CNN credits "Surge" with "third-lowest" month for U.S. Troop casualties (29)

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Troop deaths in Iraq drop in February



BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Twenty-nine U.S. troops died in Iraq during February, the third-lowest total of the nearly five-year-old war, according to Pentagon figures compiled by CNN. At the same time, Iraq's Interior Ministry issued figures on Saturday that showed the number of civilian deaths increased 36 percent to 633 from 466 last month. But the civilian death toll was lower than last February's.

The lowest number of U.S. troop deaths came in February 2004, when 20 troops died. The second lowest toll, at 23, was in December 2007.

Violence has dropped across Iraq over the last few months, and the troop death decrease reflects that trend, military and political officials in Iraq say.

The successes of the 2007 U.S. troop increase, a cease-fire called by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, and the growth of pro-U.S. Sunni groups are some of the reasons cited for the ebb in violence.

[conservdem]

1. This is great news that the loses are down and I would believe

that the surge played a part in it. I hope it continues to get better there.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. I would think al-Sadr's continued cease fire is the key element.

BTW, the entire year of 2007, which was when the "surge" was implemented, saw the highest yearly death toll of our G.I.'s. Some success.

[Exilednight]

10. BINGO!! Wait until the cease fire is over.

[LibDemAlways]

3. So 29 US soldiers and 633 Iraqis (a 36% increase over

January)lost their lives in February in this clusterfuck that was illegal and immoral from the get-go, and this is somehow a good thing and a mark of "success"? I, for one, am not celebrating, nor are 662 devastated families. More blood on the hands of BushCo and their enablers in Congress.

[Prefer]

4. Thank goodness.

that is a low number, all things considered. Almost enough to say the war is over.

Would be great if it got even lower.

[RBInMaine]

7. WHAT IN THE HELL ARE SAYING HERE ???!!!!

29 more Americans and however more Iraqis DEAD is "good news"???????? For Christ sake, are people losing their frigging minds??? PEOPLE ARE DYING FOR CHRIST SAKE !! We nearly have 4000 dead Americans now, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars.
The number that are dying is IRRELEVANT. The point is that NO MORE SHOULD BE DYING, AND WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE DONE THIS IDIOTIC WAR IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE !! The war is NO WHERE NEAR "over". Thank you. Thanks so much for validating Bush/Cheney and the rest of the neocons. Not one, I am telling you people, NOT ONE MORE HUMAN BEING SHOULD DIE FOR THIS INSANE AND ILLEGAL WAR THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN WAGED !!! Do some homework for Christ sake ! Of course putting 30,0000 more troops, if used competently, would have an effect on reducing the level of violence, at least for a time. But how are they doing it? They are forming FRAGILE alliances with former "enemy insurgents" and arming them in the process. They are also separating the Sunni and Shiite tribes and keeping them apart, and, as someone else has said, Al Sadr is observing a cease fire. This is all very, very fragile. We aren't getting the needed political reconciliation. When we do leave, which we MUST because the military is breaking and the war is bankrupting us, those thousands-of-years-old hatreds may well resurface very quickly and the whole thing goes to hell in a handbasket. But if that happens, the Iraqis must deal with it, as it is their country. FOR GOD SAKE, please don't make me puke by actually congratulating Bush/Cheney/McCain, validating this insane stupidity, and being happy that only 29 more Americans are now needlessly DEAD ! (I'm a military veteran. This is goddamn personal to me !)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. K & R, for your post, from a fellow veteran.

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Prefer]

11. What is being discussed is an improvement in the odds for our troops

There are less dying now than before, thus their odds of survival are better today.

When a crime rate goes down in a city, that's good news. When the death rate for our troops goes down, that's also good news.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

12. Right "only" 29. It should have been zero and and we should be long gone from that

lose/lose/lose scenario. For those of us who are veterans, the "good" news of "only" 29 deaths is bitter news, indeed.

[global1]

5. Thank God It Was A Leap Year - They Can Now Say We're Down To....

only one GI death per day. If it wasn't a leap year that would have been a tad higher. (sarcasm)

[ProSense]

6. Did they mention that nearly twice as many soldiers were killed in Jan as in Dec:

U.S. troops killed: Dec - 23, Jan - 40

[shain from kane]

9. Anecdotal evidence. Not necessarily a trend. The unit of measurement is one month. I hate to use the

analogy, but a lot of people commit suicide over the Christmas holidays. Does that mean that the same trend will continue for the entire year? I believe that the milary command is trying to limit casualties, to help the Republican Party continue to be a factor in American politics. After all, they are funded when that party is in power, and the military runs on money.

[eppur_se_muova]

13. Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Classic logical fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc