December 1st month without US combat death in Iraq

[ProSense]

December 1st month without US combat death in Iraq

BAGHDAD – December was the first month since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq nearly seven years ago in which no U.S. forces died in combat in the country.

Gen. Ray Odierno called it a significant milestone and said it speaks to how the violence in Iraq has diminished. Odierno is the commanding general in Iraq.

There were three U.S. troops who died in December as a result of non-combat related incidents.

According to an Associated Press count, 149 U.S. troops died in Iraq in 2009. That includes combat-related deaths and those not related to fighting.

That's the lowest number of U.S. deaths for a year since the Iraq war began in 2003.

Leaving Iraq is the right thing to do.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. Yeah, but in Afghanistan...

[ProSense]

2. Yeah, but this is Iraq

They're not the same country.

[MadHound]

3. Yes, but we're still killing civilians there

Here are the figures from last week. Granted, not all of these people died due to direct US action, but a fair number of them did, and we are, after all, responsible for all of their deaths since we started this mess.

<http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/>

[ProSense]

4. Nowhere does that say that U.S. troops were involved.

You're speculating. Given that U.S. troops have withdrawn from inside cities, it's highly unlikely these deaths resulted from U.S. action.

[MadHound]

5. Actually if you dig into those numbers and the analysis at that site

You will find that we are directly responsible for a number of those deaths. Yes, we're not in the cities now, but that simply means that our preferred method is death by bomb.

And as I said earlier, we are indirectly responsible for every single death in that country, since we invaded it and have yet to get out. Nor does it look like we're going to get out anytime soon, because despite Obama's much vaunted troop draw down, he is going to be keeping fifty thousand or more troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time to train Iraqi troops, and hunt terrorists.

Thus the killing will continue.

[ProSense]

6. Actually,

wrong

[ProSense]

7. Really wrong

Civilian deaths caused by Coalition and Iraqi state forces
Non-combatant Iraqi deaths resulting directly from actions involving US-led coalition forces were dramatically lower than in the preceding year, with a total of 63 reported by Dec 16 (2008: 594): deaths due to air attacks reduced from 365 in 2008 to 0 in 2009 (as of Dec 16). Deaths involving Iraqi forces were down from 521 in 2008 to 103 in 2009.

Of these deaths caused by US-coalition and Iraqi state forces, the number killed in joint actions fell from 114 in 2008 to 16 in 2009; the overall number of civilians killed by state forces (US-coalition, Iraqi, or both) was 1,001 in 2008 and 150 in 2009.

[MadHound]

9. Thanks for proving my point,

". . . the overall number of civilians killed by state forces (US-coalition, Iraqi, or both) was 1,001 in 2008 and 150 in 2009."

Roughly about ten a month that we're directly responsible for. And the number that we're indirectly responsible for is much larger than that.

[ProSense]

11. Trying to ignore reality again, I see

Of these deaths caused by US-coalition and Iraqi state forces, the number killed in joint actions fell from 114 in 2008 to 16 in 2009

Most likely in the earlier part of the year as troops withdrew from the streets.

[MadHound]

12. Ah, so that 150 number is just an inconvenient fact that you're choosing to ignore,

Along with the fact that we are indirectly responsible for every civilian death in that country for the past six years.

Just like you're ignoring the fact that we're going to have troops in Iraq indefinitely.

OK there, hope that those rose colored glasses work out for you.

[ProSense]

13. No, the 150 number (minus 16) is a result of the Iraqi forces' actions

Are you trying to dictate what a country should do with their own military?

[MadHound]

14. Reread that quote:

That number was for US-coalition, Iraqi or both.

Are you trying to duck the fact that we're either directly or indirectly responsible for every civilian death since 2003?

[ProSense]

16. No, you reread it, you seem to not understand what you're reading. Besides

look how far you've move the goal post in your attempt to spin the OP as negative. You posted this, which is part of nearly 4,500 deaths, and now are trying to attribute 150 deaths to U.S. troops when your own source states the number is 16 in conjunction with Iraqi forces.

[robcon]

8. Madhound: " we are indirectly responsible for every single death "

Would the Iraqis be immortal if we weren't in Iraq?????

[MadHound]

10. Overstating the case, hmmm?

Of course the Iraqi people aren't immortal.

However before we showed up on the scene, they weren't dying in droves due to sectarian violence, bullets and bombs. No matter how big a bastard Hussein was (and yes, he was huge) he kept the peace in his country. It was only after the US showed up that the lid came off and the pot boiled over. It is our fault, our responsibility.

[Clio the Leo]

18. Exactly and I've often wondered what the root cause of the Shia/Sunni fighitng ...

.... turns out they're fighting because of us.

Good to know. :eyes:

[phleshdef]

17. That doesn't change the FACT that the war there isn't much of a war anymore.

As we continue our pullout, the situation there continues to dramatically improve. As unfortunate and undesirable as any death is on either side, whether it be innocent civilians or US armed forces, you can't deny the marked improvements. You can try to cast shadows on good news all you want, it still doesn't make that news any less good.

[backscatter712]

15. Big news that doesn't make the news.

I will give Obama credit. I don't agree with what's happening in Afghanistan, but the news from Iraq is terrific!

We're getting out of there!!!