant badger attacks.
The Masked Moustache
Evidence? Here’s some evidence for ya. The other day, I talked to a taxi cab driver – an Arab or Muslim or something – and he said, “All America has to do is tell the Iraqis to suck on it, and in Iraq there will be freedom!”
So, if you disagree, you’re objectively anti-freedom.
ThymeZone
Me too. I just fault him for coming back.
Wilfred
At the end of the day, after 6 miserable years of this horrible president, can anybody really believe that Petraeus is some sort of independent entity that got his job because he, and he alone, was willing to stand up and tell Bush the truth about anything and damn the consequences? He is there to stroke the appropriate cock and unzip the body bags bound for Iran.
Mark S.
The surge has to end. It really isn’t a matter for debate. The military can not sustain it. End of story.
This is the key point, and anyone who wants to debate the surge has to address this or should just shut up. Even if you think the surge is working wonderfully, you have to show that all these gains (whatever they are) aren’t all going to disappear when the troop levels inevitably decrease.
Good post, John.
KC
John,
Don’t worry. When we bomb Iran things are going to be so much better.
Pb
croatoan,
…and the wounded numbers are iffier; here’s an interesting statistic:
Tayi
Pb,
I would hesitate to use VA numbers of claims filed/granted as a way to evaluate how many people have been significantly wounded in military service recently.
There is this Sergeant Major I used to know who is getting disability payments for a scar on his ear that you can barely tell is there. At the same time, my claim for an illness that onset while I was in service, that continues to this day untreatable and makes me ill on a daily/hourly basis, has been denied repeatedly because I don’t have a clear diagnosis- and I was fairly low rank when I got out.
The VA is no more reliable than any other branch of government, which is to say, don’t trust them.
Punchy
I don’t know why, but for some reason I find this just really, really fucking funny.
demimondian
Personally, I liked Wilfred’s Five Stages of Grief post.
Ripley
Regardless, I applaud the President for visiting the region.
You’re kidding, right? Seriously, every step he takes outside the White House is an insult to Freedom and Democracy. I’m not surprised that he runs for ‘Me and the Troops!’ again but it’s every bit as skeevy as it’s been for the last 4 years.
Donnie
Thank you, John Cole, for this post. You honor yourself rather than disgrace yourself by using your own words and your own posts to make a dead-on point. I’ve read you from the beginning and realize what a tough road you’ve travelled.Thank you, again. You’re one of the good guys.
Donnie
That being said…applauding Bush for “visiting the region” is kinda dumb.
Pb
Tayi,
I don’t know about “significantly”, but the order of magnitude is obviously greater. In any case, it’s a starting point, and demonstrates that iffiness that I mentioned.
I fear that your situation is probably more common than his, and thus that the numbers in question are probably understating the real consequences here, rather than inflating them.
TenguPhule
I’m willing to bet Bush doesn’t care about little things like reality. He’s going to make them stay there until they die.
It doesn’t matter that it will break the army. Bush just doesn’t care. He’s not up for election. He doesn’t give a shit about popularity. He was and is still willing to gut Social Security, the legendary third rail of politics. He’s torpedoed the federal budget for generations to come.
What does he care? He’s got a nice little hideaway in South America to run away to when it all goes to hell with Secret Service to protect him all the way.
After all, who’s going to stop him? The Republicans? The Generals? The Democrats? The people?
Good luck on that.
Bush has shat on every legal option to stop him. What do we have left?
myiq2xu
He’s going Nazi all the way, including hiding out in Paraguay?
Maybe the next President could order the Secret Service to arrest him and deliver him the the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.
TenguPhule
POTD!
Xenos
Because the Army has never been expanded to accommodate the new strategic goal of occupying medium-sized countries indefinitely, there always had to be a point where a draw-down would be necessary. But since there is no clear exit strategy, what was the Surge supposed to accomplish? Some sort of short term relief in Baghdad was helpful from a political point of view, but this must have accelerated the date at which the American forces would be compelled, as a practical matter, to draw down.
If we take as a given that point of forced draw-down is reached in March 2008, has anyone estimated what the forced draw-down date would have been if Bush had not proceeded with the Surge?
As I recall,Bush announced the Surge the night before the Democratic-controlled Congress was sworn in. They never had a chance to stop the Surge, only to defund the soldiers in the field after being deployed. Bush owns the Surge fully, and it may be the reckless “doubling-down” that decisively loses the war in the final analysis.
(I still do not understand what the policy has been for the last three years, and it is pretty hard to tell whether a war is won or lost without a clear policy to measure it against.)
elchubs
This is actually true. About 2 weeks ago on 26 August we had an observation post in samarra almost get overrun. AQI was looking to capture some guys before the big report due this month. Fortunately they failed but we’ve been ordered to cease all OP operations until the 11th or 12th of September.
Johnny Pez
I simply do not understand how sane people can look at the evidence and conclude the only problem we face is a liberal media lying about our inevitable victory.
Ah, well, that’s your problem right there, John.
blogReeder
That being said…applauding Bush for “visiting the region” is kinda dumb.
I see Donnie has a slight case of BDS. Remember John, you’re suppose hate the policies, the presidency – nay – the very existence of GWB.
Donnie – why is it kinda dumb? Didn’t John give reasons?
His being there was good for troop morale, his being there was something those guys in the military will remember the rest of their lives. Any way you slice it or dice it, I am glad he went.
Those sound like good enough reasons for me. You don’t hate our troops, do you Donnie? I think a right wing-nut would jump all over that. Don’t give your enemies ammo like that. If you think something is dumb, state your reasons. Don’t just leave it hanging like that. That’s low fruit for anyone to grab. Even me.
bago
When corruption is the norm how the hell do you expect things to get done? I mean this not only the bidness is bidness sort of way, but in the sort of way that has men with guns behind it. Everyone wants their cut. to think that shock and awe will sway these gangsters is… well… an idiot.
bago
Cause we sure showed mexico and colombia in the past 20 years. If anything the supply siders should show the smuggling trade as validation of their theories. Of course that doesn’t play well at the AEI and Heritage foundation. IF people read the constitution they would recognize that something like the heritage foundation is profoundly anti-american. Alas the blue blooders survive and we get crap like the skull and bones.
For a country based on merit these groups should be an embarresment.