US military losses in Iraq for September stood at 70 on Sunday, the lowest monthly figure since July last year, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures.

The figure also marks the fourth consecutive drop in the monthly death toll following a high of 121 in May. June saw 93 deaths, July 82 and August 79. The monthly toll in July 2006 was 53.

 

Two US soldiers were killed on Saturday in separate incidents, pushing the overall toll of American losses since the March 2003 invasion to 3,801.

 

A surge in US troop numbers saw an extra 28,500 personnel deployed from mid-February, mainly in Baghdad and the neighbouring province of Anbar, although commanders said most were not in combat positions until May.

 

US commanders say the strategy is starting to work and that levels of violence are dropping, allowing for a possible drawdown of the 160,000 or so troops now deployed.

 

"The trend is certainly in the right direction," US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox told a press conference in Baghdad.

 

"The surge unquestionably is what has been the catalyst that has created the opportunity to have more forces operating in more places at the same time and to deny Al-Qaeda and the extremists safe-haven and to take away sanctuaries."

 

The highest monthly toll was 137 in November 2004 when a US-led force stormed the insurgent bastion of Fallujah in fierce house-to-house fighting. Of the 137 dead, 126 were killed in action.

 

In April 2004, the second deadliest month since the invasion for US military personnel, 135 troops died. The month marked a turning point in the war with uprisings in Fallujah in the predominantly Sunni west, and in Shiite cities south of Baghdad.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...0|0|0|0|2|0|0#6

 

Wow, I thought we were 'losing'.

Oh come on. THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION TO THIS WAR. The Iraqis have to do their part if we are going to establish a viable government.

 

Our soldiers were dying more than usual, as anticipated, during the 'surge'. The problem was, they were essentially dying for no reason, because the Iraqi government was on vacation for over a month.

 

I don't see after almost five years now why we should continue to give billions to a powerless government in that country who do not have the political power or will to try and reconcile their differences. I also found it interesting that a bill was passed through the House and Senate which approved the idea proposed by Joe Biden that Iraq may have to be partitioned into three separate regions, one for each of the factions within the country.

 

Honestly, trying to hold together a country that was created on a whim by the British government after WWI doesn't make any sense. They do not get along, plain and simple. I'm convinced that it could take centuries for them to settle their differences, which have been going on for nearly a thousand years in some cases.

Oh come on.

 

 

Part one: THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION TO THIS WAR.

 

Part two: The Iraqis have to do their part if we are going to establish a viable government.

 

Part one: bulls***, such statements only continue to illustrate the abject lack of understanding of how the military and insurgencies work.

 

Part two: Fighting and dying aren't their part? It is going to take 5 years (of which we've invested about 3) to build a solid corps of NCOs that will make the Iraqi army function, and our nation took 13 years to form a lasting a stable form of government.

 

I don't see after almost five years now why we should continue to give billions to a powerless government in that country who do not have the political power or will to try and reconcile their differences. I also found it interesting that a bill was passed through the House and Senate which approved the idea proposed by Joe Biden that Iraq may have to be partitioned into three separate regions, one for each of the factions within the country.

 

A study of history shows that Insurgencies take upwards of 10 years to defeat. Partitioning Iraq will cause turmoil beyond measure in Syria (who cares) and Turkey (bad idea). The reason why the Sunni have calmed down and joined with US forces in opposing Al Queda and other terrorist groups is because the Kurds basically told them that the secret for success is alliance with the United States.

As a practicing pseudo-atheist/misanthrope, I'd prefer a solution involving a bomb with a fusion reaction. Shame we can't pump out all the oil fast enough.

First of all, nobody has ever said we are losing. That is terminology that people have put into the mouths of anti-war folks to make them look like they want us to lose.

 

Second, what war is there to win? Who are we fighting exactly? What is our goal? This thing has been redefined about ten times over.

 

1. A beacon of democracy for the Middle-East with pure peace.

2. A sustainable democracy with occasional violence.

3. A loose coalition of people who will not slaughter each other.

4. Some viable system with the understanding that large violent attacks happen.

5. Get them to stop killing each other long enough so that we can go after AQ in Iraq which didn't exist before we got there.

 

Current goal: Delay long enough so that Bush doesn't look bad.

