No graph this time--I'm saving my energy for a graph covering the whole of the Iraq War and its aftermath for the whole of the Bush presidency. I'll probably keep tabs on the casualties without working up a monthly graph from this point on.
In January only six coalition soldiers lost their lives through Jan 16 according to icasualties.org, with half of those listed as "non-hostile" deaths. Those numbers are slightly worse than the mid-month count from November (four total, two non-hostile) but still extrapolate to the best month for coalition troop safety since the start of the war.
General Petraeus, coalition troops and Iraqi security forces deserve immense praise. And President Bush deserves immense credit for showing the resolve to win in Iraq. I've run across liberals writing to the effect that success in Iraq is "impossible" despite the security gains we're seeing now, but I don't see any reasonable justification for such a gloomy outlook. But I'm sure a President Obama will appreciate having the bar set on the ground with respect to his Iraq policy. Anything that gets us out will be considered a success, I suppose.
Showing posts with label Iraq Casualty Update. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq Casualty Update. Show all posts
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Iraq violence update, January 2009
The final numbers from 2008's final month (as compiled by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, aka icasualties.org) show a fairly smooth transition between coalition security provided primarily by the United States military and home-grown Iraqi security forces.
The graphs:
Despite a bloody start to December, the final number of deaths for civilian and Iraqi security forces showed only a slight uptick from the preceding month. Note that my graph is inaccurate, for I accidentally used the figure of 299 which was later updated to 320. I plan a set of graphs representing the entire course of casualties in Iraq during the Bush presidency, and I will use the proper figures for that graph.
As noted above, the slight increase in deaths reflects a fairly smooth transition taking place between the coalition and Iraqi security forces.
Coalition fatalities in December were almost exactly like those in November, with seven listed as resulting from hostile fire in each month. One less non-hostile fatality took place which resulted in the slight decline. The figure supports the conclusion of a very mild uptick in violence for the month.
We can probably look forward to continued progress if the next president restrains himself from acting hastily. Iraqi security forces continue to require air and logistic assistance. I'm not sure how Obama will classify air support as something other than "combat troops" but the help will be needed however he justifies it. There simply isn't an adequate Iraqi air force for the foreseeable future. Remote-controlled drones may be able to substantially fulfill the role, however.
The graphs:
Despite a bloody start to December, the final number of deaths for civilian and Iraqi security forces showed only a slight uptick from the preceding month. Note that my graph is inaccurate, for I accidentally used the figure of 299 which was later updated to 320. I plan a set of graphs representing the entire course of casualties in Iraq during the Bush presidency, and I will use the proper figures for that graph.
As noted above, the slight increase in deaths reflects a fairly smooth transition taking place between the coalition and Iraqi security forces.
Coalition fatalities in December were almost exactly like those in November, with seven listed as resulting from hostile fire in each month. One less non-hostile fatality took place which resulted in the slight decline. The figure supports the conclusion of a very mild uptick in violence for the month.
We can probably look forward to continued progress if the next president restrains himself from acting hastily. Iraqi security forces continue to require air and logistic assistance. I'm not sure how Obama will classify air support as something other than "combat troops" but the help will be needed however he justifies it. There simply isn't an adequate Iraqi air force for the foreseeable future. Remote-controlled drones may be able to substantially fulfill the role, however.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Iraq violence update, December 2008
November proved a stable month in Iraq, though December is off to a rocky start. Hostile fatalities for coalition troops remained the same as last month, with non-hostile deaths up slightly.
I finally found a graphics tool to allow correction of the distortion I was getting with pasted Excel graph images. It takes a bit of time, since the process requires recreation of the image pretty much from scratch. But I'm satisfied with the initial results.
Casualties among Iraqi civilians and security forces are up slightly for November. Even taking three month averages together to smooth out the bumps a bit reveals a slight increase in the fatality trend, which is perhaps confirmed by the spate of violence that kicked off December. A message from insurgents to Barack Obama, reminding him to conduct a rapid withdrawal? That's hard to say, since a number of factors have simply made it easier for attacks to take place. First, Iraqi security is handling more and more security duties. Second, concrete barriers erected as part of the surge strategy have been removed in some areas, making it easier to employ car bombs and the like.
The story remains the same. Iraq has been won, but not irrevocably.
I finally found a graphics tool to allow correction of the distortion I was getting with pasted Excel graph images. It takes a bit of time, since the process requires recreation of the image pretty much from scratch. But I'm satisfied with the initial results.
Casualties among Iraqi civilians and security forces are up slightly for November. Even taking three month averages together to smooth out the bumps a bit reveals a slight increase in the fatality trend, which is perhaps confirmed by the spate of violence that kicked off December. A message from insurgents to Barack Obama, reminding him to conduct a rapid withdrawal? That's hard to say, since a number of factors have simply made it easier for attacks to take place. First, Iraqi security is handling more and more security duties. Second, concrete barriers erected as part of the surge strategy have been removed in some areas, making it easier to employ car bombs and the like.
The story remains the same. Iraq has been won, but not irrevocably.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Iraq violence update, November 2008
The numbers from September, with the numbers coming from Icasualities.org and the graphs by me (forgive the crude renderings--I'm working with primitive graphics programs).
