BAGHDAD, Jan. 1, 2007
U.S. Death Toll In Iraq Passes 3,000
Texas Specialist Killed By Small Arms Fire Last Week; Caps Deadliest Month Of 2006
-
A Defense Department-supplied photo of Spc. Dustin R. Donica, 22, of Spring, Texas. (CBS/DoD)
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Interactive Iraq Study Group Report Bipartisan commission warns that situation is "grave and deteriorating."
-
Photo Essay Saddam's Final Moments Saddam Hussein went to the gallows Dec. 30, 2006. Contains photos some may find disturbing.
The death of a Texas soldier, announced Sunday by the Pentagon, comes as the administration seeks to overhaul its strategy for a conflict that shows little sign of abating. The tally of 3,000 members of the U.S. military killed was a figure compiled by The Associated Press since the war's beginning in March 2003.
In large part because of discontent with the course of the war, voters gave Democrats control of the new Congress that convenes this week. Democrats have pledged to focus on the war and Bush's conduct of it.
Three thousand deaths are tiny compared with casualties in other protracted wars America has fought in the last century. There were 58,000 Americans killed in the Vietnam War, 36,000 in the Korean conflict, 405,000 in World War II and 116,000 in World War I, according to Defense Department figures.
Even so, the steadily mounting toll underscores the relentless violence the massive U.S. investment in lives and money — surpassing $350 billion — has yet to tame.
A Pentagon report on Iraq said in December the conflict now is more a struggle between Sunni and Shiite armed groups "fighting for religious, political and economic influence," with the insurgency and foreign terrorist campaigns "a backdrop."
From mid-August to mid-November, the weekly average number of attacks in the country increased 22 percent from the previous three months. The worst violence was in Baghdad and in the western province of Anbar, long the focus of activity by Sunni insurgents.
Though U.S.-led coalition forces remained the target of the majority of attacks, the overwhelming majority of casualties were suffered by Iraqis, the report said.
The American death toll was at 1,000 in September of 2004 and 2,000 by October 2005.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., called the figure a "tragic milestone" and said the government owes its troops "a new policy that is worthy of their heroism and brings them safely home."
Asked about the 3,000 figure, deputy White House press secretary Scott Stanzel said that the president "will ensure their sacrifice was not made in vain."
"We will be fighting violent jihadists for peace and security of the civilized world for years to come. The brave men and women of the U.S. military are fighting extremists in order to stop them from attacking on our soil again," Stanzel said.
In other developments:
Having launched the war against the advice of a number of nations, the Bush administration never got a huge international contribution of troops, meaning foreign forces involved in the fighting are overwhelmingly American.
The death toll shows it. As of late December, the British military has reported 127 deaths in the war so far; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 18; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; and Denmark, six. Several other countries have had five or less.
©MMVI CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 91 CommentsWhen the war started the White House said it would cost 50 billion dollars, 60 billion at most. The U.S. economists now estimate the war will eventually cost $1000 000 000 000. That's ONE THOUSAND BILLION DOLLARS.
The military had planned to invade and conquer Iraq. Successful, but lacking the soldiers and equipment needed to secure the country after the military win. Planning 17 mo.'s for post-Saddam Iraq came up with "hope."
You don't need the acuity of hindsight to see that decisions immediately after the military win were as dumb as dirt. Finding, checking and leaving weapons stockpiles unguarded resulted in foreseeable problems. Disbanding the military and police leaving them with no income, pissed and armed to the teeth wasn't smart. Lack of police predictably allowed criminals unchecked. Law enforcement may not have prevented the civil war, but its lack created vulnerabilities used by insurgents. It allowed al-Qaeda and other terrorists to get in & operate. Sectarian violence began & spiraled out of control in the wake of law enforcement's absence. Making it up as you go along doesn't work.
3,000 dead in four, going into five years of war.
Can you imagine the orgiastic agonies of the liberal left if 10,000+ died in just ONE DAY as did happen on June 6, 1944 (D-Day)
..........
