We are the 99%

June 4, 2007

3,495 (Was This What Was Meant By "Surge"?)

I have those numbers for you, Mrs. Landingham:

According to this site, the cost of dubya's war in Iraq is now up to 3,495 American troops (3,771 coalition troops in total).

This past month (May, 2007), 127 American troops (out of 132 total Coalition troops) lost their lives in dubya's war.

One would have to go back to November 2004 (137) and April 2004 (135) to find a higher casualty numbers.

And unless I am reading the chart wrong, this past month was the third worst complete month of the entire war. So far (there are no guarantees).

June isn't beginning much calmer either.
Fourteen American soldiers were killed in three deadly days in Iraq, the U.S. military said Sunday, including four in a single roadside bombing and one who was struck by a suicide bomber while on a foot patrol southwest of the capital.
Tell me about this "surge". How was it supposed to work, exactly?

8 comments:

EdHeath said...

The lead story in the NYTimes online edition is about how the surge is not working, the military controls only a third of Baghdad. You might expect to see higher casualty figures as the surge is stepped up, but you also might to see more progress. Apparently the Iraqi security forces are to blame, they are not showing up in the numbers desired. Even with the surge we don't have enough troops to get the job done. When the war is lost, will there be charges for the President and/or Donald Rumsfeld for incompetence?

Mark Rauterkus said...

Wait and see ideas are talked about with Ron Paul. Those in the US in power are in a wait and see mode. That pushes more attacks there. Meanwhile, if the US would end the mission has arrive would send those there to take the turn at 'wait and see.'

Bram Reichbaum said...

Everyone says there is no military solution to this problem. But the surge was supposed to clear some time and space for a political solution.

What if there is no political solution? At least for a unified central government? Aren't we just beating Churchill's dead horse?

Mark Rauterkus said...

Of course there is a political solution. There might not be a political solution if you are not creative enough to find one. Or, there might not be a political solution if you are a neo-con that wants to sustain a war-economy.

Here is a political solution -- come home. Keep the USA out of other nation's business. Mind our own business. Make friends with everyone.

Who needs a unified central government. I don't want unified central governments that are big enough to wage wars.

Anonymous said...

once again david provides aid and comfort to the enemy. nice.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Once again Master Lie blames the messenger for the misdeeds of the Bush administration. Smart.

Anonymous said...

once again john shitrock demonstrates his constant state of having his head up his ass.

but if this country get hit by terrorists again, john shitrock and co. will be the first to point fingers at the Bush administration and cry out that he did not do enough....all the while fuckers like john shitrock and co. do their damnest to keep the Bush administration from fighting terrorism.

Smart.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Another brilliant analysis, Master Lie. We are grateful for you sharing your insight and perspicacity.

So Mr. Bush continues "fighting terrorism" by creating more and more terrorists? That's what the occupation of Iraq is doing, you know? Will he also fight global warming by burning rain forests? Will he also fight rising medical costs by spreading HIV virus? Will he also fight ignorance in this country by hiring you as a teacher?

Keep coming back, Master Lie. We enjoy having you amuse us almost as much as you enjoy have us enrage you!