The numbers of dead for Iraqi civilians and security forces continue to trend lower. This is a mild surprise given the relaxation of travel restrictions in Baghdad, though it is also important to point out that violence in Baghdad did increase in some respects according to news reports, as with a several bombings during one day late in October.
The mainstream press easily beat me in reporting the very low fatality total for coalition troops. I could hazard the guess that Obama's proposals for withdrawing troops might help spur such reporting. With fatalities lower, one might reason, the time for phased withdrawal has arrived. Icasualties.org performed a late update on its figures, so my numbers differ slightly from mainstream news accounts derived from the same source.
I've stuck with the convention of showing 13 months at a time, which enables me to show a detailed graph that clearly shows recent trends. Long term trends are no less important, however. This month, given the impending change of power in Washington, I'm showing a long-term graph for coalition fatalities. Also note that I got around to graphing the "non-hostile" deaths as determined by the Pentagon and duly reported at Icasualties.org.
Non-hostile deaths have no readily apparent correlation to hostilities or hostile deaths. I found myself amazed at the number, along with fact that the media haven't bothered to crunch the numbers much at all.
According to my count, over 20 percent of reported deaths were not caused by enemy hostilities (if a U.S. soldier murdered another U.S. soldier, which has happened, it would be counted as a non-hostile fatality).
The fourth graph is remarkable, in retrospect. It represents an amazing turnaround in Iraq. The surge strategy was chosen in January and the troop levels increased gradually, not reaching their peak until the summer. The strategy was not implemented all at once. Rather, it was done region by region starting in Anbar province where the surge tactics were already in place. As Anbar stabilized, the strategy was employed in other locations including the Baghdad region.
The spike in May 2008, of course, represents the crackdown on the Sadrist militias. That move was not part of the surge strategy, strictly speaking, since Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki initiated the confrontation to both test Iraqi security forces and to politically marginalize the Sadrists. Al-Maliki accomplished his goal in spades, and inspired considerable unity in Iraq by confronting his own religious sect, the majority Shia. Sunni Muslims in Iraq took note.
May victory in Iraq endure whatever a President Obama decides to do.
The numbers of dead for Iraqi civilians and security forces continue to trend lower. This is a mild surprise given the relaxation of travel restrictions in Baghdad, though it is also important to point out that violence in Baghdad did increase in some respects according to news reports, as with a several bombings during one day late in October.
The mainstream press easily beat me in reporting the very low fatality total for coalition troops. I could hazard the guess that Obama's proposals for withdrawing troops might help spur such reporting. With fatalities lower, one might reason, the time for phased withdrawal has arrived. Icasualties.org performed a late update on its figures, so my numbers differ slightly from mainstream news accounts derived from the same source.
I've stuck with the convention of showing 13 months at a time, which enables me to show a detailed graph that clearly shows recent trends. Long term trends are no less important, however. This month, given the impending change of power in Washington, I'm showing a long-term graph for coalition fatalities. Also note that I got around to graphing the "non-hostile" deaths as determined by the Pentagon and duly reported at Icasualties.org.
Non-hostile deaths have no readily apparent correlation to hostilities or hostile deaths. I found myself amazed at the number, along with fact that the media haven't bothered to crunch the numbers much at all.
According to my count, over 20 percent of reported deaths were not caused by enemy hostilities (if a U.S. soldier murdered another U.S. soldier, which has happened, it would be counted as a non-hostile fatality).
The fourth graph is remarkable, in retrospect. It represents an amazing turnaround in Iraq. The surge strategy was chosen in January and the troop levels increased gradually, not reaching their peak until the summer. The strategy was not implemented all at once. Rather, it was done region by region starting in Anbar province where the surge tactics were already in place. As Anbar stabilized, the strategy was employed in other locations including the Baghdad region.
The spike in May 2008, of course, represents the crackdown on the Sadrist militias. That move was not part of the surge strategy, strictly speaking, since Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki initiated the confrontation to both test Iraqi security forces and to politically marginalize the Sadrists. Al-Maliki accomplished his goal in spades, and inspired considerable unity in Iraq by confronting his own religious sect, the majority Shia. Sunni Muslims in Iraq took note.
May victory in Iraq endure whatever a President Obama decides to do.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Mid-month Iraq fatality update, October 2008
The data for the chart come from icasualties.org.
The general downward trend of fatalities for coalition troops remains obvious. Inside the numbers, however, the story is slightly different. As of today, icasualties counts eight fatalities total. Of those eight, five were designated as due to hostilities. That is a low number, but there is some perspective to add.
At the time of last month's mid-month update, only two were designated as resulting from hostilities. By the end up the month the total had risen to eight. Projecting the October mid-month figure to predict the entire month suggests we'll end up in the neighborhood of 10. I suppose it could be said that projections suggest that coalition fatalities will increase by a quarter this month. While that's true, such handling of trends with smaller numbers tends to mean little. As I pointed out last month (and I will continue to do so), when the numbers get this small they will tend to fluctuate without necessarily establishing any informative trend.
I expect coalition fatalities to stay low even with the barriers coming down in Baghdad, mainly because nationals have taken over the bulk of security operations.
