by Aamer Madhani
The good news is that July is on pace to be the least deadly month for U.S. troops in Iraq since the start of the war. The bad news is that nearly twice as many Americans have been killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq this month.
Iraq has been relatively quiet this month with the American death toll standing at 11 with two days remaining in the month. And that figure includes the deaths of Sgt. Alex Jimenez and Private Byron Fouty--whose bodies were recovered earlier this month more than a year after their patrol was ambushed. The U.S. military listed five of the July troop deaths as occurring in "non-hostile" incidents.
In fact, it's been more than two weeks since the last U.S. service member was killed in action in Iraq.
"This is not the metric by which we measure success," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said during a Pentagon news conference yesterday. "But it is stunning nonetheless that there remain four U.S. KIA [killed in action] in Iraq so far this month... it is certainly an encouraging sign."
To be certain, Iraq remains fragile. That fact was underscored by Monday's bloodshed in Baghdad and Kirkuk where four female suicide bombers unleashed a series of attacks that left 57 dead and more than 170 wounded.
But despite the horrific display of violence against Kurds protesting in the contested city of Kirkuk and Shiite pilgrims on their way to a shrine in Baghdad, the continuing downward trend in violence in Iraq provides a flash of hope for the future in Iraq.
The situation in Afghanistan, however, seems to be only getting more difficult.
Twenty U.S. troops--and nine other NATO troops-- have been killed in Afghanistan this month. The July figures in Afghanistan mark the second highest monthly American death toll since the start of the war.
In recent weeks, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made clear their desire to send additional troops to Afghanistan as soon as possible. The Pentagon, however, have had their hands tied by Iraq.
There had been some speculation that the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit--the U.S. Central Command's strategic reserve--could be redirected to Afghanistan.
But Morrell said on Tuesday that the unit--which is training in Kuwait--is presently not on track for deployment to Afghanistan.
"The situation is not so desperate or urgent that the commanders believe, at this point, it is wise to send the strategic reserve, that MEU into Afghanistan to bolster fighting forces there," Morrell said.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
That's good news. Just one more reason to bring the troops home.
Posted by: Zook | July 30, 2008 7:58 AM
What lousy news for the democrats and what good news (that fewer of our troops are dying) for our country and its armed forces! The corner is being turned in Iraq.
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 8:35 AM
Wasn't it Scot Blakely or dt or bubba or one of those others who a week or so ago told us that the death toll in Iraq was skyrocketing to new heights?
Posted by: John D | July 30, 2008 8:55 AM
Jeff, your imature insinuations are boring! To suggest that the Democrats would be upset about this news is heartless and mean spirited as ever... some things never change in the Republican House of Cards... thats frapidly falling!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 30, 2008 8:59 AM
If things are going so swimmingly in Iraq, let's bring the troops home. Declare victory and leave!
Oh, but wait, then the Iraqis would have control of their oil!
Never mind.
Posted by: athena | July 30, 2008 9:26 AM
Um JohnD did you read this article or just skim it? One month listed as the lowest death rate since the start of the war hardly equates success as it is stated in the article. Also, my post a few weeks ago was based on ALL deaths not just American troops! My post a few weeks ago was quoted from Bush and the generals, not made up like most of your rhetoric.
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 30, 2008 9:27 AM
In fact, it's been more than two weeks since the last U.S. service member was killed in action in Iraq.
----
Pretty sad state of affairs when the above constitutes "good news." How many more troops do the dead-enders want to kill? Will one a month be considered great news, and one every two months fantastic news?
There's a school of thought that every one of these deaths and injuries -- for all, not just American troops -- is a horrible waste of life. To call a reduced death toll good news is to cheapen life.
For Republicants to crow about this "good" news is further evidence of how depraved many of them are. Needless deaths -- even one or two -- are never anything to cheer about.
----
BTW: Please don't give us the garbage about how more troops get killed in car accidents on military bases than in Iraq, or in gang violence in Austin or whatever. It's not a zero-sum situation; the people who die in Iraq are in addition to those who die in the car accidents or gang fights.
========
This war is the single worst mistake in American history. You war supporters cannot the the blood from your hands by spinning needless death as good news.
Posted by: a blinkin | July 30, 2008 9:47 AM
Wasn't me Green Trees. Less death is a good thing. Now let's bring them home.
