Coalition Casualties Hit Two Year Low

[Nederland]

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Coalition casualties during the month of March fell for the fifth month in a row and reached a two year low. In March, there were 31 coalition casualties. The last time the casualty rate was lower was in Feb 2004. In fact, Feb 2004 is the only month in the entire war that have seen fewer casualties than March 2006. The reason is simple. As Iraqi troops are trained up, and US forces are increasingly content to simply stay in their safe zones, Iraqi troops are becoming the primary target of insurgent attacks. IMHO, this is proof positive that the war is winding down for the US military. I expect Bush to declare victory (again) and start pulling troops out just in time for the fall elections, thereby removing Iraq as an election issue.

[ShortnFiery]

1. That is nothing for us to be proud of ...

The lower coalition casualty rates merely reflect the fact that there is a budding civil war.

Since Our Dear Leaders were stoopid enough to attack a Mosque-like entity because they are oafs when it comes to ME religions and culture.

No worries! Not only do the Saddamists Sunnis deplore us, NOW the Shiites wish to send us to hell. I'm sure many of their future attacks will KILL US in increasing numbers. Unless Georgie-boy tells Rummy to "baton down" all the hatches, EVERYONE hates us equally now and we're sure to get our share of the violence.

We have, in essence, through our ignorance put icing on the cake. We have created a hell on earth in the ME.

May (God, Allah, Our Higher Power, etc.) have mercy on our Souls. :cry:

[stepnw1f]

2. This Indicates Nothing

since there are less Coalition Forces in Iraq now than when the war started. The fact though that there are less Coalition Forces does indicate less global support for the war than when the Iraq Quagmire began.

[Teaser]

3. Every Feb/March/April this happens

look for yourselves.

[Nederland]

5. It's not seasonal, its political

High points in casualties has more to do with political timing that what season it is. High points are always around election times, handover time, etc.

[Teaser]

9. I disagree

Spring in Iraq is a very bad time for guerrilla warfare. It's wetter, and there's a lot of agricultural issues to be tended to.

[Inland]

4. Exactly right.

US forces are hunkering down in fortified areas, as it's the only way to keep down casualities. But then again, hunkered down is another form of withdrawal: it's a recognition that the casualties that would be taken to secure most of the streets of Baghdad and most of the country aren't worth it, but it's not possible to stave off an insurgency or civil war pacifying only a part. Essentially, the commanders are proving the anti war position correct: if you don't have enough troops, you can't win so why bother?

Except for the withdrawal part. Bush has already set up the election as those who are satisfied with losing and those who aren't, with withdrawal equivalent to losing. It's too late for him to go all reasonable on us. Unlike the ports deal, there's nobody who can take the issue off his plate and let him climb down, and there's no way that he can say that he didn't mean any of that shit literally.

[rodeodance]

6. thats what happens when you are bunkered down for months

[Aristus]

7. YAY! Only thirty-one Americans were killed! Things are really looking up!

:sarcasm::banghead:

[TomClash]

8. Until today and the helicopter "crash" nt