It remains to be seen whether an Obama administration re-emboldens AQI or influences (unintentionally, to be sure) Shiite radicals to step up their operations.
It also remains to be seen how well Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki welcomes Sunnis into a nationalistic unity.
The general downward trend of fatalities for coalition troops remains obvious. Inside the numbers, however, the story is slightly different. As of today, icasualties counts eight fatalities total. Of those eight, five were designated as due to hostilities. That is a low number, but there is some perspective to add.
At the time of last month's mid-month update, only two were designated as resulting from hostilities. By the end up the month the total had risen to eight. Projecting the October mid-month figure to predict the entire month suggests we'll end up in the neighborhood of 10. I suppose it could be said that projections suggest that coalition fatalities will increase by a quarter this month. While that's true, such handling of trends with smaller numbers tends to mean little. As I pointed out last month (and I will continue to do so), when the numbers get this small they will tend to fluctuate without necessarily establishing any informative trend.
I expect coalition fatalities to stay low even with the barriers coming down in Baghdad, mainly because nationals have taken over the bulk of security operations.
It remains to be seen whether an Obama administration re-emboldens AQI or influences (unintentionally, to be sure) Shiite radicals to step up their operations.
It also remains to be seen how well Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki welcomes Sunnis into a nationalistic unity.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Iraq violence update, October 2008
The numbers for September; the graphs are mine and the numbers come from Icasualties.org.
Iraqi fatalities (civilian and security forces combined) rose slightly in September compared to August. But the numbers continued down from the July total, fulfilling at least for now my expectation that fatalities would continue to gradually drop.
The challenge at present comes primarily from Shia extremists supported by Iran. AQI struggles to maintain its very tenuous foothold in Mosul.
The transition of Sunni Awakening forces from American employ to supervision under the Iraqi national government remains key. Some reports have surfaced suggesting that poor treatment of the Sunnis could still result in sectarian violence sufficient for the "civil war" term to again be brought into play. The Maliki government took the good and important step of promising to pay Sunni Awakening security forces and fold most of them into the nationalized security forces. The government probably won't trust some of the Sunnis as part of its security forces--and that is understandable, expected and wise. But the government must be very careful about whom it accepts. Drawing a hard line in the wrong spot will cause resentment.
Coalition fatalities were up, but not in a way that particularly helps the position of those invested in defeat. Note that the black area of the graph representing "non-hostile" deaths accounts for over half the total. Even supposing that the Pentagon miscategorized a helicopter crash (that killed seven), the total would have been 15. The reported total of eight represents a continuation of the amazing success of the surge COIN strategy.
Iraqi fatalities (civilian and security forces combined) rose slightly in September compared to August. But the numbers continued down from the July total, fulfilling at least for now my expectation that fatalities would continue to gradually drop.
The challenge at present comes primarily from Shia extremists supported by Iran. AQI struggles to maintain its very tenuous foothold in Mosul.
The transition of Sunni Awakening forces from American employ to supervision under the Iraqi national government remains key. Some reports have surfaced suggesting that poor treatment of the Sunnis could still result in sectarian violence sufficient for the "civil war" term to again be brought into play. The Maliki government took the good and important step of promising to pay Sunni Awakening security forces and fold most of them into the nationalized security forces. The government probably won't trust some of the Sunnis as part of its security forces--and that is understandable, expected and wise. But the government must be very careful about whom it accepts. Drawing a hard line in the wrong spot will cause resentment.
Coalition fatalities were up, but not in a way that particularly helps the position of those invested in defeat. Note that the black area of the graph representing "non-hostile" deaths accounts for over half the total. Even supposing that the Pentagon miscategorized a helicopter crash (that killed seven), the total would have been 15. The reported total of eight represents a continuation of the amazing success of the surge COIN strategy.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Mid-month Iraq fatality update, September
The news remains good for the United States and bad for those invested in a U.S. defeat in Iraq.
The mid-month daily average of coalition fatalities stands at what would be a record low if the number holds up through the end of the month. Of course there's no way of telling whether or not that will happen. All we really know is that the number cannot sink below 0.2 per day without a revision in the individual fatality reports.
Recently I've been making a distinction between hostile and non-hostile deaths, based on the notion that hostile deaths provide a better measure of the degree of enemy activity directed against coalition troops. At this stage, only two of the six fatalities were classified as "hostile."
Friday, September 05, 2008
Iraq violence update, September 2008
The numbers for August are complete at icasualties.org--they rarely update significantly after several days have elapsed in the new month. The graphs reflect the past year or so (13 months including August of 2007).
Deaths among Iraqi security forces and civilians dropped more for this month than I expected. I had predicted a continued gradual decline. If this type of decline continues then jumping for joy would be fitting. It wouldn't surprise me to see this number bump up a little next month, though I continue to expect a general downward trend
Deaths among coalition troops were up slightly--less than expected extrapolating from the mid-month numbers for August. The black graph superimposed on the blue portion represents what the Pentagon classifies as "non-hostile" deaths, such as from vehicle accidents. The blue portion showing above the black thus represents the number of hostile deaths and therefore should more accurately reflect the level of violence against coalition troops in terms of trends. Note that the blue portion only widened slightly from last month's record low. Minus non-hostile deaths, only 12 coalition troops lost their lives in August. The difference compared to the previous August is considerable.
The numbers are extremely consistent with the view that the Iraq War is won or nearly won. President Bush is vindicated even if the world's intelligence services are not.
Deaths among Iraqi security forces and civilians dropped more for this month than I expected. I had predicted a continued gradual decline. If this type of decline continues then jumping for joy would be fitting. It wouldn't surprise me to see this number bump up a little next month, though I continue to expect a general downward trend
Deaths among coalition troops were up slightly--less than expected extrapolating from the mid-month numbers for August. The black graph superimposed on the blue portion represents what the Pentagon classifies as "non-hostile" deaths, such as from vehicle accidents. The blue portion showing above the black thus represents the number of hostile deaths and therefore should more accurately reflect the level of violence against coalition troops in terms of trends. Note that the blue portion only widened slightly from last month's record low. Minus non-hostile deaths, only 12 coalition troops lost their lives in August. The difference compared to the previous August is considerable.
The numbers are extremely consistent with the view that the Iraq War is won or nearly won. President Bush is vindicated even if the world's intelligence services are not.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Iraq casualties: Separating non-hostile deaths from hostile ones
As promised, I have begun to delve into the reporting of coalition troop deaths. I noticed how troop deaths categorized as "non-hostile" by the Pentagon were included without differentiation in most reporting unless one digs into the reporting. Icasualities.org, though it reports the raw numbers without differentiating between one and the other, is thorough enough to provide the information for those willing to look.
Including non-hostile deaths tends to give an inflated perception of the level of violence faced by our troops, though it is also fair to question whether the Pentagon always accurately categorizes each fatality.
Note that even during peacetime the military encounters a substantial number of fatalities. See page 10 ("Table 4") here. The lowest number of casualties among U.S. troops for any given year was 758 during President Clinton's final year in office. Obviously it is not entirely fair to count military deaths that would likely happen regardless of the circumstance of the Iraq War as a result of the war.
The graph, without further ado:
The blue represents total coalition casualties (deaths).
The black represents the number of deaths classified as "non-hostile."
I don't guarantee the accuracy of my count, by the way. My eyes tend to bug out when I count while scrolling. If it's not accurate it should be close, however.
Minus increased operations that result in an increased risk of non-hostile fatalities one would expect a relatively constant rate of those fatalities. The spike in numbers for August and September of 2007 counts as a bit of a surprise. Of course, accidents that result in multiple/many fatalities will result in exactly that type of phenomenon.
Including non-hostile deaths tends to give an inflated perception of the level of violence faced by our troops, though it is also fair to question whether the Pentagon always accurately categorizes each fatality.
Note that even during peacetime the military encounters a substantial number of fatalities. See page 10 ("Table 4") here. The lowest number of casualties among U.S. troops for any given year was 758 during President Clinton's final year in office. Obviously it is not entirely fair to count military deaths that would likely happen regardless of the circumstance of the Iraq War as a result of the war.
The graph, without further ado:
The blue represents total coalition casualties (deaths).
The black represents the number of deaths classified as "non-hostile."
I don't guarantee the accuracy of my count, by the way. My eyes tend to bug out when I count while scrolling. If it's not accurate it should be close, however.
Minus increased operations that result in an increased risk of non-hostile fatalities one would expect a relatively constant rate of those fatalities. The spike in numbers for August and September of 2007 counts as a bit of a surprise. Of course, accidents that result in multiple/many fatalities will result in exactly that type of phenomenon.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Iraq violence update, August 2008
The numbers are in for July 2008, apart from late revisions. As usual, I've taken the numbers compiled from the good folks at icasualties.org and generated Excel graphs from their numbers.
Two things to note. First, the numbers may change as noted above. That means my graphs may not agree with the numbers posted tomorrow or the day after. Second, to aid in interpretation of the numbers in terms of recent events, the monthly graphs will cover the past year (13 months of data including the data from the same month last year). The graphs are somewhat easier to read that way, though I'll also periodically produce graphs representing longer time frames in order to emphasize changes over those longer periods.
The violent death numbers for civilians and Iraqi security forces follows the trend I have predicted since the Mahdi Army confrontation spike. The number nearly dropped below 400 for July save for a set of attacks by female suicide bombers near the end of the month. It would be interesting to know how the per capita numbers compare with those from Turkey, Syria, Saudia Arabia and Iran.
Mainstream media outlet have been running some stories about the historically low death rate among coalition troops for July. The number reported by icasualties.org differs from DoD numbers by two, and I'm quite certain that the difference occurs because the DoD did not count the recovery of bodies of soldiers who went missing over a year ago as July deaths. Two such were recovered last month.
Two things to note. First, the numbers may change as noted above. That means my graphs may not agree with the numbers posted tomorrow or the day after. Second, to aid in interpretation of the numbers in terms of recent events, the monthly graphs will cover the past year (13 months of data including the data from the same month last year). The graphs are somewhat easier to read that way, though I'll also periodically produce graphs representing longer time frames in order to emphasize changes over those longer periods.
