The Security Tightrope In Iraq
One thing both critics and supports of the Iraq War must acknowledge: coalition casualties are way, way down. Another thing both sides can agree on: the average Iraqi faces an unacceptably high risk of premature death at the hands of terrorists and factional militias. In the face of the clearly intolerable death toll, President Talabani is appealing for an end to the sectarian violence:
President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday that nearly 1,100 bodies were found in Baghdad last month, the victims of executions, and urged Iraq’s feuding factions to unite against surging crime and terrorism.
Talabani said in a statement that the 1,091 bodies found in the Baghdad area in April were the tip of the iceberg.
“We feel shock, dismay and anger over the daily reports of the discovery of unidentified corpses and those of others killed” around the capital, he said.
“If we add this to the number of corpses that are not discovered, or to similar crimes in other provinces, then the total number … reflects that we are confronting a situation no less dangerous than the results of terrorist acts” such as car bombings and other attacks.
Scores of unidentified bodies turn up around the capital on a daily basis, many bound, tortured and shot execution style in what officials say is an unwavering tide of reprisal sectarian killings.
At least 3,525 Iraqis have been killed in war-related violence this year. These numbers include civilians, government officials, and police and security officials, and are considered only a minimum based on Associated Press reporting.
This has a familiar ring to it, if you think back to the ’80s and Central America, and the ’90s and Africa. A power vacuum has created an almost total lack of basic security. The best thing that could happen, and we must support this goal with our hearts and souls, is to get a strong central government established quickly. Whether it is ostensibly pro- or anti-American is hardly the point; the only matter of imoprtance is that it enjoy enough support to weather the inevitable backlash when it cracks down on the factional militias.
The only matter of importance? No, not quite…it must be democratic in nature. The trap here that must be avoided is the creation of a Saddam, Jr., or a Noriega, or warlord/head of state, or a military dictatorship. This is the tightrope I refer to – how to establish a central government powerful enough to stomp out the militias, and democratic enough to avoid autocracy…
“Coalition casualties are way, way down:” April was the deadliest month yet this year for American soldiers.
“The average Iraqi faces an unacceptably high risk of premature death at the hands of terrorists and factional militias:” also from kidnappers. An article in last Sunday’s Times about a man who was nearly killed by kidnappers (until they found out they had the wrong person) points out that Iraq now has a thriving kidnapping industry.
Yes, and one month does not a trend make – what is the trendline, peter?…
The trendline is flat. In the 38 months since we invaded Iraq, 2,426 Americans have died (average of 64 per month). In the first four months of 2006, 225 soldiers have died, or an average of 56 per month, with 76 deaths in April.
The statement that “coalition casualties are way, way down” is simply untrue.
Well, as crisis mode continues at work, I don’t have the time to look, but you realize, of course, that casualties include wounded – if I was talking only deaths, I would have said fatalities. I’ll try to get the figures later – if work ever settles down – grrrr!!!!
Similar story: average wounded per month has been 470 since the start of the war, compared to 380 wounded per month in 2006.
I’ll have to accept your figures for now – but a link would be nice!…
http://icasualties.org/oif/
All right – I’ll check it out this evening!
Peter, after a little digging, we find that your site is run and funded by this person –
http://testpatterns.typepad.com/test_patterns/
Just a little biased, one could say. Here’s something a little more objective:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
These guys are used by much of the MSM these days – I’ve seen their personnel interviewed by Leher on PBS as well. To date, I’ve seen no repudiation of their information – gathering techniques and summations.
Where did you find this site? It looks quite suspect – they don’t disclose who’s behind it, and they claim that “individual contributions” keep the site going. I also like the “support the military” tag line at the bottom – right, of course they do.
Here’s another site that’s frequently referred to by news outlets:
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Scroll down the PDF file to the third page, headlined “US Troop Fatalities” for a more up – to – date summary.
dmac – I find myself in the odd position (are you listening, peter? There’s a first time for everything) of defending peter on this one – Iraqi Casualty Count has been referred to approvingly in terms of their methodology (in other words, they don’t seem to pad the casualty counts beyond official stats). Having said that, the more the merrier as far as sources go – I’ve been meaning to do a followup with the latest Brookings numbers and (not to sound like a broken record) my work has just been so crazy that my posting time has been severely crunched. Maybe this evening…
I never heard of the site until this morning when it came up in a google search, and it lists the Dept of Defense as its source — since the total fatality toll matches what has been reported elsewhere, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the monthly totals are accurate transcriptions of DOD data –
If anyone’s interested, here’s a link on Iraqi Casualty Count’s methodology…
Fair enough – I guess we can average the numbers and see what we can come up with. I’m interested in what the real story is, whether it’s a bad or good trendline.