Attacks down 22% since Saddam's capture

[45th Med]

By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — Attacks against coalition forces in Iraq have dropped 22% in the four weeks since Saddam Hussein's capture, military records show.

U.S. military officers say the decline in attacks, after months of growing intensity, is the first proof that Saddam's capture and recent U.S. offensives have dampened, but not eliminated, resistance to the occupation.

Attacks down 22%

[Teaser]

1. That's not a real big difference, actually.

The 23% average was brought about, largely, because of the Ramadan offensive the rebels started. 18% is really just the baseline activity without including that spike.

[45th Med]

4. WTF do these numbers mean?

Where do they get a percentage point on the number of attacks.....like 15 a day isn't enough......OH, it's dropped from 25 attacks a day to 15?!

[Cannikin]

2. Do we have other sources? Just curious. Is this Rovian math?

[45th Med]

5. I don't know HOW they get these numbers......

without pulling them out of thin air.

[nolabels]

37. There is Occupation Watch for starters

http://www.occupationwatch.org/index.php

[Guaranteed]

72. Yes, these are only the attacks wherein the attackers are carrying sacks

filled with doorknobs.

[GOPFighter]

3. But are injuries and deaths down 22%?

Hope so, but I doubt it.

[isbister]

15. No

They are not, injuries down slightly, deaths are up

[0rganism]

51. One might infer that ineffective attacks became less frequent...

...unless one was a happy presstitute itching to give someone a spin job.

[wildwww2]

60. The enimies of Bu$h Inc. war crime. Can brag on their productivity also.

Bu$h brags about productivity. And it means more people out of work. The Iraqi`s fighting against Bu$h`s war crime. Get new recruits everytime we kill innocent people over there. That is another thing they are producing. Why are so many Christians in this country going along with this intimidating Holy War this batch of neo-cons have started? Anyone that thinks we will start any democracy over there is as dense as tempered steel. It ain`t gonna happen. And Bu$h and his fellow fleas will bleed that Oily Mid East Dog until the American people stop him. That is for sure.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[enki23]

6. what was the trend *before* his capture?

why do i get the sneaking feeling this is a load of crap...? oh i know, i know! it's because they give absolutely no reason to think it isn't.

[Richardo]

7. Conversely, attacks remain at 78% of pre-Saddam capture levels.

Doesn't sound that good, does it?

[The Stranger]

31. Now this post

is brilliant.

[Jackpine Radical]

55. Attacks have become more lethally effective

since Saddam's capture.

[dave46]

8. I really doubt

that Saddam's capture will have too big of an effect on opposition to the US since most of the people fighting us there are terrorists from other countries. It's heartening to hear nonetheless though. Iraqis won't be too sympathetic to foriegners who attack the US without regard for Iraqis lives (as they have shown in the past).

[Mikimouse]

35. Your evidence? I would think

that if the people attacking US occupation forces were terrorists and the US captured one there would be a huge tidal wave of media whoring about it. Haven't hear anything about that yet, so I continue to assume that it is the Iraqis who are attacking.

[leesa]

68. Most of the military commanders say the outside "terrorists"

are few. What is your evidence?

[rumguy]

9. Let's see...they cooked the books at Enron and the TX public schools...

Hmmmm...

[okieinpain]

10. I saddam and his 750G's was the driving cause behind the attacks

so if we have saddam, then who's giving the terrorist money now.

[dave46]

12. The terrorists

are supplied by organizations like Al Quada, who get money from all over the place.

[Just Me]

42. Says "who",...oh, I'm sorry,...you are still in denial or that delusion,..

,...propagated to you. It's okay. Hang around. We will help you get a grasp on reality. And, believe me, you are not the only person who has been deceived or manipulated,...join the rest of humanity :D

[peterh]

11. “resistance to the occupation”….

Has something changed out there…..thought resistance was taboo…there are only insurgents and guerrillas :shrug:

[dave46]

14. Well these are

insurgents from other countries that resist the US. There is no real resistance by the Iraqi people as of yet.

[peterh]

16. ….slapping my forehead…..

but of course….

:evilgrin:

[0007]

30. God damn, why didn't I think of that?

You know the Taliban has even got a hand in this. (I'm slapping my head also) :crazy:

[Richardo]

17. What do you base THAT on?

Our own people say that the insurgents are home-grown.

Many U.S. commanders believe their enemy is a mishmash of Saddam loyalists, former Baath Party members and paid criminals, with only loose connections to each other.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/7492364.htm

[denverbill]

18. Where the heck did you read that?

99% of the attacks are being done by the Iraqi people. There is almost no evidence of foreign insurgency.

[NotTooPrettyBad]

20. Cite please

Thanks!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. Pardon me?

[dave46]

22. Sorry

I was saying insurgents are the kind we will have the most trouble with from now on, since saddam loyalists, criminals, etc. run off of money and not relegious fanaticism. And when I said the Iraqi people, I meant a popular resistance to US occupation, not former Iraqis who used to have power that ended with the US intervention.

