Mullen to departing troops: “I am sure we will sustain an increase in the level of casualties"

[bigtree]

Mullen at FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. —

“I am sure we will sustain an increase in the level of casualties and I don’t want to be in any way unclear about that,” he told about 700 troops. “This is what happened in Iraq during the surge and as tragic as it is, to turn this thing around, it will be a part of this surge as well.”

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091207/NEWS02/712079801


Sad.

[aquart]

1. Bye Guys. Die nice now.

[eleny]

2. k&r

Yes, very sad.

[bigtree]

11. .

tragically really

[Solly Mack]

3. ...

k/r

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Have a nice time! We'll build you a pretty monument and weep over it.

Well, it keeps them off the streets.

[RT Atlanta]

5. Reminds me of a Civil War Quote...

The forward to one of my Civil War Professor's books was this quote (from which he took the book title)

Fill your canteens boys, some of you will be in Hell before night and will need the water.

-Union soldier to his troops just prior to the battle of Shiloh

[FBaggins]

6. The problem with that is... I don't think he's right.

Casualty levels in Iraq began falling shortly after the surge troops arrived, didn't they?

IIRC, the surge was announced around mid January (SOTU?) and troops were in place on the ground by the end of May. From iCasulaties.org, it looks like each of the following seven months showed a decline in "coalition" casualties and by year-ed they were about the lowest of the conflict. The following two years have been even lighter.

[FSogol]

7. Maybe the casualties will come from being housed in structures built by KBR? n/t

[bigtree]

9. casualties fell when the combatants made a tactical retreat

. . . heeding calls for a cease-fire from spiritual leader Sadr after a retreat of his own to Iran.

It was a bloody period for our troops during the period of the surge:


May-21-07

U.S. death toll rising in Baghdad

(05-21) 04:00 PDT Baghdad -- Six U.S. soldiers and an interpreter were killed Saturday when a bomb exploded near their position in western Baghdad, the U.S. military reported Sunday, underscoring the heightened vulnerability of U.S. forces as they increase their presence in the capital.

A seventh U.S. soldier was killed by a roadside bomb Saturday in Diwaniyah, about 100 miles south of Baghdad, the military said. Two soldiers were wounded in that attack.

The deaths raise to 71 the number of U.S. service members killed this month.

The rising death toll comes as thousands more U.S. and Iraqi troops are engaged in a high-profile operation to improve security in the capital. U.S. officials warned when they announced the new plan in mid-February that putting as many as 25,000 more U.S. troops in the urban environment would raise their exposure and vulnerability, and that higher casualty rates were expected.

Military deaths have been rising since fall, and the first half of this year has already been deadlier than any six-month period since the war began more than four years ago.

According to iCasualties.org, 531 U.S. service members have been killed since Dec. 1, an average of more than three deaths a day. In all, at least 3,421 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/05/21/MNGK1PUJ3V1.DTL&type=politics


Some three hundred Americans were killed during the period of the increase in troops and the escalated assaults on the Iraqi communities at the height of the "surge," adding to the 900 or so killed in the entire year. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count reported that more U.S. troops died in Iraq during June, July, and August 2007 than the same three-month period in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006.

[cbdo2007]

8. Right...because there's more people. They'll probably also see an increase in the

number of troop related automobile accident deaths in Afghanistan after the surge. And an increase in number of troop suicides. Because there will be more people.

[bigtree]

10. that may well be so

. . . but if Iraq is the comparison, those accidental and incidental deaths did not make up any significant number of the increased U.S. casualties.

[Chulanowa]

14. Iraq isn't a good comparison

Iraq was urban combat vs. a well-trained and well-equipped popular insurgency. We were in effect fighting the Iraqi army gone guerrilla.

Afghanistan is a rural fight vs. a dedicated but underequipped unpopular insurgency. Our biggest challenge is making sure we're getting the right guys and not our friendlies.

Which, given that so many people think Iraq and Afghanistan are basically the same place, seems like a scary prospect...

[bigtree]

15. maybe different in degree

. . . but you can't discount the marked (a record for the conflict) increase in deaths already this year in Afghanistan due to the first increase of force to defend the 'election'.

It's our own institutional amnesia and blindness to the lessons of the past which I find scarier.

[BeHereNow]

12. and he added, "But your deaths are necessary. Profits must continue..."

...there is still a shit load of money to be made
by the multi national corporations using you
to defend and develop their financial interests
in the region. Pay no mind to the suit cases of money
being smuggled out of the country by the corrupt dictatorship
being supported by your parents tax dollars."

BHN

[bigtree]

13. .