US Troop Deaths Lowest Since 2003
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Afghanistan, Iraq, Military, The War On Terrorism, The World, al QaedaThis is very good news, but what about the billions we continue to spend over there with no discernible gain? Remember, lowered troop deaths doesn’t mean political progress, it just means there’s more security and fewer families devastated stateside.
U.S. troop deaths in Iraq fell to their lowest level last month since the 2003 invasion and officials said on Sunday improved security also helped the country boost oil production in May to a post-war high.U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Iraq’s oil minister credited better security for the two milestones, which illustrated a dramatic turnabout in the fortunes of a country on the brink of all-out sectarian civil war just 12 months ago.
“We’ve still got a distance to go but I think lower casualty rates are a reflection of some real progress,” Gates told reporters in Singapore. “The key will be to continue to sustain the progress we have seen.”
Also of note, the civilian casualty rate has dropped:
The number of Iraqi civilians killed in May also fell, to 505, after reaching a seven-month high of 968 in April, figures compiled by the interior, defence and health ministries showed.
Again, all good news, but where is the upside for us? How is this making us safer? Because with al Qaeda now retreating, Iraq is no longer the breeding ground for terrorists the President has claimed. Shouldn’t we refocus on Afghanistan so that country doesn’t slip further down the hole?
This entry was posted on Monday, June 2nd, 2008 and is filed under Afghanistan, Iraq, Military, The War On Terrorism, The World, al Qaeda. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Yay, so now we can leave…right? I mean things are great now, so no need for troops…right?
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
If you really wanted the information necessary to make an informed opinion, you should be following The Long War Journal.
You can skip the comment section imo, because even though the admins take an axe to any political posturing and asinine comments, there’s only a few commenters worth reading.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Admit it justin, the fact that this was achieved without retreat, rather, because of increasing troop presence and brute force - is a bit disapointing to you. You haven’t posted anything about Iraq for about a month, and you are 0-for-5 when trying to predict the destruction of the Maliki government and the rise of Shiite militias in the south.
The fact is, once this war was started, the only way to achieve the successes that we are seeing now was to open the purse, put the hammer down and kick more ass, rather than abandon the battlefield completely. The best that people can come up with is, “but there were no weapons of mass destruction, we shouldn’t have gone in anyway”. Well, what if there were WMD’s? It wouldn’t have changed the minds of the insurgents who decided to flood into the country and make it their battlefield. We still would have had to make the same choices.
Now there is no terrorist-supporting Baathist regime obfuscating UN resolutions, bribing officials to weaken international sanctions, deliberately disseminating false information claiming he maintained WMDs, and drowning a nation of 25 million people in abject crippling poverty with no hope for the future. In addition, the post-saddam holy warriors have lost their bid to obtain their next base of operation in the 21st century.
Instead, we have a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society in the heart of the Islamic world proving that it can govern responsibly and maintain its union without fracturing, that it will use the power of government to persecute terrorists rather than support them, and that it can lay the framework for a economically prosperous nation that can potentially diffuse the pathology of fundamentalist Islam in the Arab world through providing another alternative - that of liberty and tolerance.
There is a silver lining to the horror of the past 4 years: a whole generation of young Arabs have seen the brutality of how Islamic terrorists want to rule them, and it has been overwhelmingly rejected. Upon reflection, they have come to know that they were duped by Al-qaeda and Al-Sadr, that democracy is not satanic, and that America is not their enemy.
On the contrary Justin, this is potentially the most discernable gain we could ever hope for in a post 9/11 world.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Jimmy, either you haven’t been paying attention or you’re ignoring what I’ve been saying over the past year about the surge. And to suggest that I’m somehow disappointed that a little progress is being made is pretty sad. That reveals so much more about you than it does me. But I digress…
We must all remember that the purpose of the surge was political progress. Just because fewer people are dying doesn’t mean that the surge is meeting its stated goals.
What’s more, where you see a discernible gain from our presence in Iraq because of a generation exposed to al Qaeda, I see tens of thousands losing their loved ones because of our presence. And considering our invasion drew al Qaeda to the country in the first place, I think the best you could hope for is a historical wash.
Let’s also remember that nobody has ANY idea what kind of government Iraq will eventually end up with. Already Iran has been greeted with open arms by the Iraqi government, and they’re supposedly our greatest enemy right now. So one could argue that by replacing the Baathist Sunnis with the majority Shias, we created an overarching Shia mega-state that will both be gunning for Israel. Of course, that’s why we want to maintain bases in Iraq, so we can keep them in line, but how long do you think they’re going to stand for our presence?
Again, was this puzzle box worth a trillion? My answer remains no.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
The purpose of the surge was to provide security. It was meant to smoke out Al-qaeda and other terrorist networks from Bagdhad once and for all. The administration then crossed its fingers and hoped the Iraqis would “get it” and reach some sort of political reconciliation. Well, it appears they have.
My point that this was the only way to pacify the country is absolutely true. Withdrawing would never have resulted in what we are seeing now, and all of the worries over Iran’s influence in the region would have been exacerbated, not alleviated.
In the near future, Iraq will be the regional power, with a 10x more robust economy and a stronger, better trained military than that of Iran - who will have to rely on suicide bombers and religious fanatics, and don’t make good soldiers anyway.
Your whole argument seems to revolve around “what if it goes wrong later?” Well, how can we know anything? So far, so good. There’s no turning back anyway - its never going to be 2002, so lets chose a positive direction and fight hard to maintain it. I think the everyday Iraqi people - who are now empowered because of democracy - want those same things as we do going forward. They are possible to achieve if we fight for them, as the surge has proven.
You see invisible Arab insects who cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. Only rich, white America can be blamed. Our presence didn’t kill thousands of Iraqis; terrorists did. Al qaeda chose to enter a country they had no legitimate business being in - simply to murder and mame - of their own free will. I think, in the end, Arabs in Iraq may not hold such low moral expectations of their own people as you do.
If it works out in the end its priceless.