Here is the number of deaths Iraqi security and non-Iraqi occupational forces in Iraq have suffered according to various time periods since the war began. From Iraq Coalition Causality Count:
Military and Security Fatalities in Iraq
Time Period
Days
American
Iraqi
Other
Total
Per Day
2/01/2007—today
202
636
1348
43
2027
10.03
12/15/2005—1/31/2007
412
933
2288
52
3273
7.94
1/31/2005—12/14/2005
318
715
2334
31
3080
9.69
6/29/2004—1/30/2005
216
580
544*
52
1176
5.44
5/20/2003—6/28/2004
423
718
861*
86
1665
3.93
3/20/2003—5/01/2003
43
140
NA
33
173
4.02
* = It is estimated that 1,300 Iraqi security personnel were killed before January 1st, 2005, but specific month by month dates are not available. As such, t number was divided evenly over time periods two and three.
Period 6: February 1 , 2007 through today's date. The surge or troop escalation.
Period 5: December 15, 2005 (the day after Iraq general elections) through January 31, 2007.
Period 4: January 31, 2005 (the day after Iraq Elections) through December 14, 2005
Period 3: June 29, 2004 (the day after the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq) through January 30, 2005 (Iraq Elections).
Period 2: May 2, 2003 through June 28, 2004 (the day of the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq).
Period 1: March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2003 (the end of major combat).
So, during the escalation, Iraqi Security forces and non-Iraqi coalition forces have suffered just over ten fatalities per day, the worst average of the entire war. And yet, it would appear that Pollack and O’Hanlon are writing the talking points for our frontrunners in 2008. John Edwards (emphasis mine):
Our military's hard-won progress in Al-Anbar province should not distract us from the fact that pouring more military resources into Iraq is no substitute for the comprehensive national political solution that will ultimately resolve the situation in Iraq.
What progress? This is the bloodiest period of the war. Barack Obama:
“My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our outstanding troops into Baghdad, that that's going to quell some of the violence, short term. I don't think that there's ever been any doubt about that.
No doubt? Then why is Iraq bloodier than it was before? Hillary Clinton:
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working," Clinton told the gathering of veterans in Kansas City, Mo., according to a New York Times account of the speech.
Define “working.” Iraq has been bloodier during the escalation than during any other time period. Are Democratic campaigns controlled by a foreign policy establishment that does not, in the end, tend to view matters like Iraq in a significantly different way than Pollack and O’ Hanlon? Are Democratic politicians so afraid of being tarred as “against the troops” that they bend over backwards to try and praise progress in Iraq? Are Democratic campaigns still largely unaware of how their statements will be used by the Republican Noise Machine to paint Democratic division in important upcoming legislative fights?
The answer to all of these questions is basically yes. The Democratic foreign policy establishment is still largely to the right of progressive activists, the Democratic Party rank and file, and the country as a whole. Among other things, that is why most members of said established supported the war in the first place, and still think large numbers of residual forces in Iraq are a good idea. Second, Democrats lost the first Iraq funding fight largely because many of them are still afraid of being tarred as “anti-troop,” and have never really engaged in any serious pushback against that talking point. Third, presidential campaigns are clearly out of sync with broader Democratic messaging on Iraq, largely because they are more interested in defining themselves to the public, and differentiating their candidates from each other, than they are in the struggle in end the war in Congress. Fortunately, there are signs of hope. From Chris Dodd:
"Despite the exemplary performance of our troops, we are coming off the bloodiest summer of this misguided war and it should be clear that there can be no military solution in Iraq.
"It is useless to argue the merits of a specific tactic when the strategy itself is failed.
"In fact, debating over military tactics when there is no military solution only undermines efforts by those of us who believe that we must change course in Iraq now and begin to immediately redeploy US combat forces so that Iraqi leaders will have the impetus to find a political accord."
A perfect statement, and one that should become the model of every Democratic campaign. It isn’t that hard. Just point out the obvious facts:
li>The war is getting bloodier;
No matter how well our strategy is carried out by our troops, it will stay bloodier;
Whatever tactics we use will not reduce the bloodshed;
The only solution is to redeploy troops out of Iraq.
As many have noted, even Ellen Tauscher is starting to get this. Building a progressive governing majority will require that all prominent Democrats learn to talk this well. there are some signs of progress, but given the statements yesterday from Clinton, Edwards and Obama, it is also obvious that there is still a lot of work to be done.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
