General: Death toll down as U.S., Iraq forces take control

NCfan

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. troop casualty figures in Iraq that jumped this spring have been gradually dropping because U.S. and Iraqi forces are stabilizing volatile and dangerous areas, a U.S. commander said Thursday.


Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, left, talks with Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek in Baquba, Iraq, on July 13.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commanding general of the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, called the development in recent weeks "an initial positive sign."

"This is what we thought would happen once we get control of the real key areas that are controlled by these terrorists," Odierno said at a press conference.

At the same time, he said, "I need a bit more time to make an assessment of whether it's a true trend or not."

So far in July, 62 U.S. troops have died, according to Pentagon figures compiled by CNN.

If that pace continues, July will have the lowest monthly death toll this year, a period in which U.S. troop strength has escalated and U.S.-led offensives have been launched in Baghdad and in regions around the capital.

The previous three months were the deadliest three-month stretch in the war, with 104 deaths in April, 126 in May and 101 in June. There were 83 deaths in January and 81 each in February and March.

Odierno said troops went into regions they "had not been in for a long time and they were safe havens that had been established by extremists."

"We've now gone into those areas with Iraqi security forces and going into these areas we knew would be tough in the beginning,. We've now taken control of these areas. Since then, we've now started to see a slow, gradual reduction in casualties. And it continues in July."

Odierno, who briefed reporters with Iraqi military commander Lt. Gen. Abud Qanbar, also reiterated U.S. claims that militants in Iraq are getting help from elements in Iran.

"We have seen in the last three months a significant improvement in the capability of mortar men and rocketeers to provide accurate fires into the Green Zone and other places. We think this is directly related to training that was conducted in Iran," Odierno said. E-mail to a friend

John Budge

Can you provide a link for this propaganda?

CorporateWhore

Even if Iraq turns out to be a big success and they eradicate Al Qaeda and become a strong democracy, we still had no interest in going there.

But that's also a big "if."

The war drum is beating for Iran now...

FredFlintstone

The Iraq war will continue to create more "terrorists" every day.
The logic of war supporters is insanely flawed and ill-conceived.

Until we address the REAL root causes of terrorism, including our buddies in the Saudi and Pakistani "governments" (i.e. U.S. financial partners) we will never stop the bullshit. Certainly invading Muslim countries unprovoked and blowing the place to shit isn't a good start.

But some people feel comforted knowing other people are being killed. As if that is some barometer in this struggle against the Jihadists. They will just keep creating more of them - they have plenty of ammunition to get these young Muslims angry, thanks in part to the Bus/Cheney cabal

FredFlintstone

CorporateWhore wrote:

Even if Iraq turns out to be a big success and they eradicate Al Qaeda and become a strong democracy, we still had no interest in going there.

But that's also a big "if."

The war drum is beating for Iran now...

A strong democracy certainly doesn't preclude a country from having Al Qaeda cells or activities. See US, Spain, England, Australia, France, etc.

John Budge

Interesting that US casualties are only brought to light when it suits the cause.

CorporateWhore

FredFlintstone wrote:

A strong democracy certainly doesn't preclude a country from having Al Qaeda cells or activities. See US, Spain, England, Australia, France, etc.

Certainly true. The U.S. has had Timothy McVeigh and even Puerto Rican nationalist terrorists. Home grown.

Democracy is not terrorism repellent by any means.

FredFlintstone

CorporateWhore wrote:

Certainly true. The U.S. has had Timothy McVeigh and even Puerto Rican nationalist terrorists. Home grown.

Democracy is not terrorism repellent by any means.

Yep and let us not forget that the whole "freedom march" crock of bullshit only was introduced after we didnt find the magical WMD's that Saddam was going to use on your children and pets from his palace halfway across the globe. The invasion was a politically and ideologically conceived idea from ppl with no military background and no horses in the race (except financiall of course).

