Silent Success: Nov. US Troop Deaths from Hostile Action in Iraq Tie All-Time Low; Afghanistan Improving
How can you tell that the news from Iraq about American casualties continues to be good? You barely hear about it.
It would be better to report no deaths, of course. But according to icasualities.org, 17 US soldiers died in Iraq during November. Only seven of those deaths were the result of hostile enemy action, tying an all-time low:
And here’s another “surprise,” considering how we were told during the presidential campaign that the situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating: Combined November coalition deaths from all causes in Afghanistan and Iraq were the lowest in over 4-1/2 years, and the two-month total is by far the lowest ever:
Back in Iraq, the 2-, 3-, and 6-month totals for US soldier deaths from all causes, as well as from only hostile causes, came in at record lows:
In fact (I can see leftists gritting their teeth now, and I’ll spare readers the calculations until there is another safe month), it was only marginally less safe to be a US soldier in Iraq during the past two months than it was, on average, to be a 30 year-old man anywhere stateside (the average age of US soldiers in Iraq is 30).
Press coverage? Let’s just say that it’s way below anything resembling a level of saturation.
The only thing about Iraq getting less coverage is the idea that the situation represents what less-jaundiced observers like IBDeditorials.com, Zombietime, and the incomparable Michael Yon have all called ….. (wait for it) ….. victory.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
The Media are waiting ’til after Jan. 20 to declare that the War is over in order to give credit to Obama and the Dems – despite their aiding and abetting the enemy the entire time.
Comment by Joe C. — December 3, 2008 @ 6:28 am
You know what would be interesting? Do a monthly chart of Chicago deaths for the same time period, you’ll find Iraq is a safer place than Chicago even before the surge.
Where is our exit strategy from this murder capitol? I say we pull out and let the locals work this out amongst themselves. The police are totally to blame since obviously they haven’t stopped the killing, so they must instead be the reason for the killing as their presence is inciting violence.
Homicides 1990-2007
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 931
1994: 929
1995: 827
1996: 789
1997: 759
1998: 704
1999: 641
2000: 628
2001: 666
2002: 647
2003: 598
2004: 448
2005: 449
2006: 467
2007: 442
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
http://chicago.everyblock.com/crime/
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Chicago&state=IL
Chicago, whose population is dwarfed by those cities, posted 426 killings through Tuesday, compared with 417 in New York and 302 in L.A.
At the end of 1998, Chicago made international headlines as the U.S. “murder capital” after surpassing New York’s homicide totals for the first time ever. Chicago shed that dubious distinction when murders plummeted over the last decade.
In 1998, there were about 700 murders here. Chicago is on pace to exceed 500 murders by the end of 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/24/chicago-murder-rate-tops_n_137488.html
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.homicide.rate.2.847736.html
So my question is this, did the community organizer, Barack Obama wear a flack vest? Or was he safely behind the scenes making nice with the gang bangers? Maybe Obama should explain to us how his leadership kept the form of killings to drive bys and hits and discouraged IEDs. Did he have a bullets for C4 swap program?
So the nation elected a Chicago politician whose track record on domestic tranquility would legitimize Al Sadr. Here is an article on Chicago’s gun control:http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/1/pub1132.html
So basically what Obama has in mind for the country is using Chicago as the template where the gang bangers and the police have the guns and the citizens are at the mercy of both. And we’re the bitter religious people clinging to our guns???? Does this give you a snap shot of what Obama’s administration is going to be??? FECKLESS
Comment by dscott — December 4, 2008 @ 8:42 am
#2, The civilian deaths in Iraq, which I believe is an all-encompassing number (murder reports from all causes), are running at an annualized 4,000 a year in the past three months in a nation of 29.3 mil (13.7 per 100,000). That’s less than Chicago’s murder rate, assuming 480 murders this year in a pop of 2.836 mil (16.9 per 100,000). That remains true even if you think Iraq deaths are underreported by 20%, which I doubt.
Unfortunately, cities like Cleveland and Cincinnati and Detroit and New Orleans would come out worse on a per-capita basis.
Comment by TBlumer — December 4, 2008 @ 8:57 am
I find this presentation to be extremely logical. Applyin the same logic makes it is clear that the “9-11″ attack on the World Trade Center was no big deal since no U.S. military casualties were sustained. Yet just look at how that event has been blow out of proporion by the main-stream media. And that doesn’t even address the other, overwhelmingly “good news from the U.S.” that day, with schools and businesses opening and running on time, that the media never talk about, obsessed with only the negative events that involved only a tiny part of our great country. I mean, if the Iraqis can’t ignore the few bombs going off and the statistically-insignificant number of violent civilian deaths that occur on a daily basis, maybe they need to get tough like the average Chicago resident.
Comment by Jimbo — December 4, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
#4, I enjoyed your self-embarrassing comment immensely.
You so don’t get it.
Iraq as a whole is more likely than not safer for Iraqis than Chicago, and Cincinnati, and Cleveland, and New Orleans, and Detroit, and Philadelphia, and probably many other US cities are for US citizens. Plus, it’s about as safe to be a US soldier in Iraq as it is to be doing anything else stateside.
And Afghanistan is improving.
All of this is not news?
Comment by TBlumer — December 4, 2008 @ 3:25 pm