The violent death numbers for civilians and Iraqi security forces follows the trend I have predicted since the Mahdi Army confrontation spike. The number nearly dropped below 400 for July save for a set of attacks by female suicide bombers near the end of the month. It would be interesting to know how the per capita numbers compare with those from Turkey, Syria, Saudia Arabia and Iran.
Mainstream media outlet have been running some stories about the historically low death rate among coalition troops for July. The number reported by icasualties.org differs from DoD numbers by two, and I'm quite certain that the difference occurs because the DoD did not count the recovery of bodies of soldiers who went missing over a year ago as July deaths. Two such were recovered last month.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Mid-month Iraq casualty update
The numbers so far from Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (icasualties.org) continue to support the success of the surge strategy.
My mid-month update will include only one graph since most of the raw numbers make for useless graphs. For example, graphing the total number of documented Iraqi security and civilian deaths based on a fifteen day total does little other than provide a misleading graphic picture.
The one graph I intend to use for mid-month updates is the average number of coalition troops killed per day. That number remains significant and is less misleading than a running total, especially if the graph carries an explanation.
The downward trend at the end of the graph is obvious. The caveat is that the latter half of July might feature 50 U.S. troops killed and inflate the average back to an average comparable to that in September of 2007. On the other hand, the average cannot sink significantly below .2 deaths per day without finding that some of the deaths already counted did not take place.
The trend suggests that July will stand as the safest month yet for U.S. troops, at least in terms of service deaths. And if we hunt inside the numbers a bit the picture is actually somewhat better. Of the six deaths counted in the first half of July 2008, two were the recovered bodies of soldiers abducted over a year ago. The tragedy of those deaths does not shrink as a result of it being old news, but it is worth noting that the deaths did not occur as a result of recent violence. A third U.S. death is listed as not occurring because of hostile fire, so again violent acts of insurgents or militias probably cannot be blamed.
Icasualties.org also has a graphic (top left) indicating the average number of deaths during various phases of the war. It occurred to me that the graphic potentially provides a skewed view of the results of the surge. Icasualties counts six phases of the war, with the most recent the "surge or troop escalation" starting of Feb 1, 2007 and continuing through the present. At present, the average deaths per day for the surge phase stand at 2.06. That counts as the second-lowest total for any of the six phases, but the graph I've posted prompts an additional observation. The average deaths figure for every month following Gen. Petraeus' September report to Congress has fallen below the average for the least violent listed stage of the war (1.9).
The icasulties.org figures for civilian and security forces deaths likewise reflect a shrinking trend. Doubling the current numbers (138 as of today) to estimate the total for the end of the month agrees with the picture of a more peaceful Iraq.
My mid-month update will include only one graph since most of the raw numbers make for useless graphs. For example, graphing the total number of documented Iraqi security and civilian deaths based on a fifteen day total does little other than provide a misleading graphic picture.
The one graph I intend to use for mid-month updates is the average number of coalition troops killed per day. That number remains significant and is less misleading than a running total, especially if the graph carries an explanation.
The downward trend at the end of the graph is obvious. The caveat is that the latter half of July might feature 50 U.S. troops killed and inflate the average back to an average comparable to that in September of 2007. On the other hand, the average cannot sink significantly below .2 deaths per day without finding that some of the deaths already counted did not take place.
The trend suggests that July will stand as the safest month yet for U.S. troops, at least in terms of service deaths. And if we hunt inside the numbers a bit the picture is actually somewhat better. Of the six deaths counted in the first half of July 2008, two were the recovered bodies of soldiers abducted over a year ago. The tragedy of those deaths does not shrink as a result of it being old news, but it is worth noting that the deaths did not occur as a result of recent violence. A third U.S. death is listed as not occurring because of hostile fire, so again violent acts of insurgents or militias probably cannot be blamed.
Icasualties.org also has a graphic (top left) indicating the average number of deaths during various phases of the war. It occurred to me that the graphic potentially provides a skewed view of the results of the surge. Icasualties counts six phases of the war, with the most recent the "surge or troop escalation" starting of Feb 1, 2007 and continuing through the present. At present, the average deaths per day for the surge phase stand at 2.06. That counts as the second-lowest total for any of the six phases, but the graph I've posted prompts an additional observation. The average deaths figure for every month following Gen. Petraeus' September report to Congress has fallen below the average for the least violent listed stage of the war (1.9).
The icasulties.org figures for civilian and security forces deaths likewise reflect a shrinking trend. Doubling the current numbers (138 as of today) to estimate the total for the end of the month agrees with the picture of a more peaceful Iraq.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Iraq violence update, July 2008
The graphs are mine, the data come from icasualties.org.
In the future I'll save the daily average graph for a mid-month update. It is the only graph from the above set that carries at least some of its relevance for a mid-month report. It's too much like the blue graph to reproduce after the end of the month. I have also decided to limit the two monthly graphs to a two year span. That should keep the graphs easy to read and interpret.
What does it all mean?