FiveB247x

I read recently that the US tallies are incorrect because of the parameters they use. For example, they like say bombings are down in Iraq, but what they don't tell you is they do not count the use of land mine/explosives (pre-positioned explosives) in their equation (which account for the majority of bombings). It's contrived rhetoric in the version of fuzzy math.

NCfan

FredFlintstone wrote:

Yep and let us not forget that the whole "freedom march" crock of bullshit only was introduced after we didnt find the magical WMD's that Saddam was going to use on your children and pets from his palace halfway across the globe. The invasion was a politically and ideologically conceived idea from ppl with no military background and no horses in the race (except financiall of course).

Of course, let's not forget that! Most of you anti-war people are the same. It's like whack-a-mole stragety to debate you guys.

No matter what our side says, you can always fall back to we were lied to in the first place. Or even more of a stretch, that Bush stole the election in 2000. You always have something to say...

I love the whole "we weren't supposed to be there anyways" argument - as if that has any bearing on getting us out now. It's sort of like we are starving in the desert with no food, but suddenly I produce an egg and agree that we will cook it sunny-side up, but instead I give it to you srambled - and you get pissed cause i lied to you so you refuse to eat it. And I tell you that I'm sorry, but I scrambled the egg and you should eat it anyways becuase you are starving - but you won't shut up about being lied to long enough to see that what I'm saying makes sense! Or really, you know what I'm saying is true, that you should eat the egg, but you won't do it just to spite the chef cuase you don't like them.

NCfan

CorporateWhore wrote:

Even if Iraq turns out to be a big success and they eradicate Al Qaeda and become a strong democracy, we still had no interest in going there.

But that's also a big "if."

The war drum is beating for Iran now...

The war drum is NOT beating for Iran right now, and it pisses me off when people try to say it is.... The mother-fucking DIPLOMACY drum is beating and has been beating like made for the past 2 years!!!!

The ONLY thing that the Bush admin has done remotely hostile is to say that all options are on the table - that's it.... and you guys run away with that and say that Bush is having wet dreams at night about invading Iran. You guys just can't be taken seriously.... I mean how the hell is America supposed to find common ground and be so divided if you guys on the left are gonna be so irresponsible with your words and slander the conservative leaders???

1970RR

NCfan wrote:

The war drum is NOT beating for Iran right now, and it pisses me off when people try to say it is.... The mother-fucking DIPLOMACY drum is beating and has been beating like made for the past 2 years!!!!

The ONLY thing that the Bush admin has done remotely hostile is to say that all options are on the table - that's it.... and you guys run away with that and say that Bush is having wet dreams at night about invading Iran. You guys just can't be taken seriously.... I mean how the hell is America supposed to find common ground and be so divided if you guys on the left are gonna be so irresponsible with your words and slander the conservative leaders???

From your article:
Odierno, who briefed reporters with Iraqi military commander Lt. Gen. Abud Qanbar, also reiterated U.S. claims that militants in Iraq are getting help from elements in Iran.
"We have seen in the last three months a significant improvement in the capability of mortar men and rocketeers to provide accurate fires into the Green Zone and other places. We think this is directly related to training that was conducted in Iran," Odierno said. E-mail to a friend.

Maybe not a war drum, but at least a rimshot.

FredFlintstone

NCfan wrote:

Of course, let's not forget that! Most of you anti-war people are the same. It's like whack-a-mole stragety to debate you guys.

No matter what our side says, you can always fall back to we were lied to in the first place. Or even more of a stretch, that Bush stole the election in 2000. You always have something to say...

I love the whole "we weren't supposed to be there anyways" argument - as if that has any bearing on getting us out now. It's sort of like we are starving in the desert with no food, but suddenly I produce an egg and agree that we will cook it sunny-side up, but instead I give it to you srambled - and you get pissed cause i lied to you so you refuse to eat it. And I tell you that I'm sorry, but I scrambled the egg and you should eat it anyways becuase you are starving - but you won't shut up about being lied to long enough to see that what I'm saying makes sense! Or really, you know what I'm saying is true, that you should eat the egg, but you won't do it just to spite the chef cuase you don't like them.