 

Third, progress in Iraq is now 70 soldiers dying instead of 100?

 

 

Listen, plenty of times the pro-war people have been asked what they consider the current goal and what they consider necessary accomplish for us to pull out from Iraq? I haven't heard anything of substance from any of you pro-war people or the presidential candidates that want to stay. What have we heard? Rhetoric. If we pull out, then those who attacked us on 9-11 win. If we pull out, bad things will happen. If we pull out, then we have surrendered.

 

Well tell me this, how long are you willing to stay to accomplish something and what is it that you deem enough to have accomplished enough?

 

Nobody ever answers this. The bigger reality is that the situation in Iraq is so chaotic that you know full well it is going to take an extremely long time. Nothing, I mean nothing, the Iraqi government has done gives us any indication that our goals will be accomplished by sticking it out just that much longer. The Iraqi politicians have their own agendas on their minds. They have a power vacuum they want to take advantage of.

 

And what about the reality of giving the new government possibly being absolutely what we never wanted to see, a Islamic fundamentalist nation on the same side as Iran?

 

Rather than acknowledge reality, we keep hearing reverse statements attacking democrats, because nobody wants to be responsble for admitting this was a total f*** up.

First of all, nobody has ever said we are losing. That is terminology that people have put into the mouths of anti-war folks to make them look like they want us to lose.

lets see...we are fighting two losing wars(if we havent caught osama...then we are losing)...sure the technology and training has improved...without a doubt...but we are still losing...

:| what progress? get over it. it's done! we lost!

Those are just two of the first I found in a quick search.

 

So yeah, pretty much not puting anything in anyone's mouth.

First of all, nobody has ever said we are losing. That is terminology that people have put into the mouths of anti-war folks to make them look like they want us to lose.

lets see...we are fighting two losing wars(if we havent caught osama...then we are losing)...sure the technology and training has improved...without a doubt...but we are still losing...

:| what progress? get over it. it's done! we lost!

Those are just two of the first I found in a quick search.

 

So yeah, pretty much not puting anything in anyone's mouth.

if there is nothing to win? whats the next best adjective to describe what is going on? that we are tied? going to a shootout?

F_M is spot on. Well done there.

We aren't losing or winning, the whole damned thing is just retarded.

First of all, nobody has ever said we are losing. That is terminology that people have put into the mouths of anti-war folks to make them look like they want us to lose.

 

Second, what war is there to win? Who are we fighting exactly? What is our goal? This thing has been redefined about ten times over.

 

1. A beacon of democracy for the Middle-East with pure peace.

2. A sustainable democracy with occasional violence.

3. A loose coalition of people who will not slaughter each other.

4. Some viable system with the understanding that large violent attacks happen.

5. Get them to stop killing each other long enough so that we can go after AQ in Iraq which didn't exist before we got there.

 

Current goal: Delay long enough so that Bush doesn't look bad.

 

Third, progress in Iraq is now 70 soldiers dying instead of 100?

 

 

Listen, plenty of times the pro-war people have been asked what they consider the current goal and what they consider necessary accomplish for us to pull out from Iraq? I haven't heard anything of substance from any of you pro-war people or the presidential candidates that want to stay. What have we heard? Rhetoric. If we pull out, then those who attacked us on 9-11 win. If we pull out, bad things will happen. If we pull out, then we have surrendered.

 

Well tell me this, how long are you willing to stay to accomplish something and what is it that you deem enough to have accomplished enough?

 

Nobody ever answers this. The bigger reality is that the situation in Iraq is so chaotic that you know full well it is going to take an extremely long time. Nothing, I mean nothing, the Iraqi government has done gives us any indication that our goals will be accomplished by sticking it out just that much longer. The Iraqi politicians have their own agendas on their minds. They have a power vacuum they want to take advantage of.

 

And what about the reality of giving the new government possibly being absolutely what we never wanted to see, a Islamic fundamentalist nation on the same side as Iran?

 

Rather than acknowledge reality, we keep hearing reverse statements attacking democrats, because nobody wants to be responsble for admitting this was a total f*** up.

 

So are any of the pro-war folks gonna answer these questions, or just more of the rhetoric about democrats and liberals being traitors who want to surrender to Satan?