US Death Toll in Iraq War Hits 4,000 Mar 23, 10:45 PM (ET) By ROBERT H. REID BAGHDAD (AP) - A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000. The grim milestone came on the same day that rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone, underscoring the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups despite an overall lull in violence. A Multi-National Division - Baghdad soldier also was wounded in the roadside bombing, which struck the soldiers' patrol vehicle about 10 p.m. in southern Baghdad, according to a statement. Identities of those killed were withheld pending notification of relatives. The 4,000 figure is according to an Associated Press count that includes eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense. Last year, the U.S. military deaths spiked along with the Pentagon's "surge" - the arrival of more than 30,000 extra troops trying to regain control of Baghdad and surrounding areas. The mission was generally considered a success, but the cost was evident as soldiers pushed into Sunni insurgent strongholds and challenged Shiite militias. Military deaths rose above 100 for three consecutive months for the first time during the war: April 2007, 104; May, 126 and June at 101. The death toll has seesawed since, with 2007 ending as the deadliest year for American troops at 901 deaths. That was 51 more deaths than 2004, the second deadliest year for U.S. soldiers. The milestones for each 1,000 deaths - while an arbitrary marker - serve to rivet attention on the war and have come during a range of pivotal moments. When the 1,000th American died in September 2004, the insurgency was gaining steam. The 2,000-death mark came in October 2005 as Iraq voted on a new constitution. The Pentagon announced its 3,000th loss on the last day of 2006 - a day after Saddam Hussein was hanged and closing a year marked by rampant sectarian violence. The deaths taken by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, however, are far less than in other modern American wars. In Vietnam, the U.S. lost on average about 4,850 soldiers a year from 1963-75. In the Korean war, from 1950-53, the U.S. lost about 12,300 soldiers a year. But a hallmark of the Iraq war is the high wounded-to-killed ratio, partly because of advances in battlefield medicine, enhanced protective gear worn by soldiers and reinforced armored vehicles. There have been about 15 soldiers wounded for every fatality in Iraq, compared with 2.6 per death in Vietnam and 2.8 in Korea. The deadliest month for American troops was November 2004, with 137 deaths. April 2004 was the next with 135 U.S. military deaths. May 2007 saw the third-highest toll. Last December was the lowest monthly death toll, when 23 soldiers were killed - one less than February 2004. Two factors have helped bring down violence in recent months: a self-imposed cease-fire by a main Shiite militia and a grass-roots Sunni revolt against extremists. But commanders often say there is no guarantee the trends will continue. Among the concerns: the strength of breakaway Shiite factions believed armed by Iran and whether Sunni fighters will remain U.S. allies or again turn their guns on American troops instead of al-Qaida. Civil strife also could flare again. Shiite militias are vying for control of Iraq's oil-rich south. In the north, the contest for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk could spark new bloodshed and should be the focus of intense "U.S. diplomatic and economic leverage to make sure it doesn't happen," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey at a speech in New York in March to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion. There is also the question of Iraq's security forces and the slow pace of their training. American commanders would like to see the Iraqis take more of a front-line role in the fighting, but their ability to operate without American support could still be years away. "We are always quick to note that the progress is tenuous and that it is reversible," said the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, "and that there are innumerable challenges out there."
i wonder when it will all stop. not just the war, but the evilness of mankind in general. to all the people that have killed there wife because she was cheating. to the people that got on those planes headed for dc and nyc. to the priests out there that are twisted enough to hurt children. to the people that are making money off this war with there hands dripping in blood. i wish it would not be like this, but it is. nothing is ever perfect. the good and the bad is what life is about. its a struggle for most people i think to be a good as person as they can. and thats all you can truly do is be kind to the people that are around you, and help those that you can.
I wish the goverment had done nothing in reaction to 9/11. We could have ended the death count at 3000. They should get every troop out tomorrow. Screw iraq, let iraqi's fight each other.
nobody cares -- The US public has turned away from the war and no longer support it. A recent survey shows only 30% of Americans are even following events in Iraq anymore.
Last week in Iraq our vice president, Deadeye dick, sumed up the last 5 years of war, death and loss of treasure with one simple word. "SO?"
it's a quagmire [rquoter] War Critics Decry Interminable And Unwinnable Conflict January 15th, 1945 WASHINGTON (Routers) With the "Allied" forces continuing to be bogged down in the Ardennes Forest, many are questioning Roosevelt administration war policies, the unreasonable length of the war, and even whether or not it can be won. The 7th Army's VI Corps is waging a desperate, and perhaps futile battle with German troops, surrounded on three sides in the Alsace region. A whole month after the beginning of the renewed German offensive, with almost twenty-thousand American troops dead in this battle alone, there remains no clear end in sight, or hope that the American lines can be closed. There are serious questions about the competence of Generals Bradley and Patton, concerns that were only heightened shortly after the beginning of the battle, when two armies from Bradley's army group were removed from his command and placed under that of the British General Montgomery. General Montgomery's comments in a press conference a week ago have served only to buttress such legitimate doubts. He didn't even mention their names in describing the limited efforts to recapture lost ground, that remains unsuccessful, with the Germans continuing to take the initiative. Many point out that these lengthy battles, and lengthy wars, are somehow indicative of a fundamental failure of American policy, not just in waging the war, but in the very decision to enter into it. "It's not just that we're a whole month into this battle with no clear resolution or exit strategy. In a few more months, this war will have gone on as long as the Civil War," said one Republican critic of the administration. "And that one was Americans against Americans. We should have expected to do much better against Germans. After all, this war has now gone on twice as long as World War I, when we mopped up the Kaiser in a year and a half." He went on, "It's clearly the fault of this Roosevelt administration, that lied us into war, and then botched it. I'll bet that had Tom Dewey won the election a couple months ago, he would have exercised his judgment by immediately implementing his policy of not having entered the war." Others disagree. One administration spokesman has said on background that this seems like flawed logic. "One can't judge war progress by a calendar. Wars aren't run on a schedule, and every one is different," he pointed out. "And neither can one judge the progress of a battle that way, or by the casualty count. Often the heaviest fighting occurs just before victory. Our heaviest losses at Normandy were just before we took the beach and the cliffs." "Yes, the fighting is fierce in the Ardennes now, but Hitler is waging a war on two fronts, and he's down to young boys and old men as soldiers. We will simply have to outlast him, and I'm confident that we will start making serious progress into Germany in a month." But war opponents will have none of it. "This administration has been telling us we've been winning for two and a half years, ever since Midway," said the leader of one of the prominent anti-war groups. After over three years of killing and terror, it's time to stop the lies, and the war."[/rquoter]
Very sad. I honor those 4,000 for their sacrifice and know as a group they did their duty to this country to the utmost but I still don't feel that was a sacrifice that was necessary. Pardon me for quoting MASH but "in war young men (and women) die." I would rather have us try to avoid getting into a war than honor their sacrifice.
I know you may not have intended to include Afghanistan as "doing nothing," but if you did, I couldn't disagree more. It was one of the few things I've agreed with Bush about re foreign policy in response to 9/11. We absolutely should have gone into Afghanistan and doing do was brilliantly done. Sadly, going into Iraq was an incredible act of hubris. It was arrogant, reckless, incompetently planned, sold to the public and Congress under false pretenses (in other words, Bush and Co. lied to both, in my opinion, to gain support for an act of stupidity that takes the breath away), and took away resources in Afghanistan that have yet to be made up today and has led to the gradual undoing of what was successful policy there. Iraq was not a clear and present danger to the United States. In short, we were deliberately sold a bill of goods. Afghanistan was another thing entirely. Impeach Bush.
Hagel: A Defense Of The Surge That ‘Dismisses’ Over ‘900 Dead Americans’ Is Wrong 900 of the 4000 deaths have come since The Surge.
Are we to assume, then, that Chuck Hagel (R-NE) isn't on John McCain's short list for possible running mates? Impeach Bush and Send Him to Tibet to Report the News!
I think he would make a better Sec. of Defense for Obama. Hagel cool on backing McCain http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/hagel-cool-on-backing-mccain-2008-03-23.html
Obama has hinted as much. Obama will have a bipartisan cabinet. Hagel strong support for the military but weak support for the Iraqi Quagmire might make him a nice fit.
Where's the source for the original article? You include a link but the link takes you to site that does not have a link to the original article. Please provide... Unless, of course, it's a really bad parody of a news story created by an ahistorical buffoon in an attempt to offer support for the Bush administration's war. Routers? Please. This is really bad, even by your standards.
