Despite hyping lower July death toll, network evening news programs silent on number of troop deaths this summer
SUMMARY: ABC's World News, CBS Evening News, and NBC's Nightly News reported that the death toll for U.S. service members in Iraq was down in July. But none of the programs noted at the time that U.S. troop death numbers for July, while lower than previous months, meant that this July was the deadliest July of the war. And none of the programs have reported the fact that the current number of troops killed in Iraq for the months of June, July, and August makes the summer of 2007 the bloodiest summer of the war for American soldiers.
On August 1, all three broadcast networks' evening news programs -- ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, and NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams -- reported that the death toll for U.S. service members in Iraq was down in July. In particular, on World News, anchor Charles Gibson pointed to the lower July death toll to ask, "[I]s it a sign the U.S. troop surge is improving the situation?" ABC News correspondent Terry McCarthy replied, "[I]t is difficult to say things are getting better in Iraq. Less bad is maybe more accurate." However, none of the programs noted at the time that U.S. troop death numbers for July, while lower than previous months, meant that this July was the deadliest July of the war. Nor did any of the news reports note that the death toll for U.S. service members during the months of June and July were the highest for this two-month period since the war began. Furthermore, while the current number of troops killed in Iraq for the months of June, July, and August (to date) makes the summer of 2007 the bloodiest summer of the war for American soldiers, a Media Matters for America review* of all three network evening news broadcasts found that none of them have reported this fact.
Statistics compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count on its website iCasualties.org show that more U.S. troops have died in Iraq during June, July, and August this year than the same three-month period in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006. The iCasualties.org website, which publishes death count totals provided by the Department of Defense, lists the current total U.S. death count for this period at 255.
From iCasualties.org:
June-July-August 2003: 113 Americans died
June-July-August 2004: 162 Americans died
June-July-August 2005: 217 Americans died
June-July-August 2006: 169 Americans died
June-July-August 2007: 255 Americans died (as of August 28)
According to iCasualties.org, July 2007 was the deadliest July for U.S. troops since the war began:
July 2003: 48 Americans died
July 2004: 54 Americans died
July 2005: 54 Americans died
July 2006: 43 Americans died
July 2007: 79 Americans died
Statistics from iCasualties.org also show that the two-month period of June and July 2007 was the deadliest June-July period of the war:
June-July 2003: 78 Americans died
June-July 2004: 96 Americans died
June-July 2005: 132 Americans died
June-July 2006: 104 Americans died
June-July 2007: 180 Americans died
On ABC, Gibson teased a segment that discussed the July casualty count by saying: "Surge success? U.S. deaths in July in Iraq at the lowest level of the year. Is that a good barometer of progress? And what does it say about the surge?" Gibson introduced the August 1 report by stating, "U.S. fatalities in July were at the lowest level in eight months, even though American forces have moved more aggressively against insurgents. Seventy-eight U.S. troops were killed in Iraq last month." Gibson added: "That's the lowest number of the year, but is it a sign the U.S. troop surge is improving the situation?" In the follow-up report, McCarthy stated that "it is difficult to say things are getting better in Iraq. Less bad is maybe more accurate." On the August 1 edition of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Allen Pizzey reported, "[F]or U.S. troops, July was the lowest casualty count in eight months -- 76 killed." Similarly, on the same night's broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams reported simply: "Also today, news that the 78 U.S. military deaths in July was the lowest monthly figure of the year." (The Department of Defense last announced U.S. military deaths that occurred in July on August 7, therefore the death toll numbers for July cited by the various networks varied.) The three networks' evening news programs' only reports on July's death tolls appear to have come during these three broadcasts. At no point did any of the reports put the July numbers into the historical context of the entire war.
From the August 1 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: Surge success? U.S. deaths in July in Iraq at the lowest level of the year. Is that a good barometer of progress? And what does it say about the surge?
[...]
Next to Iraq. U.S. fatalities in July were at the lowest level in eight months, even though American forces have moved more aggressively against insurgents. Seventy-eight U.S. troops were killed in Iraq last month. That's the lowest number of the year, but is it a sign the U.S. troop surge is improving the situation? ABC's Terry McCarthy is in Baghdad tonight.
McCARTHY: Charlie, it is difficult to say things are getting better in Iraq. Less bad is maybe more accurate. July's U.S. death toll may be down, but it still means more than two Americans dying here every day. The military says it expected casualties to go up, as the extra surge troops force their way into new areas.
