U.S. Fatality Figures Don't Tell Entire Story
This week marks the fourth anniversary of President Bush's declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, and American casualty figures for April are in: At 104 fatalities, it was the deadliest month of the year for U.S. troops.
But what does this figure–up from roughly 80 a month earlier this year–say about how the war is going?
In the past year, the monthly toll has fluctuated between a low of 61 last June to 112 in December, but experts say a further factor makes it difficult to draw conclusions: The fatality figures are only part of the picture. The number of killed often doesn't coincide with the pattern of total killed and wounded–"which makes it an even worse indicator of combat damage," says Anthony Cordesman, an expert on military affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
What is clear, though, is that the April spike in deaths among soldiers has not come as a surprise to U.S. military officials. Since the "surge" of troops into Baghdad was announced, the Pentagon has been working hard to brace the American public for the higher death tolls it expected to accompany a new mission for soldiers and marines in Iraq–namely, an emphasis on Americans providing security for Iraqi citizens in embattled neighborhoods.
That's a shift from the previous plan to have "Iraqis in the lead"–an oft-repeated military phrase that has faded considerably from the Baghdad lexicon in the past several months. That pretense is gone as more U.S. troops have streamed into Baghdad to take on the task of locking down the city themselves, setting up outposts in areas where ethnic cleansing by roving militias and al Qaeda elements have forced residents from their homes and fueled vicious tit-for-tat violence.
That is urban warfare of a sort that the administration previously had sought to avoid, and it comes with risks. "I think it's a sad reality, but I think we anticipated that there would be, in some respects, an increase in the violence, and particularly in the belts around Baghdad, as we pushed the bad guys out of some of the neighborhoods where we had not been active in a long time," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said this week.
The remarks echoed the comments that Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, made on the heels of a visit to Capitol Hill last week to press for more congressional patience with the war effort. He pointed out that al Qaeda is using more large car bombs and that casualties among Iraqi security forces have been "two to three times ours or even more."
And there is a perception among some soldiers in Iraq that even as they lose comrades, they are also making progress–often in a sort of reverse logic that says that more U.S. casualties is in itself an indication that U.S. troops are gaining ground.
"The enemy is getting pushed into a corner, and so they're fighting back," says one U.S. military official in Baghdad. "It shows that they are getting a little bit desperate."
But desperate or not, there is growing concern, too, that the insurgents striking back against U.S. forces are increasingly hitting their mark. Attacks in the International Zone (or Green Zone, as many refer to it) are up: In March, a U.S. soldier and a government contractor were killed by a rocket attack. Just one week earlier, a rocket landed 100 yards from the home of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who lives in the IZ.
On the heels of a suicide bomber attack that struck the Iraqi parliament's cafeteria (also located in the IZ) last month, U.S. military officials have been quietly changing security requirements there. Before, the agreed-upon security protocol meant that members of the parliament and their entourages were not searched, one U.S. military official told U.S. News. Today, however, "a long as they are going into the IZ, there are only nine people–including the prime minister and the president–who don't get searched."
For two days in a row, however, explosions have rocked the 4-square-mile area. "It's clear that there have been increasing targeting attacks against the international zone," Rear Adm. Mark Fox, a senior U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, told reporters, adding that the increasing rockets and mortars represent a "change in tactics" and an attempt to disrupt the government.
The fear is that it may be working. April's death toll was the highest since 112 soldiers and marines died last December (which in turn was the deadliest month for Americans in two years). Roughly half of the deaths occurred in Baghdad, the remainder in the volatile Anbar and Diyala provinces.
Diyala has seen a surge in violence since the Baghdad security plan got underway. Officials attribute this to "squirters," or insurgents leaving Baghdad on the heels of the security crackdown and heading to other parts of the country. Yet among marines (who are responsible for Anbar province), casualties are down. There were 13 Marine deaths in April versus some 29 in December. Gates last month called Anbar a "good news story."
Military officials point out that the buildup of U.S. troops is still underway. Two of the five brigades that make up the "surge" have yet to arrive in Iraq; the last will not be fully settled into Baghdad until July.
In the meantime, while U.S. military officials remind Americans that the deaths are to be expected–and as they try to brace the American public for more to come–the country grows increasingly skeptical of the prospect of winning the war. "You began a troop increase with very bad war popularity and expanded your combat," says Cordesman. "When you get more casualties, inevitably the public-opinion polls become more negative."
And that is proving to be the case: Some 65 percent of Americans, according to an NBC poll last week, believe victory in Iraq is no longer possible.