[NickB79]

32. The Iraqi people in the resistance run off something far more powerful

Not money, and not religious fanaticism to the degree of Al-Queda, but off the desire to be free. THAT is the most powerful and deadly fuel to feed off of.

"And when I said the Iraqi people, I meant a popular resistance to US occupation, not former Iraqis who used to have power that ended with the US intervention."

To imply that the resistance we are seeing isn't carried out by the common Iraqi people, but instead only by Saddam loyalists, is keeping your head buried in the sand. Where do these Saddam loyalists disappear to after they attack? Where do they find food, shelter, supplies? Why haven't they been turned over by other Iraqis? The answer is that, after the attacks, the Iraqi people help to hide and support the Iraqis attacking us there. They tip off Iraqi resistance when US forces are moving in to capture them. They refuse to say who they say attack and kill soldiers following ambushes. It IS a popular resistance occuring there right now. Just because the majority of Iraqis aren't out pulling triggers doesn't mean the majority aren't fighting against the US. The number of Iraqis providing material support and intelligence numbers in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, to support this level of attacks (~1000 per month).

[NickB79]

34. The estimates the US has reported are a few thousand foreign fighters

I have read several times where it was reported that US generals were estimating there were a few thousand foreign fighters, such as Syrian, Iranian, and Al Queda soldiers. There is no way that this few fighters could carry out the average 1000 attacks per month by themselves. Furthermore, the Iraqi community is a very close-knit one. There is no way that a few foreigners could attack a US convoy and escape without being assisted by the local Iraqis. It would be like a squad of N. Korean soldiers attacking a bus in the middle of a major city and then disappearing without anyone seeing them or turning them over to law enforcement, unbelievable.

Why do you feel there is no real resistance by the Iraqi people? What has lead you to believe this?

[KG]

38. got any evidence to back that up?

i live on the internet and haven't come across anything to substantiate those claims.

[number6]

64. DOH !!!!

slaping forehead ....:eyes:

"There is no real resistance by the Iraqi people as of yet"

:wow: and I thought they didn't like us, its them dang furen
.........turr-er ists

[flaminbats]

13. Wow, 22%!!!

Just find the other 3 Saddams and the War shall finally be over...

[number6]

66. and the fat and skinny Osama's too ..

:eyes:

[leesa]

69. Good one.

[ET Awful]

21. The attacks may be fewer, but they are having greater effect.

n/t

[K8-EEE]

23. UM!! -- More Casualties Than During The Invasion Last Month!

Wow it won't be long before 45th Med starts planning that Iraq vacation -- part of GWBs peaceful new world!

[Aristus]

24. Perception is everything, isn't it?

1.) Attacks down TWENTY-TWO WHOLE PERCENTAGE POINTS!!!!!

2.) The severity of the attacks has dropped by less than a quarter.

If you were a Repuke controlled right-wing media outlet, which one would you use?

[Briar]

25. The standard spin

What they don't tell you is that the US army has reduced the number of its patrols. In their place, Iraqis are being targeted. Add in them, and I doubt if there has been a drop at all.

[NickB79]

36. EXACTLY!

That's the first thing that popped into my head, if they are factoring in the increasing casualties of the US-trained Iraqi police and military. The US forces have been pulling back into the most secured areas and leaving the Iraqi defence forces exposed and vulnerable. If you factor in the number of Iraqi police killed since the capture of Saddam, I would wager that the numbers of attacks have gone up, not down.

Oh, I forgot, we don't count "those people" when they're killed or wounded. Only attacks on US personnel are important.

[fob]

26. Death still permanent

nt

[yellowcanine]

27. The sun also rose the next morning.

But I don't hear anyone saying one had anything to do with the other.
Someone needs to tell the military about correlation without causation.

[Qutzupalotl]

28. Good!

So capturing Saddam has made our troops, who were illegally ordered to invade his country, safer.

I can think of how to make them safer still...

[45th Med]

41. actually, capturing Saddam.....

has made the US safer.

:rolleyes:

[dudeness]

29. bunches of flowers

not bunches of hand grenades..was what was allegedly awaiting the liberating forces..guess someone forgot to tell the Iraqis..

[Whoa_Nelly]

33. They are all still dead...over 500 now...

501, according to this site, which also breaks the numbers down by Iraqi civilian, and even more so, by Iraqi children body count. :cry:

http://www.mykeru.com/bodycount.html

[bahrbearian]

39. Good Link Thanks

[teryang]

62. Instructive link

I appreciate this visual aid because it brings home the incredible damage being done in Iraq. The numbers themselves (which are conservative estimates) really don't convey the impact of the harm being done in our name.

