Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Hits 7-Month High

By Patrick Cockburn, Independent UK. Posted May 2, 2008.


The killing of three U.S. soldiers in Baghdad raised the number killed in April to 47, reversing a trend towards lower American casualties.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Patrick Cockburn

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 

The U.S. military death toll has reached a seven-month high as America's war in Iraq enters a new phase -- with its troops primarily engaged in fighting insurgents from the Shia rather than the Sunni community.

The killing of three U.S. soldiers in Baghdad raised the number killed in April to 47, reversing a trend towards lower American casualties. Half of the losses were in Baghdad, where the U.S. is fighting the Mahdi Army militia loyal to the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Shia losses have been heavy. An Iraqi government spokesman for the civilian side of Baghdad security operations said 925 people had been killed and 2,605 wounded in Sadr City since the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, began his offensive against the Sadrist movement on April 25th.

The U.S. military has been primarily engaged in fighting insurgents from the Sunni community since the invasion of 2003. But over the past month it has been increasingly drawn into a war with Sadr's movement, which has a mass following among the Shia poor.

The U.S. military routinely describes the Shia dead as criminals or gunmen but television reports and hospital sources say many are civilians, including women and children.

In one clash in Sadr City, the U.S. claimed it killed 28 Shia militants but hospital officials said they had received 25 bodies, most of which were civilians. When U.S. forces fired a 200lb rocket which destroyed three buildings in the densely-packed slum, Associated Press photos showed men pulling the dust-covered body of a two-year-old, Ali Hussein, from the rubble. The U.S. said all precautions were taken to limit civilian casualties and blamed the militiamen for taking cover where civilians live.

"The enemy continues to show little regard for innocent civilians, as they fire their weapons from within houses, alleyways and roof-tops upon our soldiers," said Colonel Allen Batschelet, chief of staff for the 4th Infantry Division in Baghdad.

AP TV showed children running for cover amid the gunfire, as men helped carry injured people on stretchers to an emergency unit. Outside the hospital, the dead were put in plain coffins.

Indiscriminate fire by the American forces, which led to heavy civilian loss of life that the U.S. Army refused to record, played a key role in provoking the uprising in Sunni parts of Iraq after 2003. There are growing signs of rage against the Iraqi government and its U.S. backers in Sadr City. The nephew of Major General Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who oversaw the operation against the Mahdi Army in Basra, was taken from his home in Sadr City and hanged.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq war, death toll, sadr city, mahdi army, al sadr, casualties

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The tax cuts are working!
Posted by: Crazy H on May 2, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Errr, "the surge is working"? mmm, I mean "Oh, look, we just blew up Osama's right hand man! (Again.)"

The sooner we bring them home, the more of them we will bring home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes! Posted by: warriornation
Whoop di poop
Posted by: audiodef on May 2, 2008 11:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, who gives a shit? I mean, I don't want ANYBODY dying over this stupid military occupation, but articles like this make me want to strange people. What about the MILLIONS of Iraqi lives we've ended, maimed or otherwise ruined? And we're getting our panties in a bunch about 47? Perspective, much?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whoop di poop Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Whoop di poop Posted by: EagleX
Is this sill a WAR?
Posted by: inyan hoksila on May 2, 2008 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me this mess seems more like a running body count with a slight fudging on the enemy's total dead. This is no longer a war, but a stranglehold on our way of life. Let's just take the oil and be done with it, I'm sure our troops would rather guard our oil wells than the enemy's!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gosh, if we can just get those American troop losses down to zero, it will all be OK.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 2, 2008 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain agrees with this - it's the number one concern. And, he'll have you know, the soldiers are just fine with things as they are:

"On Sept. 14, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13223, allowing the administration to implement a “stop-loss” policy. Under stop-loss, “military personnel can be prevented from leaving the armed forces upon completing their enlistment terms.” Stop-loss policies were created after the Vietnam War. However, the Bush administration has overstretched the military by extensively using these orders to make up for declines in re-enlistment as the Iraq war drags on.

Yesterday on PBS’s Newshour, ret. Lt. Col. Ralph Peters — who now advises Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign on national security affairs — called the dangers of stop-loss policies a “myth of the left.” “Stop-loss is old,” said Peters. “This is not a new thing. In time of crisis, soldiers can be extended. They know it.”


What we really need to do now is get the blood for oil ratio down - less blood for more oil. American blood only, of course.

Can I point out, that if only American citizen soldier deaths are counted - not these green-card soldiers who've been promised citizenship after they get out - then we can further reduce our casualites and thereby improve the situation.

If we can just get it down to an acceptable level - Iraq is exporting some 1-2 million barrels of oil a day, so 1-2 U.S. deaths a day is not so bad. Screw the Iraqis - they aren't even worth counting.

So, the question for the U.S. public is this: is the death of a young man or woman in a soldier's uniform worth a million barrels of oil? Remember, that's at least $100 million at today's prices.

Decisions, decisions - it's easier when it's someone else's kids getting slaughtered, is it not?

At this rate, each soldier's death so far has resulted in at least a million barrels of oil - do the math. 4000 deaths over seven years - that's 1-2 U.S. soldiers killed every day, and we've been controlling the oil flow for all that time.

Of course, dead soldiers make for better fluffy propaganda stories than do oilfield production figures. That's just soooo boring. Readers aren't interested in that, and the press simply gives the public what it wants, after Milton Friedman's laws of supply and demand. Only wild-eyed conspiracy theorists think that the press is heavily manipulated, you know.

