I'm reserving judgement on the numbers. April is a more informative month than March, but there are some good trend lines.

A very selective use of casualty reports. Before we even start taking a look at the "conclusions", its imperative to realize the increasing force-protection-at-all-costs posture being taken within the Army/USMC/CENTCOM. Politics certainly has something to do with this.

Anywho, we brag about the relatively few KIAs in march ... Wooo Hoo! Well, in the first 5 days of April, we've already lost more than half of March's low total.

We've seen it before and we've heard the assurances/premature congratulations about casualties too.

A trip down memory lane:

3/2004 - 52 Deaths
4/2004 - 140 Deaths

10/2004 - 67 Deaths
11/2004 - 141 Deaths

10/2003 - 47 Deaths
11/2003 - 110 Deaths

In each of the above instances, after the "low casualty" first month, the DoD and various warmongers played up the low casualties as a sign of "winning." In the month after, they ate humble pie.

This war and these deaths are not a game. The enemy gets a vote and to take 1 month's casualties suffered by US forces as a metric of winning is asinine.

For our soldiers' and marines' sake, i hope I'm wrong.

"Before we even start taking a look at the "conclusions", its imperative to..."

What conclusions? The article linked went to extreme pains to make sure that it was beyond obvious that no conclusions whatsoever were being made about the data with the singular exception that being *suprised* by the data implied that the "we aren't gettting the real news" people weren't crazy.

Synova,

Relax. The author used the data to explain how we were "winning." That's the reason Greyhawk posted this - because it supports his worldview. He's not the kind to post something he disagrees with unless he mocks or impugns it. I wonder haow he survives the MDMP process as a senior officer. COA development must infuriate him when the S-2/G-2 plays the red side ... but that's a different discussion.

I'm simply showing that if someone claims a month of low deaths is "winning" - the other side can just as easily say an immediately following month of high deaths is "losing." It's dangerous game to hype isolated months and every time the DoD does it, reality/the enemy/karma undermines their already eroded image in the eyes of the public.

Again, you reallly have to look at the more hardened US/Coalition force protection posture since late 2005. We are minimizing opportunities for casualties to occur. How this plays out on the strategic scale is a book yet to be written. If there are less patrols and a reduced US presence, invariably there will be fewer opportunities for US deaths. Thank God the death rate was low over the past few months, but to assume that it is solely from a weakened insurgency is wishful thinking.

If you think that the author was claiming the numbers show we are winning despite the authors repeated statements that he was making no claims of that sort, I won't argue. It would be pointless.

In fact, from the post and the comments it seemed that most people agreed that the numbers can't and shouldn't be used that way.

As for keeping our guys safe skewing the numbers... what about the recent announcements that the Army was changing it's... what would you Army guys calling, SOP or something?... and now rather than continue to drive onward when fired at, convoys will stop and engage the enemy? This doesn't really sound very much like a plan to reduce casualties.

IRR-

You haven't noticed the MSM reporting 'the largest number of casualties since... (whatever number and time period fits their agenda), and totally avoiding the report of any down turn in the number?

Well, you just haven't been watching. If there is any motivation, or conclusion being made, it is anti-war. (As you all too willingly point out with your number game).

"A very selective use of casualty reports."

A perfect heading to your comment.

"A trip down memory lane:

3/2004 - 52 Deaths
4/2004 - 140 Deaths

10/2004 - 67 Deaths
11/2004 - 141 Deaths

10/2003 - 47 Deaths
11/2003 - 110 Deaths

In each of the above instances, after the "low casualty" first month, the DoD and various warmongers played up the low casualties as a sign of "winning." In the month after, they ate humble pie."

Why would the warmongers eat humble pie in 4/2004 when the US attacked Fallujah, or in 11/2004 - the second assault on Fallujah?

They should have finished it the first time - a tragedy. Those are the two prominent peaks in US casualty figures in Iraq - they stand out like a very sore thumb when compared to the much lower totals for all other months. Without looking at the numbers, I think you'll find another spike in August '04 when we were fighting Sadr's militia in Najaf.

In fact, the numbers for all other months are so small and variable that indeed, no conclusion can be drawn. (A plane crash on takeoff or landing from Baghdad will result in the highest death total for the war.) But the two months when we were involved in large combat ops did indeed result in higher casualties than the months we weren't. The other months are statistically incoherent, though they do include spikes like 11/2003 - 110 Deaths. In the Muslim calendar that was Ramadan.

This war and these deaths are not a game. The enemy gets a vote and to take 1 month's casualties suffered by US forces as a metric of winning is asinine.

Indeed - why do you do it? Can you cite any example where casualty rates are equated to victory?

That's the reason Greyhawk posted this - because it supports his worldview.

Almost right - the facts shape my worldview.

I have cited Brookings before (see here and here) but not for playing your type of numbers game.

Victory comes with handing over responsibility to capable Iraqi forces - odd you characterize that as "minimizing opportunities for casualties to occur." If there are less patrols and a reduced US presence, invariably there will be fewer opportunities for US deaths. Yes, that's the plan.

Glad you've got all the answers Greyhawk!

It's amazing that with all your quick answers and tangents, you aren't getting promoted or doing something more important ... after all, you're a "warrior."

What a joke...

From the linked post:

My point here is not that everything is peachy in Iraq. It isn’t. My point isn’t that the insurgency is in its last throes. It isn’t. My point here isn’t even to argue that we’re winning. I’m at best cautiously-pessimistic-to-neutral about how things are going there.

Because lying seems to be his/her stock-in-trade - look at his site.

From the discussion here it seems most didn't actually read the article. IRR Soldier definitely did not read. There are numbers for all kinds of Iraqi communities in said article.