The numbers from this month remain relatively stable compared to last month. Deaths among coalition troops rose slightly (31 for June compared to a 21 in May). Civilian and security forces deaths reached their all-time low according to the icasualties data, which is kept from January 2006 through the present. Iraq Body Count publishes data with a longer history.
clipped from www.iraqbodycount.org
The IBC data show that we still have a distance to go in order to quash the violence against civilians. The graphs look pretty good for the time span covered by icasualties.org, reflecting clear progress, but the numbers remain sobering overall. Expect the numbers to continue to shrink gradually. If Al Qaeda Iraq is responsible for the bulk of civilian casualties then eradicating AQI should constitute a big step toward making Iraq a peaceful society. Unfortunately, Iran may be deliberately stirring things up and causing deaths among civilians and security forces.
The news from Iraq, despite the rise in American deaths, remains overall good. Operations against AQI and radical Shiites continue, and the Iraqi security forces continue to take the lead in an increasing number of operations. Hope has taken root in Iraq among our allies.
In the future I'll save the daily average graph for a mid-month update. It is the only graph from the above set that carries at least some of its relevance for a mid-month report. It's too much like the blue graph to reproduce after the end of the month. I have also decided to limit the two monthly graphs to a two year span. That should keep the graphs easy to read and interpret.What does it all mean?
The numbers from this month remain relatively stable compared to last month. Deaths among coalition troops rose slightly (31 for June compared to a 21 in May). Civilian and security forces deaths reached their all-time low according to the icasualties data, which is kept from January 2006 through the present. Iraq Body Count publishes data with a longer history.
Deaths per day from suicide attacks and vehicle bombs (now includes non-vehicle suicide attacks)
Deaths per day from gunfire / executions
 |
The IBC data show that we still have a distance to go in order to quash the violence against civilians. The graphs look pretty good for the time span covered by icasualties.org, reflecting clear progress, but the numbers remain sobering overall. Expect the numbers to continue to shrink gradually. If Al Qaeda Iraq is responsible for the bulk of civilian casualties then eradicating AQI should constitute a big step toward making Iraq a peaceful society. Unfortunately, Iran may be deliberately stirring things up and causing deaths among civilians and security forces.
The news from Iraq, despite the rise in American deaths, remains overall good. Operations against AQI and radical Shiites continue, and the Iraqi security forces continue to take the lead in an increasing number of operations. Hope has taken root in Iraq among our allies.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Iraq violence update
As usual, I have used information from icasualties.org (Iraq Coalition Casualty Count) to develop some graphs reflecting trends in Iraq violence. I've added a third tracking graph, this one representing the average number of coalition troops killed per day over the course of each month. The monthly average makes early returns more useful, in that a mid-month average (right now for June 2008 the average is 1.23) can be reasonably compared to the previous month's average.
On the third graph, note that the beginning point is January of 2007. As one might expect, the yellow graph closely shadows the blue graph for the corresponding period.
On the third graph, note that the beginning point is January of 2007. As one might expect, the yellow graph closely shadows the blue graph for the corresponding period.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Iraq Casualty update
Iraq Casualty Count has finally updated and posted its statistics for deaths among Iraqi civilians and security forces. Not to suggest that they were lazy or incompetent--their site was victimized by a malicious hacker.
Without further ado, the updated graph based on their data:
I usually do the count of coalition deaths in blue and the civilian/security forces count in red. My recent update of the coalition death count reversed that practice accidentally. With this graph the former tradition is re-established.
By way of analysis, the numbers from March (nearly 1,000 deaths counted) offered war opponents and anti-American propagandists some encouragement, to the extent that the numbers trended upward. In terms of the situation on the ground, however, the numbers should not have been discouraging. The Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia nominally under the command of anti-American radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, resisted a surprise crackdown initiated by Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki. That conflict resulted in a spike in violence while at the same time U.S. forces continued to try to root al Qaeda in Iraq out of its latest (lastest?) safe haven. In other words, the increased casualty numbers reflected the fallout from specific strategic moves that should have been expected to cause a rise in death statistics without indicating a worsening of the situation in Iraq.
Mainstream media sources such as The New York Times generally reported the confrontation between Iraqi security forces and the al-Sadr militia as a setback. That assessment was unreasonable at the time and even more so in retrospect, as al-Maliki has cemented his support across sectarian lines now, largely based on his willingness to confront the Shiite militia.
The rise to nearly 1,000 deaths in March of 2008 probably represents an isolated spike rather than an enduring upward trend.
Without further ado, the updated graph based on their data:
I usually do the count of coalition deaths in blue and the civilian/security forces count in red. My recent update of the coalition death count reversed that practice accidentally. With this graph the former tradition is re-established.
By way of analysis, the numbers from March (nearly 1,000 deaths counted) offered war opponents and anti-American propagandists some encouragement, to the extent that the numbers trended upward. In terms of the situation on the ground, however, the numbers should not have been discouraging. The Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia nominally under the command of anti-American radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, resisted a surprise crackdown initiated by Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki. That conflict resulted in a spike in violence while at the same time U.S. forces continued to try to root al Qaeda in Iraq out of its latest (lastest?) safe haven. In other words, the increased casualty numbers reflected the fallout from specific strategic moves that should have been expected to cause a rise in death statistics without indicating a worsening of the situation in Iraq.
