Iraq: Civilian Deaths Down 36 Percent

DuH2 · #1 (**permalink**) 07-09-2007, 03:06 AM

Quote:

BAGHDAD Jul 2, 2007 (AP)

Iraq: Civilian Deaths Down 36 Percent
Iraq Says Civilian Deaths Down 36 Percent From May, to Lowest Since Start of Baghdad Crackdown

Share Iraqi civilian deaths dropped to their lowest level since the start of the Baghdad security operation, government figures showed Sunday, suggesting signs of progress in tamping down violence in the capital.

But American casualties are running high as U.S. forces step up pressure on Sunni and Shiite extremists in and around Baghdad.

At least 1,227 Iraqi civilians were killed in June along with 190 policemen and 31 soldiers, an officer at the Iraqi Interior Ministry's operations room said. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the figures.

That represented a 36 percent drop from the ministry's May figures 1,949 civilian deaths along with 127 policemen and 47 soldiers.

June's figures were the lowest monthly tally this year. In January, President Bush ordered nearly 30,000 soldiers, Marines and airmen to Iraq in a major push to stabilize the capital so that Iraq's leaders can hammer out power-sharing agreements for a lasting peace.

The Baghdad security operation was launched in mid-February, although the last of the American reinforcements arrived in Iraq only last month.

The accuracy of civilian death figures in Iraq has been in doubt since the start of the conflict and may reflect only a portion of the casualties nationwide.

Still, the figures suggest a downward trend, which may be due to U.S. military pressure on insurgents in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.

The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil, Jr., told reporters on Friday that American and Iraqi security forces now control nearly half of the 474 neighborhoods in Baghdad up from 19 percent in April.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...C-RSSFeeds0312

Yeah good news..aka as Progress.

I'm sure the Left will be upset....

ashleykennedy · #2 (**permalink**) 07-09-2007, 05:35 AM

The Good news I can deal with, I quite like fewer deaths, But every time you report something Duh2 it all goes pear shaped. Either the terrorist war lords get miraculously resurrected or there is a "bloodiest" day after you report.

Is your name Jonah?

UK soldier killed in Iraq named
Press Association
Monday July 9, 2007 1:43 PM
A British soldier who was fatally injured while he was returning from a major operation to detain insurgents in Iraq has been formally named.
Corporal Christopher Read, 22, originally from Poole in Dorset, was injured by small arms fire while on his way back from the operation in Basra City, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said.

Baghdad: The bloodiest day
Al-Qa'ida in new offensive. More than a dozen Baghdad attacks. 150 are killed and 540 injured. Iraq plunges towards civil war
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Published: 15 September 2005
A suicide bomber sparked Baghdad's worst day of slaughter since the fall of Saddam 30 months ago when he lured labourers desperate for work towards his van by offering them jobs and then detonated explosives that killed 114 and injured 156 of them.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle312735.ece

jsh1120 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-09-2007, 05:45 AM

So this is what the pollyanna's are reduced to? "Only" an average of 40 dead civilians a day in Iraq? An "estimate" from an anonymouse Iraqi government source who, undoubtedly, has no reason to minimize the figures. Of course, July isn't looking very good, what with hundreds killed in separate bombings over the first 8 days and the average number of bodies turning up each morning in Baghdad alone averaging 40-50.

But forget all that. No need to preach to 'the Left." You might want to contact the senior Republican senators that are jumping ship. I'm sure they're simply unaware how well things are going. Poor old Dick Lugar and Pete Domenici are obviously out of touch. But while you're at it, you might want to get in touch with Bob Novak who characterized the White House as "out of touch" and quoted a Republican senator who attended recent meetings with Stephen Handley, the President's National Security Advisor, as ""not recognizing the depth of the difficulty they are in." (When Bob Novak writes this stuff there aren't many rats left on the ship.)

Or perhaps you should alert the White House, itself. According to reports today, Secy Gates is pushing for what is essentially a commitment to the Iraq Study Group proposal from last year. “When you count up the votes that we’ve lost and the votes we’re likely to lose over the next few weeks, it looks pretty grim,” said one senior (White House) official..."

Of course, all of this is pretty academic. There has never been any question that if you flood Iraq with enough troops (and make them targets) it's possible to "put a lid on a sectarian cauldron," as Colin Powell put it in an interview over the weekend. At least for awhile.

Trouble is, of course, that keeping that lid in place, even at the current level of conflict, requires troops the US doesn't have. On current deployment schedules, there won't be anyone else to send to Iraq after nine more months. And those schedules have already lengthened deployments to 15 months. The only option then will be to send the National Guard back in force and lengthen the deployments to 24 months.