Posted by processor2 at 09:50 AM : Jan 02, 2007
You're comparing apples, to rancid oranges. The difference is that WWII was a war of no choice. Of the world banding together in a noble cause, to defeat Nazism and Japanese imperialism. Whereas the war in Iraq is a filthy little war of invasion and conquest for greed of the right wing and the personal ego of the lunatic in the Oval Office. It is a war to try to spread American Imperialism, not democracy. There is nothing noble about it. It is far worse to have 3000 of our troops dying in vain for Bush's lies, then to have millions dying to fight Hitler and Tojo.
"Three thousand deaths are TINY compared with casualties in other protracted wars America has fought in the last century."
"There were 58,000 Americans killed in the Vietnam War, 36,000 in the Korean conflict, 405,000 in World War II and 116,000 in World War I, according to Defense Department figures."
...............
My words:
3,000 dead in four, going into five years of war.
Can you imagine the orgiastic agonies of the liberal left if 10,000+ died in just ONE DAY as did happen on June 6, 1944 (D-Day)
..........
The split Yes 41% to No 37% indicates close but clear support for going to war until you consider the "declined to answer" equivalent to "No" at 11%.
Only 13% of the military think we are "very likely" to succeed. Only 10% think we can reach our goals in less than 3 years. The split is 47% to 47% on whether the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism or an entirely separate military action. 52% approve of the way bush is handling his job as president and only 31% are willing to disagree. The most surprising result in the survey is in the response about whether they approve of the way bush is handling the situation with Iraq. Only 35% approve his handling the Iraq situation, even if all the 10% who don%u2019t have an opinion were added, it would still result in only 45% approval. 42% were willing to state their disapproval of the way he's handling the situation in Iraq without including the 12% who opted for the "decline to answer" equivalent to disapproval.
Some will assume that the poll is slanted against bush or is part of a liberal conspiracy, you should note that 52% of those polled still support the way dumbya is handling his job as pres. It's the poll that last year received very different answers to many of the same questions. 63% approved the way bush was handling the Iraq situation, 71% approved of his handling his job as pres., 60% agreed that we should've gone to war in Iraq and 38% thought the US was "very likely" to succeed. What a difference a year makes.
The methodology is not that of a statistically valid poll, but this yearly poll is a respected measure for opinions of the career members of our military. Career members are more likely to subscribe and are the backbone of the military since many in the military are more transient members.
Reprisals for opinions stated outside the service contrary to policy are routine. Many changes at the top of the chains of command during this war are proof. A member's advancement can stop after such comments and undesirable and hazardous assignments are other options. Career members of the military make sacrifices throughout their careers. Their skills would demand financial and safety advantages in the private sector. Refusing to provide an excuse for reprisal is logical risk-benefit analysis and is exactly what we need in career military members. Reprisals are a reality, so "decline to answer" offers a way of providing an honest answer without the danger of bucking policy. Positive responses like "yes" or "approval" and negatives "disapprove" and "no" are self-explanatory, as is "no opinion" answer. Choosing "decline to answer" is a way to indicate opposition to policy by the declining to answer in approval or claiming no opinion. It's equivalent to "no" or "disapprove" in this survey's questions.
Some surprises have appeared in a Military Times poll of active duty military personnel. Our military have been the most dependable supporters for bush and the Iraq war, but even their support is waning.
How many times have you deployed to Iraq? Once 32%, Twice 12%, Three times 3%, More than three times 3%, Never/no response 50%.
Should we have gone to war in Iraq?
Yes 41%, No 37% , No opinion/no answer 9%, Declined to answer/no answer 11%.
Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed? Very likely 13%, Somewhat likely 37%, Not very likely 31%, Not at all likely 10%, No opinion/no answer 8%.
How long do you think the U.S. will need to stay in Iraq to reach its goals? less than a year 2%,
1-2 years 8%, 3-5 years 26%, 5-10 years 31%, More than 10 years 23%, No opinion/no answer 8%.
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
Approve 35%, Disapprove 42%, No opinion 10%, Decline to answer 12%.
