Both U.S. and Iraqi civilian deaths hit their lowest levels since July and June of 2006 respectively. Whatever you want to credit - the surge, change in tactics, whatever - clearly there is strong momentum in Iraq and finally some sort of progress is being made. I've said all along, let's give this thing a bit of time, this is why. Now we will see if rationality dictates the liberals, or if they will just find ways to attack people as they are programmed to do. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071001/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq Iraqi deaths fall by 50 percent By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 1, 6:10 PM ET The number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed in the war fell in September to levels not seen in more than a year. The U.S. military said the lower count was at least partly a result of new strategies and 30,000 additional U.S. forces deployed this year. Although it is difficult to draw conclusions from a single month's tally, the figures could suggest U.S.-led forces are making headway against extremist factions and disrupting their ability to strike back. The U.S. military toll for September was 64, the lowest since July 2006, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press from death announcements by the American command and Pentagon. More dramatic, however, was the decline in Iraqi civilian, police and military deaths. The figure was 988 in September — 50 percent lower than the previous month and the lowest tally since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died. The Iraqi death count is considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual number is likely higher, as many killings go unreported. Nevertheless, the heartening numbers emerged just three weeks after U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and commander Gen. David Petraeus argued before a divided Congress that more time was needed for Iraq to begin seeing results from President Bush's dispatch of an additional 30,000 forces to pacify Baghdad and surrounding regions. On Monday they issued an unusual joint statement to the Iraqi people that credited them for the decline in violence. "We must maintain the momentum that together we have achieved. We are confident that you and your fellow citizens will continue to display determination, that Iraqi security forces will remain vigilant and that additional Iraqis will join our combined effort," they said. Their message opened with greetings to the Iraqi people during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims focus on their spiritual lives and fast from dawn to dusk. "Please know that we remain absolutely committed to this effort. ... Much work lies ahead of us. Despite the challenges, we can, together, achieve success," the two men wrote in the statement signed and dated by each. Of particular note, the message referred to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr by his honorific, Sayyid Muqtada. Sayyid is a title designating a religious figure as a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. "We also sincerely hope that the cease-fire declared by the Sayyid Muqtada will continue to be observed and be further extended to all members of Jaysh al-Mahdi (Arabic for Mahdi Army)," Crocker and Petraeus wrote. After a violent confrontation between the Mahdi Army and guards at a religious shrine in the holy city of Karbala in August, al-Sadr said he was standing down his fighters for six months to reorganize. Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for Petraeus, said there was "no silver bullet or one thing" responsible for the declining death tolls. But he credited increased U.S. troop strength, saying that had allowed American forces to step up operations against al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent and militia fighters. Anthony H. Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the Pentagon and analyst with the private Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the decline in violent deaths was a positive trend that does seem to be related to the increase in U.S. forces. But he said it was too early to know if it will last. "We tend to focus too much on killing rather than wounded, on extreme acts of violence rather than patterns of displacement or ethnic cleansing." He said that when looking at overall stability in Iraq, killings are only one measure. "This is, I think one of the great difficulties. It's a very complex pattern of fighting and people look for simple statistical bottom lines rather the overall pattern," he said. "You know you've won when you've won, not when you get the first set of positive indicators," he said. While civilian deaths were sharply lower last month, Baghdad remained the center of violence in percentage terms. For this year, 54 percent of all sectarian killings occurred in the capital and suburbs. That figure declined to just above 49 percent in September. For the year, the next two most violent regions were the provinces of Diyala and Nineveh. The number of civilian deaths in Baghdad, 487, also far outstripped any other region in September. Next highest was Diyala province, an al-Qaida sanctuary immediately north and east of the capital, where 124 civilians were killed. AP tallies civilian, Iraqi military and Iraqi police deaths each day as reported by police, hospital officials, morgue workers and verifiable witness accounts. The security personnel include Iraqi military, police and police recruits, and bodyguards. Insurgent deaths are not included. In the latest U.S. deaths, the military reported that an American soldier was