[Barrett808]

40. Simply can't be true -- the slope of the casualty graph remains unchanged

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

[NotTooPrettyBad]

44. Who is Ed Stephan and what are his credintials on Iraq casualties?

I have never heard of him.

[Barrett808]

59. He's just plotting data from lunaville, which everybody agrees is reliable

Of course, I suspect the Pentagon is Enronizing the numbers.

[NotTooPrettyBad]

43. The attacks are down because the suicide outsiders are running out

There are only so many sick people willing to blow up for a useless cause.

[NickB79]

45. No, because there are still plenty of suicide bombings

Only they are bombing IRAQI police stations and other Iraqi installations, not US military bases. The US has cut down patrols and withdrawn into more secure, less volatile areas, leaving the Iraqi defenses exposed and easy targets.

And what makes you think that the people blowing themselves up are outsiders? There have been numerous suicide bombings carried out by people later confirmed to be local Iraqis, not foreign fighters. Also, don't forget that 60% of the Iraq population is composed of the same extremist faith that rules Iran. The Iraqis will never run out of people willing to sacrifice themselves to defeat the US.

[Mikimouse]

46. Hardly could be considered a useless cause

if one looks at it from theirpoint of view. When faced with the Russian Army in 1956, my ancestral countrymen fought tanks with rocks rather than go down without a fight.

[NotTooPrettyBad]

47. Fighting tanks is not like blowing innocent people like suicide bombers do

That is the difference. Fighting for a good cause makes all the difference. The thugs blowing up just anybody in Iraq will lose because there are more good people in the world than bad.

I commend your ancestors for not killing innocents.

[Mikimouse]

48. Perhaps to the bombers, it is a good cause...

I didn't say it was right, but understand the mentality of the people over there. They have been invaded, for reasons that they probably understand better than the average American (natural resources, strategic positioning), treated like dirt by our forces. Anyone collaborating with the occupation forces would be defined as a traitor to the country; this would probably include the local US sponsored police and others as well. Culturally, the vast majority of the population is Shia, and their relationship with anything other than their own is usually not very friendly, especially when they are invaded. Our foreign policy, if it can be (laughingly) called that, is responsible for the lives of those people.

[mike1963]

49. And fighting for one's own 'homeland' isn't a good cause? I guess if

China invaded the USA, you'd just sit back, learn Mandarin and hang onto your chopsticks. I'm not attacking you, but your "message" sucks. Bad.

[45th Med]

50. If someone invaded the USA......

strap on my bomb-laden vest!

BTW, that would make me a terrorist in my own countries eyes....right? I'm sure the definition would change very quickly.

[NotTooPrettyBad]

54. Have at it soldier

Us with a grip on survival and brains to deliver damage will mourn you if you don't target innocents with your self destructive vest.

[NotTooPrettyBad]

52. I would never fight for a leader like Saddam

Anyone helping me get rid of him would be my trench partner.

[45th Med]

53. Who says any of them are fighting for Saddam?

Maybe they are fighting for IRAQ......

[SOS]

56. In 1920

the British colonialists took over three former provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Back in London the British drew a line around these provinces and called the resulting country Iraq. The Brits figured they could "divide and conquer" as they did in the 19th Century. They were wrong.
The three provinces (Kurds, Sunnis and Shia) banded together with one common goal - to drive the British from their land. Expelling the British was their "good cause".
Hundreds of British soldiers and thousands of Iraqis were killed.
Eventually the British left. There is nothing new here. Of course Bush doesn't know history. In January 2003, Bush did not even know that there were two different types of Islam in Iraq.

[leesa]

70. Who is fighting for a good cause? If you are saying the US, you

are dead wrong. The only reason there are what you call suicide bombers in Iraq is because the US illegally invaded a UN compliant country and murdered thousands of their family members and friends. If you think what we are doing in Iraq is appropriate, then I hope you don't consider yourself one of the "good people"

[myomy]

57. Right, and Global Warming ainÕt so bad this time of the year.

.

[Terwilliger]

58. OOO...was THAT why we went to war?

so that a botched operation may be less botched at a later time?

[SoCalDem]

61. and Chocolatey goodness is up 42 %

these numbers are meaningless. Look at where they come from :(

[creativelcro]

63. Add 5 more today... That's gonna make up for the decline

[arwalden]

65. I'm Not Convinced That The Two Events Are Connected...

Could there be any OTHER reason? Better patrols? More patrols? Better information? Colder weather?

-- Allen

[kentuck]

67. Yes, attacks were down but deaths were up...

In the first month, the average dropped from 23 attacks to 18 attacks per week (22%?) . However, the attacks were more deadly than in the 30 days previous to his capture.

[kentuck]

71. This seems to be in error....

I am positive that I saw on cable news that the number of deaths were up but CNN just headlined that deaths were down also after capture of Saddam....from 52 to 39 or thereabouts. Sorry for the error.

[Cush]

73. before and after

they had the number of deaths the month before his capture, and month after