From the August 1 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
PIZZEY: The U.S. military has been predicting an upsurge in spectacular attacks, and today they were proven right. A gas tanker blew up next to a line of cars waiting to get fuel in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood, killing at least 50 people and wounding more than 60. It came only hours after a car bomb killed 17 civilians and injured more than 30 in a predominantly Shiite area that had been considered one of the safer parts of Baghdad. An unofficial count by the Associated Press made July the second-deadliest month for Iraqis so far this year. In contrast, for U.S. troops, July was the lowest casualty count in eight months -- 76 killed. Three died Tuesday when they were hit by the type of armor-piercing bomb Iran is accused of supplying, and another was killed by gunfire.
From the August 1 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: Also today, news that the 78 U.S. military deaths in July was the lowest monthly figure of the year. That, by the way, includes four fallen Americans just yesterday. But civilian deaths in Iraq last month jumped by one-third. And there was new violence today, awful violence: three bomb attacks, including a truck in a -- a bomb in a fuel truck, rather, in Baghdad. That killed more than 65 people.
*A
Nexis search of ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News transcripts for terms show:
(World News) or show: (Nightly News) or show: (Evening News) and Iraq
from 7/31/2007-8/28/2007 yielded these results.
Apparently, sociologists can prove that violent areas have their violence rates increase and decrease seasonally, so MMFA is right to say that the comparison should be to previous Julys and not previous months in general.
Agree Dex, the death tolls should be viewed in their entire context, which should include years prior, as well as months prior.
Although I don't agree with MMFA's editorializing that the July numbers are being "hyped" by these newscasts, more like "reported".
"hyped"?
Where'd you see that? (hint: it ain't there)
Maybe it's you who's "editorializing".
What's more, as MMFA has documented over and over, the MSM have a clear record of not reporting ('cause that would require real journalism) and, instead, they've been acting as stenographers for The Dick & Duhhya Debacle.
Good puppies! Goooooood Puhhhh-peeees!
"hyping" is in the headline.
Gee, "hyping" is in the headline, so hint > it is there. Maybe you should read the actual thread before you rubberstamp it, just an idea?
Hyping is named in the headline
Drafted
Did you read the headline?
Despite hyping lower July death toll, network evening news programs silent on number of troop deaths this summer
To all of those above who can't fuggin' READ...
The word "hyped" does not appear. When using quotation marks, one is supposed to be referencing something that was actually written (or said).
The real point (avoided by all of you) is that just like they did in '02, '03 and every year since, the MSM is more often than not simply regurgitating the propaganda from Dick, Duhhbya and The Dogmaniacs.
Gooooood Puhhhh-peeees!
Your punctuation or grammatical argument is ridiculous. If that is your defense by saying "hyped" ain't here, you are just embarassing yourself, and looking foolish. But keep at it, it's almost entertaining.
I say again...
"The real point (avoided by all of you) is..."
You lost the argument so move on. This is not English class.
I say again...
"The real point (avoided by all of you) is..."
I'm enjoying it. This is truly ridiculous.
I personally think they did "hype" the lower death toll - I remember quite a few reports from July talking about lower casualties. I found myself asking, "Ok, In comparison to what" to which none of the initial reports gave any context.
Tommy, that goofy argument about the word hyped aside, I think you should defend your point that they are not hyping the lower death toll. They are clearly trying to make the point that the surge is somehow working because the deaths are supposedly down this month. That's what mm meant by using the word in the first place. Aren't you being obtuse as hell to just dismiss this and say they are just reporting it? (This is after all what this article was about) Thought maybe someone would want to discuss the actual point here.
WILLIAMS: Also today, news that the 78 U.S. military deaths in July was the lowest monthly figure of the year. That, by the way, includes four fallen Americans just yesterday. But civilian deaths in Iraq last month jumped by one-third. And there was new violence today, awful violence: three bomb attacks, including a truck in a -- a bomb in a fuel truck, rather, in Baghdad. That killed more than 65 people
In other words"not a big deal, the Bush war continues and we are feeding into the BS".
Wait, you included in your quote their report of an increase in civilian deaths, including editorial adjectives used to describe it, and you're saying they're supporting the war?
