A painful milestone — U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 4,000

As the war in Iraq has faded from the front page, and bloodshed in Iraq has lessened in recent months, it’s tempting to think fewer American servicemen and servicewomen are sacrificing their lives in a tragic and mistaken war. Then we reach yet another painful milestone, and we’re reminded of the U.S. troops who aren’t coming home.

A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000.

The grim milestone came on the same day that rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone, underscoring the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups despite an overall lull in violence. […]

The milestones for each 1,000 deaths — while an arbitrary marker — serve to rivet attention on the war and have come during a range of pivotal moments.

When the 1,000th American died in September 2004, the insurgency was gaining steam. The 2,000-death mark came in October 2005 as Iraq voted on a new constitution. The Pentagon announced its 3,000th loss on the last day of 2006 — a day after Saddam Hussein was hanged and closing a year marked by rampant sectarian violence.

I’m also reminded of the White House’s reaction in June 2006 when the number of U.S. military deaths had reached 2,500. Tony Snow, then the president’s spokesperson, was asked if Bush had “any response or reaction.” Snow responded, “It’s a number, and every time there’s one of these 500 benchmarks people want something.”

Oddly enough, we still want the same thing: an Iraq policy that makes sense.

In the wake of this new milestone, it’s worth noting that recent trends point to increasing, not decreasing, bloodshed. The NYT notes today that “intensity of the violence added to the sense that insurgent and sectarian attacks had been on the rise in recent weeks.”

It’s probably fair to say it’s more than just a “sense.”

VoteVets argued this morning that, just as important as the 4,000-fatalities mark, the last two weeks warrant special attention.

American forces have just experienced the most violent two-week period in Iraq since September 2007. Unfortunately, I’m afraid this fact will be lost in the media coverage over the number 4,000 during the next several days. Of the two significant numbers this week — 4,000 killed during war and 25 in the last two weeks — the latter figure is far more significant with regard to the current situation on the ground.

We hear talk of attacks against Americans “ebbing,” ceasefires holding, and of the situation in Iraq being “not that fragile,” but this is all a bunch of happy-talk nonsense. Between March 10 and March 23, 25 American soldiers were killed in Iraq. The last two-week period in which U.S. forces sustained similar losses was between September 14 and September 27, when 26 were killed — a period that capped off the bloodiest summer of the war.

To go along with the American casualties, this news came at the end of a day in which more than 60 Iraqis were killed in Baghdad and just north of the city. […]

Perhaps this will give John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman pause to stop patting themselves on the back for five minutes in order to realize that they are not vindicated, they are still wrong, and any sort of resolution in Iraq will require a serious change from the current short-sighted Bush administration strategy of “pay them off until I’m out of office.”

  • gop tpm of the day:

    it took longer to get from 3k soldiers dead to 4k soldiers dead, than it did to get from 2k to 3k

    ya know what that means, don’t ya?

    we’re winning.

    and if you claim otherwise you want our soldiers to “lose,” yo don’t love and support them, you love terror and hate freedom…

    this’ll be their talking point du jour, NOT mine.

  • Ed (1) Great charts. I’ve never done a trend line in excel. Is the one in your second chart the equivalent of a Dow Jones five year moving index? If so, do you specify a time period? Thanks.

    One other statistic I find mind-boggling is that the population of Iraq seems to continue to rise in spite of the war. The last actual census there was 1997 when the result showed 22M. In 2002 it was estimated at 24M. Now there seems to be a consensus that there are 27M.

  • It could be 40,000 Americans killed and McCain, Cheney and the rest would still say it was worth it. The war supporters have too much invested to ever admit how terrible this whole mess has turned out.

  • And in order for these 4,000 deaths to mean something and not be a waste, more will have to die. I don’t get the right wing’s logic.

  • Danp (#3), the line is the result of simple linear regression (for a more user-friendly explanation, try mine).

    The population continues to grow because, in spite of the wholesale slaughter, starvation, ill health and disruption, coupled with monumental emigration and internal dislocation, the crude birth rate (births per 1,000) continues to exceed the crude death rate by a large amount (a net 34 per 1,000 is 3.4 percent growth; 2.1 percent would mean long-term net growth of zero). Here are some data from UNICEF:

    YEAR – death and birth = net
    1970 – 12 and 46 = 34
    1990 – 8 and 39 = 31
    2006 – 10 and 33 = 25

    As you can see, deaths were dramatically reduced under Saddam and births went down as well. Since we showed up deaths have risen and births have continued downward, but the net is still above replacement levels, hence the growth.

    slappy magoo (#2), the slowdown in deaths is due entirely to the six-month cease fire called by Moqtada al-Sadr when he decided to return to seminary studies. He recently called for a six-month extension of it, over some opposition.

  • For some reason I couldn’t get the UNICEF data source to appear in #9. When I inserted it is wiped out what followed. So I’ll try it separately here. “preview” looks like a go, so I’ll submit it.

  • Ed (11) Holy cow! I thought you had been an English Prof. But thanks for the explanation, both for the linear regression and the population growth. I’m almost afraid to ask, but why would 2.1 percent mean a long term net growth of zero?

  • so what’s the over/under on the date we hit number 5,000? ’cause you know — if st. john wins — we’ll still be there for it. probably number 6,000 as well.

  • Danp (#11), sorry it took so long to get back. I’ve been out in the garage making birdhouses (with success, I’m happy to report).

    If a couple simply replaced themselves, the net reproduction rate would be 2.0, one baby for each parent. The added “0.1” takes care of normal morality prior to (the offspring’s) reproduction.

  • BUSH MAKES ME SICK! HE STATES HE WANTS TO REMEMBER THESE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN BUT WON’T ALLOW THE FLAG DRAPED COFFINS TO BE SEEN! THIS GUY IS A TOTAL LOSER. 4000 OF OUR SOLDIERS ARE DEAD WHILE IRAQ AFTER 5 YEARS STILL CAN’T TAKE OVER THEIR OWN COUNTRY! NOW WE HEAR THERE WILL BE NO SOLDIERS COMING HOME. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! BUSH IS AN EGO MANIAC!!

  • Its interesting for an outsider to see, that only these 4000 soldiers are being mourned.
    Does anybody ask HOW MANY THOUSAND INNOCENT CIVILIANS these 4000 soldiers have killed – and that in a foreign sovereign country that has not attacked the USA in any way?
    And – who has forced these 4000 (and the rest) to become soldiers and kill other human beings?
    What makes American lives more valuable than other lives?

  • Comments are closed.