Double post

FredFlintstone

NCfan wrote:

Of course, let's not forget that! Most of you anti-war people are the same. It's like whack-a-mole stragety to debate you guys.

No matter what our side says, you can always fall back to we were lied to in the first place. Or even more of a stretch, that Bush stole the election in 2000. You always have something to say...

I love the whole "we weren't supposed to be there anyways" argument - as if that has any bearing on getting us out now. It's sort of like we are starving in the desert with no food, but suddenly I produce an egg and agree that we will cook it sunny-side up, but instead I give it to you srambled - and you get pissed cause i lied to you so you refuse to eat it. And I tell you that I'm sorry, but I scrambled the egg and you should eat it anyways becuase you are starving - but you won't shut up about being lied to long enough to see that what I'm saying makes sense! Or really, you know what I'm saying is true, that you should eat the egg, but you won't do it just to spite the chef cuase you don't like them.

Great analogy!! Brilliant! Now simply substitute an egg for say, oh, 100,000 wounded and dead then we'll talk. Why are you so casual with lives and death>? Could it be because it doesn't affect your daliy life behind your computer?

You should head over to Iraq for a 2 year tour.
Its a volunteer army so who the fuck cares why we went there -they signed up for it!

Go to Iraq and fight then lecture me about how the anti war crowd is weak minded blah blah.

Didn't think so - much easier to support a war when you aren't the ones fighting it (also known as the Bush/Cheney routine)

FiveB247x

In regards to your comments about the "chef and egg" scenario. You left out one little part: what if the chef doesn't listen to anyone but the select few who are in his kitchen? How many times has Bush gone against the majority of Congress and the citizens of the nation to further what he believes to be the correct path? Almost every realistic military expert who's either their serving, or asked about this topic, strongly disagree with the White house's strategy and furthermore explain why it's a no-win scenario, which is why a decision must be made compared to holding out for some 'benchmarks' - all the while as the situation gets worse and worse? That's certainly not a well thought out or logical plan by the President or the W.H., but it's what is told to the public as if one day things will magically get better. You talk of "spite", but dragging your feet while sticking to recipe for disaster is exactly something to marvel at or jump on board for..

NCfan wrote:

Of course, let's not forget that! Most of you anti-war people are the same. It's like whack-a-mole stragety to debate you guys.

No matter what our side says, you can always fall back to we were lied to in the first place. Or even more of a stretch, that Bush stole the election in 2000. You always have something to say...

I love the whole "we weren't supposed to be there anyways" argument - as if that has any bearing on getting us out now. It's sort of like we are starving in the desert with no food, but suddenly I produce an egg and agree that we will cook it sunny-side up, but instead I give it to you srambled - and you get pissed cause i lied to you so you refuse to eat it. And I tell you that I'm sorry, but I scrambled the egg and you should eat it anyways becuase you are starving - but you won't shut up about being lied to long enough to see that what I'm saying makes sense! Or really, you know what I'm saying is true, that you should eat the egg, but you won't do it just to spite the chef cuase you don't like them.

Abookamongstthemany

I don't care if the death poll dropped to just one a month, that's one too many, it's a drain on our tax money, we have no business being over there and I want our troops home now.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

John Budge wrote:

Can you provide a link for this propaganda?

I was going to say...the I saw CNN and figured oh here's some bullshit ...see were really winning and now we need to go to Iran to win because they are there toooooo

what a fat steaming load

John Budge

NCfan wrote:

Of course, let's not forget that! Most of you anti-war people are the same. It's like whack-a-mole stragety to debate you guys.

No matter what our side says, you can always fall back to we were lied to in the first place. Or even more of a stretch, that Bush stole the election in 2000. You always have something to say...

