Here's an interesting tidbit

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

It may be hard to see (click the graphic to enlarge it), but the blue line is US military deaths due to hostile action; the red line, Iraqi military deaths due to hostile action; and the green line, total civilian deaths due to hostile action, by month, for the last six months.

Notice that US fatalities have been cut by nearly two thirds, but that Iraqi military fatalities are holding steady (in the face of their increasing exposure.) Notice in particular that if we plotted these as a percentage of the forces involved, then the Iraqi force numbers would be dropping dramatically.

Data from the Brookings Institution. Hints from Instapundit and My Election Analysis.

We're winning ... in Iraq.


CF said...

Thanks--I read that Brrokings piece with interest and it is so much clearer in chart form. (Why weren't you there to help me when we learned charting which I cannot do?)

Some are already arguing that the dip in fatalaities is a political issue--that we have deliberately pulled our people out of the line of fire, but I am more optimistic. I think we have figured out how to deal with this kind of warfare and we are letting the now-trained Iraqis carry more of the load.

Seneca the Younger said...

Actually, Clarice, with a little more time that I didn't have last night --- I had trouble getting that chart 'cause I was falling asleep at the keys --- we could have a clearer exposition, but the answer to your question is actually in the chart. First, your supposition is right: we're not only letting the Iraqis carry more of he load, but the Coaltion is getting better at it in general. Not only have US fatalities dropped by two thirds, but compared to Iraqi operational forces, the fatality rate among Iraqis has dropped by something like half or more: it's just that the number of forces has doubled, so the product is roughly even. But another data point I didn't plot is the number of improvised munitions exploded to effect, which has also dropped by roughly two-thirds.

With luck I'll do an update tonight and crunch some more data, but it's a real effect.

Oh, and re: "deliberately pulled our people out of the line of fire" ... and this is a problem why? Isn't that the plan? Turn security over to Iraq?

Rick Ballard said...

"Isn't that the plan?"

Can one ask for any greater blessing than a profoundly stupid oppononet?

Fresh Air said...

It's interesting, particularly in light of "journalist" Michael Ware's assertion that the tempo of attacks has been pretty constant since the insurgency started. That would imply the terrorists/FREs are becoming worse and worse at having any effect. Given the larger number of available military targets, they are doing less damage with each explosion.

Knucklehead said...

Darn! I hate when this happens. Time to move and reorient the goal posts!

Why didn't we do all the things we've done over the past 3+ years in the first week? If everything had only been properly planned - if Chimpy McBushitler and his puppeteer, Rumsfeld-Halliburton weren't so incompetent - the lines on the chart wouldn't be so high on the left and on the right they'd be zero by now.

Darned brainwashed Bushbots!

Knucklehead said...

OH, and another thing! If the goal here is to reduce US, coalition, Iraqi forces, and civilian casualties due to insurgent actions, then why not just pull out all US troops and turn Iraq over to the insurgents who would then be not insurgents at all but, instead, the Iraqi government. That would drive the casualties in the charted categories to near zero instantly.