killed and 10 were wounded Monday in combat operations in central Baghdad. The same day, a soldier was killed and another was wounded in a non-combat accident in Qadisiyah province. In Washington, Senator Joseph Biden issued a statement clarifying what he said were misconceptions about a nonbinding Senate resolution that passed last week under his cosponsorship. The resolution calls on the Bush administration to encourage the Iraqi government and parliament to adhere to the country's constitution, which lays out a plan for a loose confederation of regions under a limited central government, leaving the bulk of power with the regions. "Since then, some political leaders in Iraq have misunderstood the amendment. Instead of working to clear up any misunderstandings about the Senate amendment, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad issued a statement that dangerously mischaracterizes it," said Biden. He said the amendment, co-sponsored by Republican Senator Sam Brownback, "does not call for the partition of Iraq. To the contrary, it calls for keeping Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution. "Partition, or the complete break-up of Iraq, is something wholly different than federalism. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq, but one in which power is devolved to regional governments with a limited central government responsible for protecting Iraq's borders and oil distribution. "It leaves the door open for stronger unity if and when passions cool, as we're seeing in the Balkans. Nor does the amendment call for dividing Iraq along sectarian lines," Biden said, adding that the resolution only calls for Iraqis to implement their constitution. The U.S. Embassy joined a broad swath of Iraqi politicians — both Shiite and Sunni — in criticizing the resolution, seen here as a recipe for splitting the country along sectarian and ethnic lines. Biden contested the Embassy's assertion that the resolution could lead to "bloodshed and suffering" in Iraq and charged the Bush administration was "pursuing a fatally flawed policy in trying to create a strong central government in Iraq." Biden is a Democratic candidate for president; Brownback is seeking the Republican nomination.
In other words, AP reported Iraqi deaths is down 50% from a month ago. We don't know how much lower is the actual number of killings, not to mention other deaths due to destruction/deterioration of infrastructure or lack of medical facilities.
He was just pointing out a fact stated in the article... The figure was 988 in September — 50 percent lower than the previous month and the lowest tally since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.
Great news and a job well done by our troops. Sadly, expect the liberals to try to deny and discredit it.... what else is new....
While this is good news, i believe this report is flawed. Im really not that impressed with the results, givin that its numbers compared to a year ago. Basically the surge has slowed the insurgents momentum. This might be what was needed. What i would like to see is the number of incidents per month over the last couple years to really determine the effectiveness of the surge. And no, im not a bleeding heart liberal who is trying to discredit everything. I support what we are doing, but im not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend everything is going to get better from here on out.
and expect conservative facists to discredit and deny the viewpoints of anyone other than themselves. but what else is new...
So if we don't make progress, you want us to take our troops home. If we do make progress, you want us to take our troops home. Ok, so you really don't care what happens in Iraq, you just want the troops to come home - got it.
down 50% from... its progress but theres still a long way to go. read on time website that us is planning on signing a 10 year defense pact w/ iraq. i think we probably have to stay ~50 years before iraq reaches full stability. man thats gonna cost a lot of scrill.
Have you really? Because a few weeks ago, you posted this: Iraq remains a mess and it seems to me that there's not much to lead credence to a successful outcome. I think we need to develop an exit strategy that includes beginning to plan for partition of the country. Why the hurry for an exit strategy and a new plan to partition the country if you believe we should give the current strategy more time?
What's wrong with that? You want our troops to be there forever while you are sitting in the comfort of your own home?
Putting progress in the proper context is not dismissing it. You want to latch on to this 50% figure, but it's simply inaccurate to say "Iraq deaths down 50%!" Read the actual details of the article. And Cordesman says the following: Is he also dismissing progress?
I'm just saying, how can people be calling for a withdrawal of troops and calling Patreus a traitor when we're seeing such a stark improvement in both U.S. casualty and Iraqi citizens casualty. Should we allow the trend to play out and see what happens? Why does the left need to keep pushing their failure agenda and keep attacking Patreaus who clearly is doing the best job in iraq of any military leader thus far. Give the guy a chance to run the show, instead of moveon.org which doesn't know jack about military operations and fighting a war.
never said that. but it appears that by your logic, no one who isn't in the military has a right to advocate military operations? Thus, we should never go to any kind of war ever? ok!
great, so you should move to some repressive place because your values would have Hitler running the world.