Mainstream media sources such as The New York Times generally reported the confrontation between Iraqi security forces and the al-Sadr militia as a setback. That assessment was unreasonable at the time and even more so in retrospect, as al-Maliki has cemented his support across sectarian lines now, largely based on his willingness to confront the Shiite militia.
The rise to nearly 1,000 deaths in March of 2008 probably represents an isolated spike rather than an enduring upward trend.
*****
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Iraq Casualties, April 2008
I was a tad too busy to post the usual graph of Iraq Casualty Count's casualty statistics for March. And in early May ICC did not have their casualties posted because of a malicious cyber attack. They have restored the lists for coalition deaths, however, so I'll update the graph forthwith covering the two missed months at once.
This is the graph I normally color in blue, so I'm sure to cause unlimited confusion if anyone goes back comparing this graph with the older ones. Blame the malicious attacker.
In assessing the numbers from February I projected lower numbers for March based on an extrapolation of the early number from March. That's obviously a tenuous piece of data on which to build a projection--March deaths ended up higher, helped in part by violence from the Mahdi Army. The conflict with the Mahdi Army has persisted through the present day, though the coalition effort against the sectarian militia has been very effective. Though the early numbers for May project to higher totals than for April (54 deaths), I'll predict a lower number based on the fading resistance from the Mahdi Army and the increasing capability of the Iraqi security forces. Despite the somewhat higher death toll on U.S. troops, the overall news from Iraq has been good.
This is the graph I normally color in blue, so I'm sure to cause unlimited confusion if anyone goes back comparing this graph with the older ones. Blame the malicious attacker.
In assessing the numbers from February I projected lower numbers for March based on an extrapolation of the early number from March. That's obviously a tenuous piece of data on which to build a projection--March deaths ended up higher, helped in part by violence from the Mahdi Army. The conflict with the Mahdi Army has persisted through the present day, though the coalition effort against the sectarian militia has been very effective. Though the early numbers for May project to higher totals than for April (54 deaths), I'll predict a lower number based on the fading resistance from the Mahdi Army and the increasing capability of the Iraqi security forces. Despite the somewhat higher death toll on U.S. troops, the overall news from Iraq has been good.
*****
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Iraq casualties Feb 2008
It's time again to update the monthly graphs reflecting the numbers produced by Iraq Casualty Count. I don't update promptly at the end of the month because the casualty numbers sometimes change. Case in point, last month's total of coalition troop deaths was 39 according to my graph since that is what ICC was reporting when I collected the information. The total for January will appear as 40 on this month's graph since the information has been updated.
The above graph represents civilian and Iraqi security force deaths. That number increased considerably in relation to the trend since October, but remains substantially below the levels counted prior to the surge and over the first several months of the implementation of the new strategy.
The graph starts in Jan. 06 and ends in Feb. 08 just like the following one.
This graph is better news, for it shows that deaths of coalition troops (including U.S. military) continue to trend downward. Though it is statistically risky to extrapolate, March looks to improve on February based on the numbers so far (one death over the first four days).
The above graph represents civilian and Iraqi security force deaths. That number increased considerably in relation to the trend since October, but remains substantially below the levels counted prior to the surge and over the first several months of the implementation of the new strategy.
The graph starts in Jan. 06 and ends in Feb. 08 just like the following one.
This graph is better news, for it shows that deaths of coalition troops (including U.S. military) continue to trend downward. Though it is statistically risky to extrapolate, March looks to improve on February based on the numbers so far (one death over the first four days).
*****
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Iraq casualties for December '07 stay near November levels
What does it mean?
Some believe that data such as that reflected above has no value at all because the "documented" deaths are simply those the governments wants the public to know about. They believe that the press is controlled tightly enough to allow the government to more-or-less spin the data as it pleases. And there is probably some element of truth to that. Assuming any significant number of "undocumented" deaths, the actual number of deaths cannot help but exceed the number of documented deaths.
It isn't quite possible to entirely hide information under a rock these days, however. People in Iraq have cell phones and computers. Not in the numbers that the Japanese have them, but they're there. Information will get out one way or another. The people who go to Iraq lately (without any exception of which I am aware) have noted that Iraq seems more peaceful than it did before the surge strategy had time to effect change. Markets have reopened, and the daily routines of life have been largely reestablished.
In short, there's no denying that the the path toward sectarian civil war has been stalled if not entirely thwarted.
Now the opportunity exists for Iraq to establish the first Arab democracy and spread that model to its neighbors. In the global war on Islamic terrorism this is a key move. The United States should not shy from coaxing Iraq along the path toward good governance.
*****
Saturday, December 01, 2007
November in Iraq: Another drop in casualties
The casualty counts will probably endure some fits and starts in the coming months as the U.S. turns over more and more of the statistical record-keeping to Iraqi forces, but November showed another drop in casualties among civilians and Iraqi security forces.
U.S. military deaths, by staying about the same as for October, were on track to be at their lowest for a two-month period since Feb-Mar of 2004:
Democrats in Congress now look beyond pathetic. President Bush's change in strategy worked in spite of the initial charges that it would not. Gen. Petraeus was correct about reductions in violence despite comments such as that of Sen. Clinton that Petraeus' report requires "a willing suspension of disbelief" (Senatese for "Liar, liar, pants on fire!").
