Feb 01 2008

Death Toll In Iraq Falls Or Stays Level

Published by at 9:50 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions,Iraq

Update: See all the numbers and graphs over at Gateway Pundit. Bottom line: Surge is still succeeding – end update

I noted in this earlier post that the threatened resurgence by al-Qaede during the months of December and January never has never really materialized. Yes, they did increase the US death toll in January back to levels seen in October and November, but they were not making it back to the days in early 2007 when al-Qaeda was at its peak strength, before the Awakening and the Surge. However, the Iraqi civilian casualties did drop in January:

Violent civilian deaths in Iraq fell again in January, figures showed on Thursday, and were significantly lower than a year ago after nationwide security crackdowns.

According to figures compiled by the interior, defence and health ministries, 466 civilians died violently during January, down 15 from the previous month.

The January 2008 figure was more than 76 percent lower than the 1,971 civilians killed in January 2007 when Iraq was on the brink of sectarian civil war.

The linked article does note the higher US death toll in January which ended up at 38 killed:

So far 38 U.S. soldiers have been reported killed in January, compared with 23 in December. The figure is much lower than a year ago when 83 died in a savage insurgency and sectarian violence between majority Shi’ites and Sunni Muslims.

Classic liberal spin. They ignore noting that the death rate is basically identical to the two months prior to January, as can be seen in the following graph:

The average death toll over the last four months is 34 per month. The fact is we are engaged in pushing out the remnants of al-Qaeda from Iraq. And this final hornets nest will include the best and most dangerous, because that is probably what is left of al-Qaeda after a year of being purged from the rest of Iraq and the ranks culled and their recruit line cut off (mostly of course). It is not surprise these last groups of al-Qaeda will not go down easily, but they will go down. The comparative death toll between our side and their side is probably 10+ to 1. That means they get 30 of ours and we get 300 of theirs. AQ promised a brilliant counter offensive against the US in December and January. They failed, and trust me everyone in Iraq and the region noticed that they failed. AQ is looking quite impotent right now.

On a side note even Time magazine is lauding the successes in Iraq – which tells me it is becoming more ‘mainstream’ to recognize the successes in Iraq. Which does not bode well for the dems in November.

5 responses so far

5 Responses to “Death Toll In Iraq Falls Or Stays Level”

  1. Jules Roy says:

    What about the death toll for Iraqis? According to a new survey by the Opinion Research Business more than ONE MILLION Iraqis have died as a result of America’s conquest of Iraq.


    I doubt that it will matter to the ideologues who supported the war. Like Lenin before them the Americans had to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

  2. Whippet1 says:

    You should have read the Gateway Pundit article…that new report you need to bolster your position was done by some of the same authors as the Lancet study that has been debunked by everyone.

    That’s how the anti-war people work. Create a lie and when the lie is discovered disquise yourself as something else and continue to promote the debunked lie.

    Use your common sense. 1 million Iraqis killed? And even if that number were magically correct, who killed them? And how many would have been dead if we hadn’t gone in?

  3. Jules Roy says:

    You should have read the Gateway Pundit article

    I’ll have a look.

    1 million Iraqis killed? And even if that number were magically correct, who killed them?

    They were killed as a direct result of the break down in order that was fully anticipated when the US destroyed the Iraqi state. The sectarian conflict was widely predicted – though genius Bill Kristol claimed that it was naive to expect Sunnis and Shias to go after each other.

    And how many would have been dead if we hadn’t gone in?

    Very few. Saddam had no serious threats as he had consolidated power. Massacres were not occurring in 2003 and there is no reason to believe any more in the future. The only deaths would have been from the sanctions, but I read an article in the left wing magazine The Nation which, surprisingly, showed that the number of deaths due to sanctions were exaggerated and were often sick people who would have died anyway. There was planty of order in Iraq in 2003 so much so that it was legal for ordinary people to buy rifles – something tyrannical dictator normally do not allow.

  4. Whippet1 says:

    First, as I said before it’s the same re-tooled debunked story from before.

    And of course it’s always America’s fault with you people. Yeah, no reason to trust the U.S.A but we know we can trust that sweetie Saddam!

    You read it in The Nation? I rest my case…..

  5. mj says:


    The link from the Reuters article you posted puts the insurgent death toll at 229 for January. This figure gives a 6:1 kill ratio (slightly lower than the 10:1 you speculated) Even if you factor in IP and IA deaths the coalition still maintains a 2:1 kill ratio. Of course both of these figures omits the 1200 insurgents now in coalition custody. Not too bad considering coalition forces launched a major offensive in four Iraqi provinces in January.


    ::aside:: this is my first post 🙂