In any case, let's always remember to support and honor the troops. Soldiers, let me tell you: Wall Street and London bankers and Saudi and Texas oil billionaires truly appreciate your sacrifice. You will not be forgotten.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The horror, the horror...
Posted by: HughScott on May 2, 2008 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can anyone but George W. Bush and his insane, neocon bully boys not agree that the 1979 Vietnam War movie, "Apocalypse Now," has become a metaphor for Iraq?

Think about the film's ending when Marlon Brando, playing Colonel Kurtz, uttered his final dying words: "The horror, the horror..."

What else is there to say about Gulf War 2?

--------------------------------------

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, ARDENT Obama supporter and the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com -- the only website about George W. Bush that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LONGSHOREMAN NOT GETTING ENOUGH COVERAGE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 2, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the west coast today about 25,000 longshormen did not show up for work.
This was their effort to protest against the Wars in Iraq and Afganistan. They deserve alot of credit. It's good to see that people care. Too bad it's not all over the news the way it should be. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American Troops
Posted by: Litt_Wmn on May 2, 2008 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your fighting the war in Iraq means participating in a genocide against an innocent people. Return home to your loved ones and stand for peace rather than for brutal occupation as you are now doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do the figures add upp
Posted by: the man with a dog on May 3, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After five years over four thousand US lives lost, this war may well continue for a further ten years so taking a conservative look at these figures up to a further nine thousand US troops may possibly be killed. Bush never envisaged the war to continue more than a few months so it is quite feasible to assume it could carry on a further ten years let alone five years. The cost of the invasion so far is over three trillion dollars so in a further ten years of conflict what will be the figure of lives lost and mutilated, monetary issues, Iraqi lives lost and devastation to their country.

Finally never forget the untold atrocities that will keep recurring throughout the western world caused by the fanatical section of the muslim world primarily brought on bythe attack on Iraq. No I have not forgotten 7/11

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Do the figures add upp Posted by: EagleX
Iraq war is worth the cost
Posted by: EagleX on May 3, 2008 3:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, we removed a miscalculating brutal anti-Western regime which did the following prior to Iraqi Freedom:

*started two unprovoked wars resulting in the deaths of over a million people.

*gassed their own people killing thousands.

*tortured and murdered over 600,000 innocents in country

*committed the worse case of environmental terrorism in history

*harbored known terrorists who were responsible for the deaths of over one thousand innocent Westerners, including scores of Americans

*maintained high level communications with the al qaeda leadership

*lobbed ballistic missiles into the population center of a non-combatant nation.

*actively and aggressively sought to acquire WMD, including nuclear weaponry

*disregarded repeated mandates by the international community for years

*was astride 70% of the world's most retrievable oil resources

*had a propensity to transfer high tech weaponry to hostile anti-Western dictatorships

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Iraq war is worth the cost Posted by: archmangle
» RE: Iraq war is worth the cost Posted by: archmangle
» RE: Iraq war is worth the cost Posted by: archmangle
» RE: Iraq war is worth the cost Posted by: archmangle
» RE: Iraq war is worth the cost Posted by: archmangle
» RE: Iraq war is worth the cost Posted by: Whistler
Zero attacks on US soil since March 2003
Posted by: EagleX on May 3, 2008 3:51 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could the sight of Saddam swinging from the hangman's noose deterred potential supporters of terrorism?

Yes.

In addition, while many lament the deaths in London, note this:

During Saddam's reign 1.6 million people died violently directly as a result of his actions.

that equates to over 6500 deaths/month

During the US occupation 155k people have died violently (most at the hands of our enemies)

that equates to 1500 deaths/month

in summary, the US action in Iraq has led to a net savings of 5000 human lives!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lunacy by the Left and Libertarians
Posted by: EagleX on May 3, 2008 3:55 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to defend the proliferation of WMD, most notably nuclear weaponry, among faith based, anti-Western, despotic third world regimes like Iran and Iraq.

it is bizarre, contradictory, and disturbing that the ideologues (progressives and libertarians) that previously protested against the position of WMD by the USA and other stable and pragmatic regimes is now providing the opposition to aggressive nuclear non-proliferation policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still nothing from the LEft to deter the proliferation of WMD among 3rd world despots...
Posted by: EagleX on May 6, 2008 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
except playing the blame game and historical revisionist history lessons.

more importanly, while the proliferation of WMD continues the Left acts as apoligists to anti-western faith based nuts trying to acquire nukes and obstructionists to any US policy that attempts to stop this insanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Rhetoric of Neo-Con artists about Iraq
Posted by: Whistler on May 6, 2008 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazing, these neocon-artists were wrong about virtually all the major issues that promoted this holocaust: 1. WMD; 2. even if true, that Saddam Hussein would actually attack the US; 3. greetings with flowers by Iraqis; 4. that the US does not torture; 5. that the cost would not be more than 50 billion; 6. that freedom and democracy would reign in Iraq immediately after the initial holocaust; 7. Al Qaida connection. These people have not an iota of integrity or shame. Name one who has even so much as apologized and said he was dead wrong after they were proven dead wrong. They lie faster than a baby can piss. They hate Arabs' guts, but yet they want to convince us that they went over there because they've become 'bleeding heart' Republican scum who actually cares about Arab humanity and wanted to save them. There is no lie so low that these people won't fix their lips to tell with a straight face. Their 100% wrongness about the reasons for invasion does not so much as make them wince at the blatancy of the lies they tell. Make no mistake, they are not mistakes, misunderstandings or even half-truths. They are a pack of outright lies. These people haven't a moral leg to stand on, yet they feel qualified to lecture on morality of all things.

Presently the United States of America is, directly and through proxy, one of the most cruel societies on earth, bounded or respectful of no international laws or protocols or even policies of universal human decency.

So screw these neoslobs. Every syllable that comes out of their mouths are lies, lies and more lies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]