According to Novak, the plan may well be to stretch it out long enough to shift blame to the military. "Hadley increased latent fears of the U.S. military being made the fall guy -- a concern shared by many retired and some active senior officers, including a current infantry division commander."

When the pullout begins, I'm sure you'll find some way to claim that despite all this magnificent "progress," "the Left" will be responsible for cutting and running. In fact, of course, it will simply be that there are no options left to this incompetent administration and no more cannon fodder available.

That assumes, of course, that somehow, some way, Bush will be able to keep the Republicans in the Senate as a blocking force 'till then. You'll discover though that political survival for those 21 Republicans up for re-election in '08 will weigh much more heavily than "progress" you're pointing to long before next March. And if that doesn't happen, Republicans in '08 will want to apply for inclusion on the endangered species list.

JP5 · #4 (**permalink**) 07-09-2007, 06:47 AM

It's about "perspective." That's something the anti-war leftists do not have. We have more civilians than that die everyday in our country due to automobile accidents. Iraq is TRYING to establish a new democratic government. What in the world would you expect???? That it would be easy???? No one can possibly be that clueless.

DuH2 · #5 (**permalink**) 07-09-2007, 03:34 PM

I'm sure the Left will be upset....

f100supersabr · #6 (**permalink**) 07-09-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

It's about "perspective." That's something the anti-war leftists do not have. We have more civilians than that die everyday in our country due to automobile accidents. Iraq is TRYING to establish a new democratic government. What in the world would you expect???? That it would be easy???? No one can possibly be that clueless.

Well lets see if I use JP FIVEIAN "logic " I can justify Iraq because more people have died of old age in the US this month than have died in the Iraq "police action".

Commiting suicide b 0 m bings of religious shrines and schools, and hospitals, and markets is not what we consider "establishing democracy" on my planet. Yet I guess that on the planet Wackadousis it's the thang ta do !!!

chainyanker · #7 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

It's about "perspective." That's something the anti-war leftists do not have. We have more civilians than that die everyday in our country due to automobile accidents. Iraq is TRYING to establish a new democratic government. What in the world would you expect???? That it would be easy???? No one can possibly be that clueless.

But have you already forgotten that Sec. Rumsfeld back at the beginning of the Iraq invasion said it would be a '60-90 day cake walk' and used the term 'Slam Dunk'? Now you and 'Moe' Bush are implying/saying it's 'hardwork'. Seems to me the yokels in the White House totally misread the consequences of invading Iraq. Remember the 'They will greet us as liberators' statement made by 'No Doubt' Cheney?

The tragic fact is that neocons thought 'Liberty' and 'Democracy' was all that was needed in Iraq. They failed and still fail to see that the Islamic ideology that prevails in Iraq is more than just a religion, it is a way of life that is imbedded in and is integral to the local culture and that many of its beliefs and tenets are at odds with basic democratic priciples. One of the consequences is the chaos you see today. The sectarian violence is religion based differences and has been going on since about the 8th Century, good luck trying to corral that...it's going to take a strong man ala Saddam Hussein to do that...not democracy. Throw in Al Qaeda, 'occupiers' and corruption and you have present day Iraq. But conditions in the '20s were similar under the British....they gave up after 10 yrs or so.

Bottomline: Narrow minded, naive and ignorant neocon thinking has caused The Iraq Mess.

DuH2 · #8 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 08:44 PM

You're forgetting that you advocate
Abandoning our allies
Betraying our nations honor
Betraying this nation soldiers
Betraying our nations word...
AND running out on the people being murdered..

Oh and handing over the entire nation of Iraq to the enemy.

Now lie about it and blame some others for your defeatism.

paul111 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

It's about "perspective." That's something the anti-war leftists do not have. We have more civilians than that die everyday in our country due to automobile accidents. Iraq is TRYING to establish a new democratic government. What in the world would you expect???? That it would be easy???? No one can possibly be that clueless.

It's Bush and Pro-war advocates that never had "Perspective" to begin with.
How many of you pro-war advocates have immediate family members involved with the Iraq war?
How many have lost family members because of this war?
How many have sons or nephew that could go to war be are not?

It's so easy to sit on this side of the planet and flippantly talk about deaths of people you don't even know or even care about.

None of you pro war people care about the Iraqi people.
This war is just something you can "Monday Night Quarterback" to give your shallow lives some meaning.

You people are o.k. with 40 - 50 deaths/day of people you don't care about.
You people try to justify it by saying their are more people killed on highways and die of old age.
Where are your stats on those?

Saying those things makes you sleep better at night.
You say taking the war there saves American lives.
That just proves you don't care about the Iraqi people.

Tell me, if the same things were going on in America and 40-50 Americans were dying everyday because an invading country plunged your country into a civil war, would you say those lives are insignificant compared to old age and traffic deaths?