Posted by: Bubba | July 30, 2008 9:59 AM
I'ld like to know why claiming democrats celebrate the death of our American troops is not considered "over the top" personal attacks?
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | July 30, 2008 10:07 AM
I just thank the troops for doing an OUTSTANDING job. They are incredible. How lucky we are to live in such a wonderful country, all thanks to them!
Posted by: Teresa Halter | July 30, 2008 10:12 AM
Scot, the lower death rates has been a trend for a YEAR now, and not just for Americans but also for Iraqis. No rhetoric, Scottie, just fact.
Oh and Bubba, again please stop confusing me with Green Trees. Again, just because you post as multiple people doesn't mean us normal folks on the right do!
Posted by: John D | July 30, 2008 10:39 AM
Because it's the truth, Bill. Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama both opposed the surge and refuse - to this day - to admit it had anything to do with the rapidly stabilizing situation in Iraq. What IS an over the top personal attack (on our troop) is claiming you support them but do not support their mission. Like you do.
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 10:40 AM
Remember what President Obama says, though, our troops' hard work since the surge began had nothing to do with the stabilization in Iraq. Yeah, he supports them, sure.
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 10:45 AM
I have to say that I take it very personally that a child like Jeff, who never found the time to serve his country can be allowed to claim one who has, finds glee in the deaths of Americans. It is beyond comprehension. Yet I find other posts I have written to tell this child how low this is, gets censored. I find myself at the point where I cannot continue reading this very offensive drible. Keep up the good work against evil people like this my freinds on the left. I can no longer stand this disgusting vile attack.
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | July 30, 2008 11:04 AM
One dead American in an unnecessary GOP/ Bush/McFlip-Flop war is way too many.
God bless our military.
Posted by: Wmcauth07 | July 30, 2008 11:28 AM
Don't feel bad Bill, I got called 'dumber than a box of rocks' and they printed THAT, but when I have said things that aren't PC they ditch my letters.
Posted by: Teresa Halter | July 30, 2008 11:29 AM
They print what they see as the truth Teresa......
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 30, 2008 11:54 AM
Watch the name-calling Hussein, it's been 15 years since I've even been in college so keep your "child" comments for people they're accurate for, like yourself and Blakeley.
Many times on this blog I've been told, by Blakeley and others, that they "support the troops but not the mission." I find that VERY offensive since I have many friends that are over there fighting this war and I can personally tell you that they don't consider that "support" at all. They want to win and leave a future for the people of Iraq.
So keep your indignation to yourself and quit with the fiction that you can somehow be for the troops but not the fight they're in.
I wear your indignation like a badge of honor since it is obvious that you are out to do no more than silence everyone who disagrees with you by calling them children and labelling their very reasoned arguments "vile" and "drible" (sic). If you can't take the heat, old man, stay out of the kitchen.
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 2:19 PM
I also find it humorous that the man who supports a candidate with less than 150 days in the US Senate contiunutes to cry "child" to supporters of the candidate with more than 20 years in Washington that served in Vietnam and was a career military man. There's a relative child around, alright and Bill Hussein supports him.
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 2:28 PM
So keep your indignation to yourself and quit with the fiction that you can somehow be for the troops but not the fight they're in.
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 2:19 PM
PS.
But I am opposed to any support for troops when they return home because they VOLUNTEERED.
Posted by: Dick Cheney's draftboard | July 30, 2008 3:33 PM
Another bad day to be Al Qaeda in Iraq. Another big shock that I didn't hear about it in the Tribune: 50,000 Iraqi troops begin major operation against last Al-Qaeda stronghold near Baghdad. Senator Obama still insists the surge hasn't worked.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD9284DQO0
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 3:34 PM
Scot-we know how the liberal media works thank you ha!
Posted by: Teresa Halter | July 30, 2008 4:59 PM
Doug - I'm with you with one caveat - that victory is achieved.
Jeff - you insuation may be immature and boring, but they are so true.
BTW all you flat-liners, we all know ObaCarter's time line for w/ding troops from Iraq is 16 months, but what is time line for w/ding troops from Afghanistan?
Posted by: Terry | July 30, 2008 10:22 PM
Obama already said that he can't give time-lines in wars he thinks are okay ha.It just depends on situations on the ground ha ha ha, where's media on that one>Time lines are their baby.
Posted by: Teresa Halter | July 31, 2008 2:19 AM