"And there was new violence today, awful violence:"
Yep. There's one of the editorial adjectives of which you speak that prove that they're anti-war. Now, had they said "..., lovely violence;", we would know that they're not liberally biased.
Stinkin' liberal media...
So discussing an increase in civilian deaths means they do not support the war? Most Americans could care less about the Iraqi people, thats what makes this war so sick is the countless Iraqis killed. They must look back and love the Saddam years when bombs are going off in marketplaces. Disgusting.
Perhaps it's not unusual that a post can go for 25 minutes and counting with not so much as a word uttered in comment.
Can any one summon words on this? I'm at a loss to describe how frustrated I am.
Ah, Ok, I don't hear crickets after all.
Data show no surge in safety in Iraq so far in 2007
BAGHDAD | The U.S. troop buildup has brought violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks nationwide is running nearly double the year-ago pace.
The data offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area.
In street-level terms, it means that life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable.
...
The findings include:
•Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths nationwide compared with last year — an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year.
•Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. The AP accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006.
•Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago.
link
Split'em up or let them fight it out.
What troubles me is the LACK of discussion about how many insurgents and terrorists are being killed by our forces. The press loves to jump on civilians that are killed, and they love to tout how many Americans have been killed. But they never talk about stories such as these. These are stories that all pool reporters have access to and CHOOSE not to report:
- Sunday, 26 August 2007 1-15 Infantry finds, destroys large enemy cache
- Sunday, 26 August 2007 11 terrorists killed, six suspects detained in Coalition operations
- Saturday, 25 August 2007 Iraqi citizens escape makeshift prison, CF find remains
- Saturday, 25 August 2007 Troops destroy cache in Southern Baghdad
- Saturday, 25 August 2007 Three terrorists killed, 17 suspects detained in Coalition raids
- Saturday, 25 August 2007 Iraqi Army, U.S. Special Forces detain rogue Jaysh al Mahdi leaders
- Saturday, 25 August 2007 Iraqi Security Forces, Iraqi Army Forces, U.S. Special Forces detain two key al-Qaeda in Iraq terror
- Friday, 24 August 2007 Al-Qaeda disrupted in Tigris River Valley: 7 terrorists killed, 12 suspects detained
- Friday, 24 August 2007 Two terrorists killed, 18 suspects detained in raids against car bomb networks
- Thursday, 23 August 2007 Insurgents target Coalition, but kill civilians
- Wednesday, 22 August 2007 Commando air assault detains suspected insurgent disguised as pregnant woman
- Wednesday, 22 August 2007 Tip leads to insurgent cache site
- Monday, 20 August 2007 Citizens turn in 4 caches
- Monday, 20 August 2007 Coalition Forces Kill Eight, Detain Three, Capturing a Special Groups Leader and Smuggler of Iranian
- Monday, 20 August 2007 Clearing operations in Samarra strike hard at insurgency
- Monday, 20 August 2007 Residents capture, turn over 11 suspected terrorists
War is a horrible thing, but so is biased reporting of said war.Considering the"bias" you speak of has been for the most part in support of the bush administration..
Then again why would anyone be surprised that the MSM is trying to cover it's butt at this stage since they cheer leaded this invasion and occupation based on the lies and distortions put out by the bush administration.
How does a reporter confirm those stories? The military states that we killed x-number of "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "al qaeda" and then locals and witnesses say that it was a wedding party or some women and children hanging out some laundry to dry. According to the military, everyone we kill is either an insurgent or a terrorist.
"According to the military, everyone we kill is either an insurgent or a terrorist."
I call BS. This kind of comment is not only untrue, it shows a certain disdain for the military that is easily exploited by the neo-cons. I'm not for this war, but I do support the troops. They're just keeping their heads down and trying not to get killed themselves.
I don't see this as anti-military at all. I would suppose that our guys naturally aren't shooting at anyone unless they think they are terrorists or insurgents. Of course, that doesn't mean they are always correct about it. How do we know such things for sure?
Do you think our soldiers are never mistaken about who they are shooting at and killing? Do you think such distinctions are even easy to make all of the time?
It is sad that the ennemy is not in a recognizable uniform. Our men are killing innocent people at times. But are they to blame? Maybe a few. But all these reports of our boys going up for murder is disgusting. I say, Jail those that make the policies, not out men and woman in unform.
It is sad that the enemy is not in a recognizable uniform. Our men are killing innocent people at times.