I love the whole "we weren't supposed to be there anyways" argument - as if that has any bearing on getting us out now. It's sort of like we are starving in the desert with no food, but suddenly I produce an egg and agree that we will cook it sunny-side up, but instead I give it to you srambled - and you get pissed cause i lied to you so you refuse to eat it. And I tell you that I'm sorry, but I scrambled the egg and you should eat it anyways becuase you are starving - but you won't shut up about being lied to long enough to see that what I'm saying makes sense! Or really, you know what I'm saying is true, that you should eat the egg, but you won't do it just to spite the chef cuase you don't like them.

What a load of dung.

inmytree

NCfan wrote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. troop casualty figures in Iraq that jumped this spring have been gradually dropping because U.S. and Iraqi forces are stabilizing volatile and dangerous areas, a U.S. commander said Thursday.


Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, left, talks with Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek in Baquba, Iraq, on July 13.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commanding general of the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, called the development in recent weeks "an initial positive sign."

"This is what we thought would happen once we get control of the real key areas that are controlled by these terrorists," Odierno said at a press conference.

At the same time, he said, "I need a bit more time to make an assessment of whether it's a true trend or not."

So far in July, 62 U.S. troops have died, according to Pentagon figures compiled by CNN.

If that pace continues, July will have the lowest monthly death toll this year, a period in which U.S. troop strength has escalated and U.S.-led offensives have been launched in Baghdad and in regions around the capital.

The previous three months were the deadliest three-month stretch in the war, with 104 deaths in April, 126 in May and 101 in June. There were 83 deaths in January and 81 each in February and March.

Odierno said troops went into regions they "had not been in for a long time and they were safe havens that had been established by extremists."

"We've now gone into those areas with Iraqi security forces and going into these areas we knew would be tough in the beginning,. We've now taken control of these areas. Since then, we've now started to see a slow, gradual reduction in casualties. And it continues in July."

Odierno, who briefed reporters with Iraqi military commander Lt. Gen. Abud Qanbar, also reiterated U.S. claims that militants in Iraq are getting help from elements in Iran.

"We have seen in the last three months a significant improvement in the capability of mortar men and rocketeers to provide accurate fires into the Green Zone and other places. We think this is directly related to training that was conducted in Iran," Odierno said. E-mail to a friend

sweeeeeet...!!!!

I guess the occupation is over and terror has been defeated...

great news, indeed...!!

NCfan

FiveB247x wrote:

In regards to your comments about the "chef and egg" scenario. You left out one little part: what if the chef doesn't listen to anyone but the select few who are in his kitchen? How many times has Bush gone against the majority of Congress and the citizens of the nation to further what he believes to be the correct path? Almost every realistic military expert who's either their serving, or asked about this topic, strongly disagree with the White house's strategy and furthermore explain why it's a no-win scenario, which is why a decision must be made compared to holding out for some 'benchmarks' - all the while as the situation gets worse and worse? That's certainly not a well thought out or logical plan by the President or the W.H., but it's what is told to the public as if one day things will magically get better. You talk of "spite", but dragging your feet while sticking to recipe for disaster is exactly something to marvel at or jump on board for..

Not sure I agree that the situation is getting "worse and worse". Iraq is a place that is going to get worse before it gets better, anybody will agree on that. We are not going to wake up one day and magically everybody over there is going to get along. There will be better days, weeks and months than others, but there will always be violence in the country for a long, long time to come - no matter what anybody does.

What I see is a nation, a world that is waiting on the US. Everybody in Iraq, from the militias, to the Islamic radicals, to the ordinary citizens, to the politicians are just waiting to see what the US is going to do. Are we going to stay, or are we going to leave - this more than anything will determine the fate and future of Iraq. And in turn many people's power, wealth and life depend upon this decision. So I don't believe we will see REAL results in Iraq until America decides what we are going to do. As it looks to everyone now, it is just a matter of time before we leave.

In the US, this has been the MAIN political discourse for the past 3 years with respect to Iraq.

A solid majority of the American congress authorized the war, and a solid majority of American's supported the war. When we found out there were no WMD's, all hell broke loose and the Dems and libs saw that as their chance to pounce on a vulnerable oposition. I'm not saying this was the wrong thing to do. I believe in dissent, and I belieive in holding people accountable.

