U.S. Deaths In Iraq Continue To Decline

(CBS/AP)  October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and American commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al Qaeda and Shiite militia extremists.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch points to what the military calls "Concerned Citizens" - both Shiites and Sunnis who have joined the American fight. He says he's signed up 20,000 of them in the past four months.

"I've never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we've made in Iraq. The only people who are going to win this counterinsurgency project are the people of Iraq. We've said that all along. And now they're coming forward in masses," Lynch said in a recent interview at a U.S. base deep in hostile territory south of Baghdad. Outgoing artillery thundered as he spoke.

Lynch, who commands the 3rd Infantry Division and once served as the military spokesman in Baghdad, is a tireless cheerleader of the American effort in Iraq. But the death toll over the past two months appears to reinforce his optimism. The question, of course: Will it last?

As of Tuesday, the Pentagon has reported 28 U.S. military deaths in October. At the current pace, the monthly total will be about 37 or 38. That would be the lowest total since 31 in March 2006 and the second lowest monthly toll stretching back to February 2004, when 20 soldiers died.

In September, 65 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

Part of the trend can be seen in a volatile and violent band of lush agricultural land on Baghdad's southern border.

The commander of the battle zone - Lt. Col. Val Keaveny, 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry (Airborne) - said his unit has lost only one soldier in the past four months despite intensified operations against both Shiite and Sunni extremists, including powerful al Qaeda in Iraq cells.

Keaveny attributes the startling decline to a decrease in attacks by militants who are being rounded up in big numbers on information provided by the citizen force - which has literally doubled the number of eyes and ears available to the military.

In other developments:

Iraq's government, under growing pressure to crack down on Kurdish rebels using the country's north as a base for guerrilla attacks in Turkey, ordered their offices closed Tuesday and promised to curb their movements and block their funds.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday ordered new measures to improve government oversight of private guards who protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq, including extensive cultural awareness training for contractors.

A U.S. helicopter opened fire on a group of men as they were planting roadside bombs in a Sunni stronghold north of Baghdad on Tuesday, then chased them into a nearby house, killing 11 Iraqis, including five women and one child, the military said.

A new report says the State Department so badly managed a $1.2 billion contract for Iraqi police training that it can't tell what it got for the money spent. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen said invoices and records on the project are in disarray, and the government is trying to recoup money paid inappropriately to contractor DynCorp.

At least 1,000 Iraqis are fleeing their homes each day because of violence and insecurity a figure that could increase with threats of cross-border attacks into northern Iraq, the U.N. refugee agency said Tuesday. Nearly 4.5 million Iraqis have fled the country or have been displaced inside Iraq, said the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said Tuesday the government has decided to extend the country's troop deployment in Iraq for another year - a move expected to face tough opposition in parliament. South Korea has 1,200 troops in Iraq, but the government says it will halve this number. Their mission is due to expire at the end of this year. Washington has asked for an extension.

In a new audiotape message broadcast Monday, Osama bin Laden scolded his al-Qaeda followers in Iraq and other insurgents, saying they have "been lax" for failing to overcome fanatical tribal loyalties and unite in the fight against U.S. troops.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[mplsman50]

This article talks about reduced deaths for 2 months in a row. It fails to mention that 2007 is on course to be the deadliest year for US troops thus far in the war. It also fails to mention that from Nov of 2005 to March of 2006 the US Troop death rate dropped for 4 consecutive months. This current 2 month drop, while good news for the troops, is likely to be forgotten if and when the death toll increases again. The only way to be certain the death toll decreases is for our troops to come home.

[drummer94]

What is George trying to do with Cuba? Kruschev (?) again? OOObviously this first "adventure" is taking way too long. This country is only 90 miles away.

[drummer94]

Rock and Roll speak. Rock and Roll. Just to change the subject a little, was watchin the news about Ca. fires, a fire fighter said " sometimes mother nature kicks ourasses". How true about a lot of things, ''eh? Metaphorically speakin. up. (couldn''t resist)

[speakinup]

drummer94 - I was under the impression it was in demand because of the desire to put the troops within the population of Iraq. To be honest with you, I REALLY didn''t know for a FACT until I looked at wikipedia (although it can be updated by anyone, I generally believe it to be true, especially quotes, as people are quick to change it if it is not).

I AM excited that it is happening, and I should NOT begrudge you for having the same thoughts. Mostly, I''m glad it is happening, because I want us out of there too, but not under just ANY circumstances.

I think to leave in the lurch, would be as big a mistake as us going in on the first place. And, I do think it was a mistake, but given what we knew at the time, I think we would still have done it again. Let''s face it our intelligence was bad. Most of congress said yes, go.

To bail on another group of folks that put their necks on the line, and I think they proved that with the vote, would have be catastrophic for future situations, if we ever got involved. Then our credibility would be challengable by any country.

Anyway - let''s hope the situation continues to get better, and we can turn the problem over to the Iraqis themselves.

[drummer94]

I thought about this for a while speakinup, and I guess I need to say I see where you''re coming from. BUT, (sorry) in the scheme of things there, was the civvie population getting involved the point of the surge? Or was it bigger? Just askin.

[speakinup]

"Don''t be so quick to place credit. It might not be due. Posted by drummer94 at 05:54 PM

Let''s both hope you are wrong drummer94. And, not because of either of us having a liberal or neocon point of view.

[drummer94]

You don''t have to go to such great lengths speakinup. Hey, I''m happy deaths of our troops are down too. I can''t believe that I would ever have to say I''m happy about that but never the less. WHY is the point and question. Don''t be so quick to place credit. It might not be due.

[speakinup]

drummer94 - So, immediately following the speach where the ''surge'' was announced, "a New way forward was announced by the whitehouse"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007

According to wikipedia the President had 6 ideas in mind for the new way forward, two of which were: Help Iraqis protect the population; Isolate extremists.

How else to isolate the extremeists, than enlist the help of the locals which had become very disenchanted with the extremeists indescriminient killing of the population (note the protection of the population point.)

Let me refresh your memory by quoting what folks had to say about Bush''s new plan, - directly from wikipedia:

Other critics have compared Bush''s new plan to "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

And in Bush''s State of the Union, on 1/27/07 "In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we''re deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads."

Nice or you to agree with the President - but don''t try to take credit.

[toolmangler-2009]

"A U.S. helicopter opened fire on a group of men as they were planting roadside bombs in a Sunni stronghold north of Baghdad on Tuesday, then chased them into a nearby house, killing 11 Iraqis, including five women and one child, the military said"



I think that some of you will say that the moment the bomb planters ran into a residence that the attack should stop. RRRiiiggghhhttt!!!!! then they should just stop all attacks while the bombers are inside out of view, Rrrriiiiggghhhttt!!! these same people would be very happy if we allowed them to shoot at us without responding. ssshhheeessshhh!!!!!

[drummer94]

You just must''ve been giddy typing that post ''eh speakinup? You''ve been waiting a long time for it. Man, you were almost gloating on the decrease in our troops death rates goin down. You are happy about it though, true? Hate to burst your bubble, but I don''t think it had anything to do with the surge. Read the part about the increased participation of the civilians. "Citizen force" they are referred to. I said a long time ago, that this nightmare will stop when the Iraqi people want it to stop. Not before.