And now the Dems are apparently desperate to put their stamp on troop reductions to make sure the anti-war faction on the left gives credit where the Democrats want it.
Bear in mind that casualty figures might receive an upward adjustment if November casualties turn up in December. Usually such adjustments are minor, so it appears that this category of deaths dipped by approximately 100.(icasualties.org)
Nov-07 560 Oct-07 679 Sep-07 848 Aug-07 1,674 Jul-07 1,690 Jun-07 1,345 May-07 1,980
U.S. military deaths, by staying about the same as for October, were on track to be at their lowest for a two-month period since Feb-Mar of 2004:
It's worth noting that Iraq Body Count shows a much higher total for November, and it's somewhat more difficult to see trends in the IBC numbers than for icasualties.org.(icasualties.org)
2003 0 0 65 74 37 30 48 35 31 44 82 40 2004 47 20 52 135 80 42 54 66 80 64 137 72 2005 107 58 35 52 80 78 54 85 49 96 84 68 2006 62 55 31 76 69 61 43 65 72 106 70 112 2007 83 81 81 104 126 101 78 84 65 38 37
NOVEMBER TOTAL: 1,100 CIVILIANS KILLEDAnd in other news ...
(Iraq Body Count)
A Democrat congressman who once led criticism of the Iraq war now admits President Bush's change of strategy has improved security.Murtha went on to reiterate his call for a U.S. troop withdrawal.
(...)
Fresh from a four-day visit to Iraq and Kuwait, John Murtha said: "I think the 'surge' is working."
(TelegraphUK)
Democrats in Congress now look beyond pathetic. President Bush's change in strategy worked in spite of the initial charges that it would not. Gen. Petraeus was correct about reductions in violence despite comments such as that of Sen. Clinton that Petraeus' report requires "a willing suspension of disbelief" (Senatese for "Liar, liar, pants on fire!").
And now the Dems are apparently desperate to put their stamp on troop reductions to make sure the anti-war faction on the left gives credit where the Democrats want it.
*****
Friday, November 16, 2007
November midpoint: casualty trend continues to dip, trial of Shiite former officials approved by Maliki
The numbers from Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, at the current pace, should trend lower for the fourth straight month.
Captain's Quarters pointed to a new report by Michael Yon out of Baghdad indicating that the Muslims want their Christian neighbors to return to the old neighborhoods. Christians were some of the first to flee sectarian violence since al Qaeda tended to direct persecutions against them.
The willingness of the government to allow the prosecution to two former officials involved in sectarian violence through Iraq's health ministry makes for additional good news. The two Shiites used their position of authority to assist in violence against Sunnis. The move sends a message to Sunnis that Iraq will observe the rule of law--a critical step in the move toward a truly representative government.
Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidates continued to paint Iraq as a lost cause to loud applause. Go figure.
Nov-07 251 Oct-07 679 Sep-07 848 Aug-07 1,674 Jul-07 1,690 Jun-07 1,345 May-07 1,980 Apr-07 1,821 Mar-07 2,977 Feb-07 3,014 Jan-07 1,802
(ICCC)
Captain's Quarters pointed to a new report by Michael Yon out of Baghdad indicating that the Muslims want their Christian neighbors to return to the old neighborhoods. Christians were some of the first to flee sectarian violence since al Qaeda tended to direct persecutions against them.
The willingness of the government to allow the prosecution to two former officials involved in sectarian violence through Iraq's health ministry makes for additional good news. The two Shiites used their position of authority to assist in violence against Sunnis. The move sends a message to Sunnis that Iraq will observe the rule of law--a critical step in the move toward a truly representative government.
Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidates continued to paint Iraq as a lost cause to loud applause. Go figure.
*****
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Iraq: Casualties down for civilians, U.S. forces
Baghdad, Nov 1, (VOI) - Iraqi civilian casualties significantly dropped in October 2007, a month in which U.S. casualties also declined and Iraqi security forces' fatalities increased, according to joint statistics by the Iraqi ministries of interior, health, and defense.
"A total of 758 civilians were killed in October, down from 844 in September 2007," according to official figures received by the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).
U.S. casualties also declined. Tallies of U.S. deaths reported 36 fatalities in October, compared to 66 in September. October's total is the lowest since March 2006, when only 33 U.S. troops were reported dead.
The story goes on to report an increase in casualties among Iraqi security forces. Iraqi police casualties rose from 62 to 117 for the month, while casualties for army personnel dropped from 16 to 13. Thus the total rose from 78 to 130.
The combined numbers for October from Iraq Casualty Count:
Period Total Oct-07 676 Sep-07 848 Aug-07 1,674 Jul-07 1,690 Jun-07 1,345 May-07 1,980 Apr-07 1,821 Mar-07 2,977 Feb-07 3,014 Jan-07 1,802 Dec-06 1,752 Nov-06 1,864 Oct-06 1,539 Sep-06 3,539 Aug-06 2,966 Jul-06 1,280 Jun-06 870 May-06 1,119 Apr-06 1,009 Mar-06 1,092 Feb-06 846 Jan-06 779
 |
I don't know that Iraq Casualty Count has finalized their numbers for October, but it's clear that their numbers are lower at this point than the official count.
*****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)