Last year per month about 1,600 Iraqi Guard soldiers were dying (from a high of 3,000 Feb 2007); and about 80 US/Coalition Soldiers on average (as high as 126 May 2007). But since the SURGE US/Coalition Soldiers has never topped 40 (for 5 consecutive months) and Iraqi Guard deaths have never topped 700 for the same period of time (averaging bout 550).

Now this may have NOTHING to do with the Surge, but maybe it does? Or maybe the comprehensive change in strategy since the time of the Surge (the US Army has redirected its efforts to expand security and be more aggressive against insurgents) is responsible.

Or maybe the "enemy" is just taking a break?

Whatever the reasons - the casualties are down to about 1/3rd of their previous levels for last year and the year prior....

Comments?

Iraq Coalition Casualties

The word that the whole damned affair was supposed to take only six days must have finally reached the former Republican Guard!

Candy and Flowers can't be far off now.

The rest are just dead-enders; and the screaming Background Noise.
We are turning a corner now, and Al-Zawarhi has embraced Jesus.

Everybody will be holding hands soon, and singing praise for Dubya.


wOOt!

WW2 was supposed to be over by Christmas of 1944/45. It would rage another 6 months killing millions.

What's your fucking point retard?

Yo, History Channel...

Being called a retard by you is a real hoot!


What's next on yer list; NASCAR or NAMBLA?

I know A. I know....I feel sorry for you. We all do.

LMAO!

How Republican of you.

Really, I think them terrorists ought to wear badges or something.

The whole deal seems so unfair.

But the US causualties were lower the first and second year of occupying Iraq than now as I recall. But they built up over time while troop levels remained at about 130,000. By increasing the levels to 160,000, the level of violence returned to the levels in the first and second year, so the question becomes, why shouldn't we expect the level of violence to increase over tiem as the troop leves are returned to those of the first and second year of occupation?

The level of US military deaths in the first and second year did not strike me as acceptable to the American people.

And the prescription of McCain and others of sending troops back to Iraq over and over on short stays at home followed by long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, basically demanding more time in conflict zones than the military has demanded in a century, at least twice the time, in fact, is certain to bankrupt the human capital of the military. As Vietnam did.

Not to mention the cost in treasure to the nation.

If Romney were applying his MBA skills, he would say "cut your losses."