And thus the Vietnam comparison is complete.
This IS another Vietnam, another 360 degree warfront where the enemy can be anybody.
And, like Vietnam, it was avoidable.
WILL OUR LEADERS EVER LEARN????
Randy
I do not know much about Vietnam.
I do feel the leaders of today are pathetic greedy self serving vermin. <<<<< you mind if I call the right wing vermin?
evil,
Are there that many going up on murder charges? I admit I haven't seen much of that. I think it is important to make sure we don't become like our enemy - murdering/torturing innocent people or prisoners. We have certain rules that are there for a good reason. If the military suspects these rules were violated, they need to look into it. You and I should have the full faith and confidence that our military is conducting itself in a professional manner in accordance with the UCMJ, the Constitution and our treaties.
Yet our military is engaged in an obviously illegal war, operates torture chambers, kills civilians on a regular basis and lies about it, and has destroyed an entire city to avenge the death of four mercs....nope, they aren't obeying the laws of war at all.
Your comments seem to refer higher up the chain of command than what I am talking about. I view that seperately.
"I call BS. This kind of comment is not only untrue, it shows a certain disdain for the military that is easily exploited by the neo-cons. I'm not for this war, but I do support the troops. They're just keeping their heads down and trying not to get killed themselves."
Well, I do in fact have a certain measure of disdain for the military, but you've misrepresented my comment by countering with the old "I support the troops" slogan. When I say that the military reports civilian deaths as insurgent deaths, I'm not talking about the troops. The troops don't do any official reporting. My best friend is an active-duty Marine, and his unofficial reports back to me are ample enough evidence of the often jarring disconnect between what gets reported by military brass and what actual occurs on the ground. Surely this doesn't surprise you?
And not so incidentally, "The Troops" are not some single-brained halo-crowned soldier who is simply trying to keep his head down and not get killed. It's a tactic of the right to make "The Troops" out to be one unimpeachable holy being, but it's not true. Many of them are intelligent, ethical and kind-hearted, like my friend. Many others are morons and lunatics. Some are so f'ing beat down and crazy that they just don't give a sh*t anymore. Or they never did in the first place. They aren't all good guys, and it doesn't serve anyone except the military to pretend that they are.
Actually I think it a fair observation. Remember the wedding party we mistakenly wiped out? We killed Iraqs most famous wedding singer (its a cultural thing he was a big guy) The Military swore they were terrorists. Said they werent really having a wedding there. A reporter went there, got the VIDEO OF THE WEDDING, interviewed survivors, SEEN ON THE VIDEO, and the military continued to say it wasnt a wedding and they were terrorists. Obviously it was a mistake, we got some bad intel from someone settling a score or getting some smuggling competition taken out ( the wedding consolidated two families long in the smuggling business) Why not admit it? The evidence it was a mistake was ovewhelming yet a week later they were STILL denying it. No, I think it was a valid criticism.
In a previous quagmire, SE ASIA, the words body count were very important. Although high numbers were reported, they were never confirmed. Call in an artillary strike, expend numerous shells and at that point, multiply the number of shells by 2,3 or 4 and your have a body count. The only body count we can believe in Iraq is the number of DEAD AMERICAN or coalition soldiers---- No matter which media you want to believe.
See my post above.
What is the point of killing insurgents if it increases the violence? The US also counted the bodies killed in the Vietnam war. The government claimed that more dead Vietnamese meant the US was winning the war.
It didn't turn out to be even close to true then, and it certainly means nothing now.
I don't want to get into a body count. My point is that the press only reports the American casualties. Joe and Sally six pack that watch the news only hear this part and they whine that our boys are dying for nothing, when in fact they are winning a very difficult ground war. Reporting should be reporting, not opinionating. report data from both sides if you want the public to be informed. If you want to influence the public, continue with the opinionated news 'reporting.'
No, the troops aren't winning what you called the "ground war" (which was really fought in 2003). They are losing the war to stabilize Iraq, as the AP article I linked to shows.
As for the press not reporting the so-called good news, see Pete's post below. They do report how many insurgents US troops kill. It's just that this number doesn't mean anything.
winning a very difficult ground war.
CIVIL WAR!
The ground war has been over since Baghdad was taken.
We are currently baby sitting a religious, civil war.
The different sides have been at odds since 632 AD. I doubt that we have the ability to bring them together.
