Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities By Friedman Unit

by Chris Bowers, Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:45:30 AM EST

According to Iraq Coalition Casualties, here are the coalition fatalities grouped by Friedman unit (half a year), since the start of the war:
  1. 3/21/03-9/19/03: 360 total, 1.97 per day
  2. 9/20/03-3/20/04: 327 total, 1.79 per day
  3. 3/21/04-9/19/04: 485 total, 2.65 per day
  4. 9/20/04-3/20/05: 527 total, 2.90 per day
  5. 3/21/05-9/19/05: 405 total, 2.21 per day
  6. 9/20/05-3/20/06: 421 total, 2.31 per day
  7. 3/21/06-9/19/06: 398 total, 2.17 per day
  8. 9/20/06-3/20/07: 561 total, 3.08 per day
  9. 3/21/07-current: 97 total, 3.23 per day
I am not entirely sure what this means, or why I just spent an hour compiling it. Maybe I just wanted to show that the equivalent of Virginia Tech happens to American soldiers more than once every two weeks in Iraq (and several times a day to Iraqi civilians). Maybe I wanted to show that there have never been consecutive Friedman units where the violence in Iraq has decreased. Maybe I just wanted to mock Tom Friedman, and the idea of "progress" in Iraq. Maybe I wanted to show that the situation in Iraq is actually worse now than it ever has been, and just claiming that escalation has improved things does not make it so. (I mean, why would you even bother escalate, if things were getting better?) Maybe sometimes, with congressional Democrats telling the Washington Post they will cave on a binding timeline and Democratic presidential candidates claiming they will withdraw but their policies indicating otherwise, I just feel helpless when it comes to the Iraq war, and didn't know what else to do.

But in truth, I don't really know.




Tags: Iraq (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities By Friedman (none / 0)

You don't have to know why.

Its still very... illuminating.


Blue Hampshire, a progressive online community for the Granite State.
by nhcollegedem on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:55:16 AM EST

Virginia Tech (none / 0)

I said this on another site and I'll say it again here:  i think the references to va tech are inappropriate.  we shouldn't use that to score points against the Iraq War.  


by Reece on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 01:51:23 AM EST

Re: Virginia Tech (none / 0)

The deaths in Iraq, which greatly outnumber those in Virginia, could not possibly be more deeply embedded into our national political scene.

I don't really know what to say besides that. I just wanted to say it.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Virginia Tech (none / 0)

Thank you for saying it.  

The trend is so bad.  PLease keep reminding people of the real cost of continuing this war.    


by littafi on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:40:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

spikes (none / 0)

interesting that the two spikes (prior to our current Friedman) coincided with the last two elections.


by corn dog on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:38:36 AM EST

Re: Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities By Friedman (none / 0)

It looks like things were going down in terms of deaths, before the escalation which has made it worse.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:55:11 AM EST

Let's honor them. (none / 0)

And bring their buddies home safely.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 03:46:33 AM EST

Re: Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities (none / 0)

So now we have the Bowers unit: the number of coalition casualties in a Friedman unit divided by 180.  A far more useful piece of calculus, on the whole, than the FU.

I talked about the inevitable increase in casualties due to the surge at the beginning of the year in unspectacular DK diary.  The increase in casualties is not simply due to the increase in the occupation army, but a fundamental change in strategy.  

Prior to the surge, the only coherent and constant goal was force protection.  That's why the commanders at the time testified before congress that they didn't need more troops.  It would just be more troops to defend.

The point of the surge is not a huge increase in the total number of soldiers; the increase is not all that much.  The term "surge" is itself a misnomer.  

The point is the change in strategy from force protection to active policing of Iraq.  Force protection must now take a back seat to policing of unstable areas, and that gives insurgents far more opportunites to kill our soldiers.  


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 05:03:06 AM EST

Re: Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities By Friedman (none / 0)

My graph of coalition deaths (the last point was from earlier in this month but now should be 3.84):


Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue
by wegerje on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:37:18 AM EST

Re: Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities (none / 0)

Could the increase be explained by the increased number of troops deployed?


by wcropper on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 02:05:25 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: