Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 21 minutes ago
The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.
The Associated Press count of U.S. military deaths for the month was 81, including a soldier who died from non-combat causes Friday. Figures compiled from officials in the Iraqi ministries of Defense, Health and Interior showed the Iraqi military toll was 44. The Iraqi figures showed that 165 Iraqi police were killed in March. Many of the police serve in paramilitary units.
According to the AP count 3,246 U.S. service members have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.
At least 83 American forces died in January and 80 in February, according to the AP tabulation.
The Iraqi figures were gathered from officials who released them on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give out the numbers.
Additionally, the Iraqi ministry figures listed 1,872 Iraqi civilian deaths for the month, about 300 more than the AP tabulation, which is mainly gathered from daily police reports nationwide.
The civilian death toll for the month was down significantly from 2,172 in December, the highest month casualty figure since the AP began keeping records of civilian deaths in April 2005.
However, the number of civilians killed in March was in the same range as for the first two months of this year; 1,604 in January and 1,552 in February, according to the AP count.
Nearly a third of the Iraqi civilian deaths, more than 500 people, where killed in three big bomb attacks in the last week of the month and revenge killings of Sunni men in Tal Afar the night after a Shiite market was bomb in the northwest Iraqi city.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
What was the ratio of US Military casualites to Iraqi Military casualties prior to the crack down? Any idea? 10:1?? 5:1?? 3:1.....Now it is 2:1.... Also, police are considered paramilitary...they are 2:1 to US Military...What was that ratio before as well.
This article tells us nothing...Unless you give prior ratios how can you tell if a 2:1 is good or bad?
(Taken from the Dems current playbook...) UNLESS THEY ARE TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING.....WE NEED AN INVESTIGATION.....not that anything really is wrong...but, heck, we have the power now...
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
What was the ratio of US Military casualites to Iraqi Military casualties prior to the crack down? Any idea? 10:1?? 5:1?? 3:1.....Now it is 2:1.... Also, police are considered paramilitary...they are 2:1 to US Military...What was that ratio before as well.
This article tells us nothing...Unless you give prior ratios how can you tell if a 2:1 is good or bad?
Seriously...I hate numbers in a vacuum. How does it relate? Improving? Getting worse? Are there more Iraqi troops in the action, or are there less? How about some interpretation of the numbers?
__________________
I'm the anti-TNT. I don't do drama.
Well, something like 83 US soldiers were killed last month which outpaces the average rate of US soldier deaths since the beginning of the war (3300 deaths divided by 49 months equals about 67 or 68 per months). So, those are real numbers....
Well, something like 83 US soldiers were killed last month which outpaces the average rate of US soldier deaths since the beginning of the war (3300 deaths divided by 49 months equals about 67 or 68 per months). So, those are real numbers....
That also doesn't mean anything. Avg numbers over 49 months doesn't tell me much...what kind of operations were going on during those months?
More dangerous operations recently, it looks like, since the deaths seem to be similar over the past couple of months. If we are being more aggressive, then deaths will go up.
For there to be any credence to the headline of US Deaths twice that of Iraqi forces, we'd need to track them side by side, month by month to know if there is anything even interesting to start with. And even then, we'd need to know if the Iraqi forces are taking part in more dangerous operations.
If until recently, US and Iraqi forces had the same death rate, and now we are double that is big news (bad news). If until recently, US and Iraqi forces death rate was 10-1, that is big news too (good news, as they are taking more of a role in the fighting). If it's been roughly 2-1 for most of the time they've been actively employed, then this article has no news and is just some ink on a page (or text on a Web site).
Numbers mean nothing unless you can tell me how they relate to a situation, which this article does not do.
The title of this article and thread is misleading.
So twice as many Military deaths is accurate but when you factor in 165 Iraqi police deaths the numbers actually flip-flop and Iraq lost twice as many as the US.
It's a shame that any number of people died over there last month, but to try and create something sensational by playing with the numbers is annoying.
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
The title of this article and thread is misleading.
So twice as many Military deaths is accurate but when you factor in 165 Iraqi police deaths the numbers actually flip-flop and Iraq lost twice as many as the US.
It's a shame that any number of people died over there last month, but to try and create something sensational by playing with the numbers is annoying.
Then throw in those pesky civilian deaths and you'd have a real "fuzzy" math type sitcheation.
The thread title isn't misleading. It's the title of the article. And if the American soldiers' deaths were double the Iraqi soldiers' deaths for the month this article is discussing, how would that be misleading?
Then throw in those pesky civilian deaths and you'd have a real "fuzzy" math type sitcheation.
The thread title isn't misleading. It's the title of the article. And if the American soldiers' deaths were double the Iraqi soldiers' deaths for the month this article is discussing, how would that be misleading?
Does it say "soliders" or does it say "forces"?
Hmmm.................It's a police force correct?
Therefore twice as many Iraqi "forces" died than American.
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
Linear Mode