We've increased the American presence in Baghdad, but the dead from sectarian violence in other parts of the country has not abated.
"The press loves to jump on civilians that are killed, and they love to tout how many Americans have been killed. But they never talk about stories such as these."
Nope, they never do...
Monday, July 2 BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Two U.S. Army pilots were rescued Monday after their helicopter was shot down, south of Baghdad, a military statement released Tuesday said. An Apache attack helicopter was used in the rescue.
Thursday, June 28 (CNN) -- U.S.-led coalition and Afghan forces detained 16 militants and killed an undetermined number of others in raids targeting Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, a U.S. military statement said.
Tuesday, May 29 (CNN) Iraqi police and soldiers on Wednesday were slated to formally take over security responsibility for three provinces in Iraq's northern Kurdish region, according to the U.S. military.
Friday, August 17 BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. troops fought it out with insurgents over the last 24 hours in and near Tarmiya, one of the many volatile spots on the northern Baghdad outskirts, the military reported Friday. A U.S. soldier and 13 insurgents, including an armed female wearing a ski mask, were killed. Also, a boy was killed in a building during fighting. Many people were detained as well.
Friday, June 29 BAGHDAD (CNN) -- U.S.-led coalition forces killed an estimated 26 "secret cell terrorists" and captured another 17 during raids in Baghdad's Sadr City Saturday morning, according to a U.S. military statement.
Monday, June 18 BAGHDAD (CNN) -- The U.S. military early Tuesday launched a "large-scale" operation against al Qaeda in Iraq militants in the Baquba area, north of Baghdad, killing at least 22 enemy fighters, the Army said in a statement.
Wednesday, June 13 (CNN) -- U.S. and Afghan forces killed a suspected militant and detained three others, during a raid early Thursday in eastern Afghanistan, a U.S. military statement said.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 (CNN) U.S.-led coalition forces detained five suspected terrorists in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood Wednesday, including their cell leader, a U.S. military statement said.
I gave sixteen examples of stories that happened last week.
You listed eight stories that took place over a period of 80 days (May 29 - Aug 17).
Thank you for making my point. :-)
You're point was that they NEVER DO.
So your point was disproven.
And all I had to do was cite one source.
Those weren't stories. Those were unverified press releases from the Multi-National forces.
It is not the job of the media to simply repeat everything the military says. I think we can agree that there is a danger that propaganda may be involved in some of those press-releases.
Backup link:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=4&Itemid=128
Because in Vietnam we tracked progress by body counts, the Bush administration decided to eschew the "butcher's bill" tabulations.
Instead, they have opted for repeating the word "progress" over and over again until it has lost all meaning.
Like the Iraq war itself.
Randy
I guess American troops killing insurgents is a good thing....like when Nazi troops shot French or Polish resistance, right?
stupid mesage board... sorry for the formating. It WAS a bulleted list when I previewed the message.
Same point.. ugly text.
You should have also provided your source to let us know where you got your press releases.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=4&Itemid=128
Basically I think the news outlets don't like the letters or lower ratings of bad news. But there has to be a downside to this cheerleading, BushieCo being a primary example.
Reporters for the MSM are mostly human beings who want to keep their jobs. They know that their upper level managers and company executives do not want rigorous analysis of any stories if such analysis undermines the standing of Republicans or center Democrats (like Clinton). Read the autobiographies of journalists, like Tom Wicker's, and you can easily understand what is going on. I am sure most TV newscasters know better. And some might even remember that courageous broadcasters, like Edward R. Murrow, were marginalized by their bosses. Its the institutions--the networks, the owners of the WAPO and the now decrepit New York Times--that set the tone for their employees.
True and it ain't gonna change as long as the few in power/money aim to keep it.
from August 27, 2007 headlines at Democracy Now:
Death Toll, Internally Displaced Up 100% in Iraq New figures highlight a worsening humanitarian crisis in Iraq. The Associated Press reports the death toll for Iraqi civilians is double what it was a year ago. Estimates show Iraq is suffering an average sixty-two deaths per day, up from thirty-three last year. Meanwhile the Iraqi Red Crescent reports the number of internally displaced Iraqis has also doubled over the course of the so-called U.S. troop surge. More than 1.1 million Iraqis are now internally-displaced, up from under four-hundred fifty thousand earlier this year.