What I don't believe in is stooping to the level where the leaders of the free world are so childish, so calous, so fucking cheap with their words and rhetoric that they have totally forgot to LEAD. None of them are fucking leaders... they are all just pandering, self-centered fucks who want power and legacy. All of them!

So most Americans have been sitting around listening and watching politicians make pure asses of themselves (on both sides, at the highest levels) trying to discredit the other. And Americans are sick of it and we are lost. We are sick of Bush and his missmanagement, we are sick of the Dems taking cheap shots. And we are taking it out on each other...

The mission is noble, and it is worth it. It will save far more lives to see this through now than to leave a fractured state in the world's most important region to fester in abandonment by the West. And take note there I said 'The West", because most of Europe has abondoned this effort.

Where the fuck is the UN here? Where the fuck is NATO or the EU? If I remember correctly a few years ago, America was the one keeping Christians from murdering Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo while the Europeans did nothing.

Sometimes you have to man up and take action. If we could send overwhelming man and firepower to the region. If the whole world united behind this we wouldn't be looking at another Lebanon civil war, or Palestine 2.0 - something that we take lives and create oppresion and instability for the next 30 years.

Take action, do it now, fix what we all know is broken.

Cosmo

NCfan wrote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. troop casualty figures in Iraq that jumped this spring have been gradually dropping because U.S. and Iraqi forces are stabilizing volatile and dangerous areas, a U.S. commander said Thursday.


Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, left, talks with Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek in Baquba, Iraq, on July 13.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commanding general of the Multi-National Corps-Iraq, called the development in recent weeks "an initial positive sign."

"This is what we thought would happen once we get control of the real key areas that are controlled by these terrorists," Odierno said at a press conference.

At the same time, he said, "I need a bit more time to make an assessment of whether it's a true trend or not."

So far in July, 62 U.S. troops have died, according to Pentagon figures compiled by CNN.

If that pace continues, July will have the lowest monthly death toll this year, a period in which U.S. troop strength has escalated and U.S.-led offensives have been launched in Baghdad and in regions around the capital.

The previous three months were the deadliest three-month stretch in the war, with 104 deaths in April, 126 in May and 101 in June. There were 83 deaths in January and 81 each in February and March.

Odierno said troops went into regions they "had not been in for a long time and they were safe havens that had been established by extremists."

"We've now gone into those areas with Iraqi security forces and going into these areas we knew would be tough in the beginning,. We've now taken control of these areas. Since then, we've now started to see a slow, gradual reduction in casualties. And it continues in July."

Odierno, who briefed reporters with Iraqi military commander Lt. Gen. Abud Qanbar, also reiterated U.S. claims that militants in Iraq are getting help from elements in Iran.

"We have seen in the last three months a significant improvement in the capability of mortar men and rocketeers to provide accurate fires into the Green Zone and other places. We think this is directly related to training that was conducted in Iran," Odierno said. E-mail to a friend

...
I don't like to keep harping on this... but, no one ever answers these questions...
What happens next? The greater number of troops on the ground results in a lower number of casualties... GREAT!!! But, what does that mean? Does it mean we have to sustain that number of troops? If so, for how long? What happens when we draw down? Will the violence increase? Would that mean we have to send the ones we withdraw, back in? Is this a surge or an escalation?
...
And my answer to the lower number of casualties due to the increased number of ground troops... DUH. That has ALWAYS been the case. Overwhelming numbers of troops with overwhelming firepower is needed and has always been needed. Security is the number one priority and has always been the number one priority. Nothing else can occur unless the place is secured.
And finally... what is your best guess estimate of U.S. military involvement in Iraq? Mine is about 12 to 20 years at best. Multiply that by 12 billion dollars per month and factor in inflation and there is your cost of Freedom in dollars.
The cost in human lives has no dollar value, but, be sure... the death toll will increase.