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
Approve 52%, Disapprove 31%, No opinion 6%, Decline to answer 10%
Do you consider the war in Iraq to be part of the war on terrorism that began Sept. 11, 2001, or do you consider it to be an entirely separate military action? Part of the war on terrorism 47%, Separate military action 47%, No opinion 5%.
OK lets move on.
%u201CWhen Iran/Syria move into Iraq after we leave, as most of you seem to want, and then move on Saudi arabia and the rest, a much larger conflict will brake out. When it does , 3000 Americans dead now will melt into obscurity when we go back.%u201D
You are right I did miss those last 12 words of a 15-word, coma broken, sentence in my copy and paste attempt.
However you know very well, just as anyone who read my original comment knows, it wouldn%u2019t have mattered if I had missed the whole 15-word sentence, it was totally irreverent to the subject of my comment.
That%u2019s a far cry from using only half of an equation to make a disingenuous, nonsencible statement, look cute.
As far as your demand for an answer to your question, you already know the answer. Your follow up comments have made that very clear.
Thanks for the insight, have a nice day.
I was genuinely not trying to be awkward. I was just trying to balance the argument. There has clearly been too much happy talk from the administration about Iraq, but the fact remains that there are mountains to climb.
As for my plan to fix it. My view is simple, regarding troop casualties, if (as some suggest) we are successful at training Iraqi forces, then we need to stand them up to fight for their own country. It is their Iraq and their legacy not ours. The more Iraqi's that are visible the less visible US troops will be. Eventually we will be "invisible" and out of there altogether.
We also need to set clear benchmarks for our continued support. As a commentator recently put it, "we cannot continue to offer our first choice young men and women, for the second choice of Iraqis." We should support the Iraqi's but only if they are prepared to make the hard choices needed to secure the sustainability of their own nation. Key to this is dismantling of the militias.
As the government takes the steps that any effective government needs to take, it will gradually win the confidence of its people.
What is your "plan" to fix your list of 16?
So, you want me to do as you "say" or do as you "do"??
I am waiting for a reply.
Great post!! Now try these measures:
1. US troop casualties (hostile fire)
2. US troop casualties (maimed/mentally ill)
3. Attacks on US troops(monthly measure)
4. US troop levels
5. Iraqi troop casualties
6. Attacks on Iraqi troops (monthly measure)
7. Oil output (measure of economic stability)
8. Attacks on oil pipe-lines
9. Emigration levels
10.Sectarian attacks
11.Casualties from sectarian attacks
12.Kidnappings
13.%age of Iraqi's satisfied with their government's performance
14.%age of Iraqi's expressing optimism about the future?
15.Life expectancy
16.Infant mortality
You are still confused, I was talking about "enemy soldiers" dying for their contries in any war, not necessarly this one.
hope this helps.
Yes I agree with you and fully understand the concept of "borderless threats."
As you suggest the home-grown threat poses a real problem for us. My initial comment was in response to a question regarding a nuclear war fought by nations, through proxies.
Great post, but I think the truth sometimes is wasted here.
Remember this cut off Quote??
Quote: "When Iran/Syria move into Iraq after we leave, as most of you seem to want, and then move on Saudi arabia and the rest, a much larger conflict will brake out. When it does%u201D
So, you want me to do as you "say" or do as you "do"??
'even the most devout Bush supporter would hopefully agree now--is an abject failure when it comes to military matters'
Failure? The Iraq war has been a string of successes:
Success- invasion of Iraq
Success- destruction of Iraq's armed forces
Success- occupation of Iraq's capitol city
Success- occupation of all of Iraq
Success- removal of Iraq's government
Success- free elections
Success- capture of Saddam Hussein
Success- death of Uday and Qusay Hussein
Success- death of Al-Zarqawi
Success- capture of 50 out 55 on Iraq's 'Most Wanted' list
Success- introduction of new Iraqi currency
Success- formation of the new Iraqi Army
Success- Iraqi army operates independantly
Success- more free elections
Success- formation of new Iraqi government
Success- restoring electicity levels to pre-war conditions
Success- more free elections
Success- 85% of eligible voters voted in the most recent election
Seems obvious to me, I'll save your answer to my question, for future debate.
Thanks.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 91 Comments