Number of Prisoners Rises 50% During Iraq “Surge” The number of prisoners in U.S.-run jails in Iraq has also increased by fifty-percent under the so-called surge. The U.S. military is now holding some twenty-four thousand, five-hundred prisoners -- up from sixteen thousand earlier this year. Less than three hundred are from countries other than Iraq. Military spokesperson Captain John Fleming says the primary motivator for imprisoned insurgents is economic because they don’t have jobs.
National Guard Members Applaud Call for Iraq WithdrawalIn Puerto Rico, a call for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq earned a standing ovation Saturday at a conference of more than four thousand National Guard. Speaking at the opening of the National Guard Association general conference, Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila said the war in Iraq is needlessly risking the lives of U.S. troops and damaging the U.S. abroad. He said: ‘‘The daily death toll of Americans and their allies has caused irreparable anguish here in Puerto Rico, and throughout the country. The same could be said for the people of Iraq.”
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/27/1425221&mode=thread&tid=25
Please tell us what is working about this surge? More and more officers are coming out saying, IT IS NOT WORKING!!! Those are not liberals or Democrats, most are life long conservative Repubs.70% of Iraqis want us out, the majority of the Iraqi Parliment want us out, 70% of our troops want us out, almost 70% of the American people want us out.Now, as for sucess. More troops dying than any months since nov. 204. 127 last month, 20 confirmed and 12 uncomfirmed already for this month.Almost 2000 Iraqis last month. 276 already this month. Turkey is ready to invade Kirkuk, in N. Iraq. One provence has tripled in attacks and it's commander is asking for more troops. Bagdad is out of control in 3/4 ths of it's city. The 'green zone' is being attacked so many times that the people have to wear vests and helmets all of the time, the parliment was hit last week, 1 1/2 million are homeless in Iraq, 2 million are refugees and 1-3/4 million are dead. They still don't have sewer, electricity, potable water, adequate medical aid or decent infrastructure.Torture and death squads continue.However, good news!! The largest, most expensive and most fortified embassy in the world will be complete Sept 2007, in bagdad, complete with swimming pools, electricity, water supply, sewer system, tennis , volleyball, and basketball courts, 16,000square foot embassador's quarters, 9,000 sq ft aide's quarters, and it's the USA's. Can you imagine how happy that makes all of those Iraqis?So wake up, stop believing people that are putting out propaganda to keep the war going or people that have never been out to Falujah or unescorted in Baghdad.It doesn't take a mental giant to figure it out.....they lied then...they are lying now. They need that carbon law that gives 80% of the Iraqi oil to the US oil corps.We started with 100,000-120,000 American troops.
We trained 350,000 Iraqi troops.
We pay 120,000+ mercenaries. (not with the original US forces)
We have added at least 20,000 American troops.
That is a 'surge' of at least, 490,000 new troops.
The total number, fighting for the Iraqi government...appx. 610,000 with 28,000+ more planned, making a total of 638,000.
By all accounts, Iraq is worse off than ever.
How is a 28,000 troop 'surge' going to fix it?
It's like the business man talking to his accountant. The accountant tells him, 'The product costs us $2 to produce, and we are selling it for $1, something has to be done." The owner replies, "What we need, is more volume."
-------------------------------------------------------
The first 3 months of 2007 have been the blodiest since 2004.2004......1.30 average deaths for first 3 months.2005......2.16 " " 2006.......1.732007........2.80Wounded unable to return to action within 3 days 2007:January.....151Febuary.....193March........306 March was first month of the 'surge'. HOW CAN THE 'SURGE' BE WORKING?This is a list of only US deaths in Iraq. As you can see, it doesn't add up to the reduction of US deaths that is being touted by the leaders and their media. March April May June July August07 81 104 126 101 81 7506 31 76 69 61 43 6505 35 52 80 78 54 8504 52 135 80 42 54 6603 65 74 37 30 48 35Another thing that jumped out at me is this:Wounded and medical evacuations As reported by the DoD as of 6/30/2007 Wounded - Medical Air Transport Required 5,798 150 1,931 70 ---7,949 Diseases/Other Medical - Medical Air Transport Required 17,532 --620 1,302 ---911----- total 20,365 17,532 is Army. On ground in Iraq. The next highest is the marines with 1,302.Why are there so many disease air evacs?Why mostly on ground, in Iraq, troops?Water borne disease? Food poisoning? Depleted uranium? Vaccinations?