Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras
Subscribe

Breaking News:

Bomb kills 4 US soldiers in Baghdad, raising overall US death toll in war to 4,000

By Robert H. Reid, Associated Press

Published March 23, 2008 at 8:50 p.m.
Updated March 23, 2008 at 8:50 p.m.

Text size  

BAGHDAD- A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000.

The grim milestone came on the same day that rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone, underscoring the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups despite an overall lull in violence.

A Multi-National Division — Baghdad soldier also was wounded in the roadside bombing, which struck the soldiers' patrol vehicle about 10 p.m. in southern Baghdad, according to a statement.

Identities of those killed were withheld pending notification of relatives.

The 4,000 figure is according to an Associated Press count that includes eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense.

Last year, the U.S. military deaths spiked along with the Pentagon's "surge" — the arrival of more than 30,000 extra troops trying to regain control of Baghdad and surrounding areas. The mission was generally considered a success, but the cost was evident as soldiers pushed into Sunni insurgent strongholds and challenged Shiite militias.

Military deaths rose above 100 for three consecutive months for the first time during the war: April 2007, 104; May, 126 and June at 101.

The death toll has seesawed since, with 2007 ending as the deadliest year for American troops at 901 deaths. That was 51 more deaths than 2004, the second deadliest year for U.S. soldiers.

The milestones for each 1,000 deaths — while an arbitrary marker — serve to rivet attention on the war and have come during a range of pivotal moments.

When the 1,000th American died in September 2004, the insurgency was gaining steam. The 2,000-death mark came in October 2005 as Iraq voted on a new constitution. The Pentagon announced its 3,000th loss on the last day of 2006 — a day after Saddam Hussein was hanged and closing a year marked by rampant sectarian violence.

The deaths taken by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, however, are far less than in other modern American wars. In Vietnam, the U.S. lost on average about 4,850 soldiers a year from 1963-75. In the Korean war, from 1950-53, the U.S. lost about 12,300 soldiers a year.

But a hallmark of the Iraq war is the high wounded-to-killed ratio, partly because of advances in battlefield medicine, enhanced protective gear worn by soldiers and reinforced armored vehicles.

There have been about 15 soldiers wounded for every fatality in Iraq, compared with 2.6 per death in Vietnam and 2.8 in Korea.

The deadliest month for American troops was November 2004, with 137 deaths. April 2004 was the next with 135 U.S. military deaths. May 2007 saw the third-highest toll.

Last December was the lowest monthly death toll, when 23 soldiers were killed — one less than February 2004.

Two factors have helped bring down violence in recent months: a self-imposed cease-fire by a main Shiite militia and a grass-roots Sunni revolt against extremists.

But commanders often say there is no guarantee the trends will continue. Among the concerns: the strength of breakaway Shiite factions believed armed by Iran and whether Sunni fighters will remain U.S. allies or again turn their guns on American troops instead of al-Qaida.

Civil strife also could flare again.

Shiite militias are vying for control of Iraq's oil-rich south. In the north, the contest for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk could spark new bloodshed and should be the focus of intense "U.S. diplomatic and economic leverage to make sure it doesn't happen," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey at a speech in New York in March to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion.

There is also the question of Iraq's security forces and the slow pace of their training.

American commanders would like to see the Iraqis take more of a front-line role in the fighting, but their ability to operate without American support could still be years away.

"We are always quick to note that the progress is tenuous and that it is reversible," said the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, "and that there are innumerable challenges out there."

Comments

  • March 24, 2008

    9:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jerseycorn writes:

    How dare the Rocky print an article reminding people of how many soldiers we have lost in the fight against international terrorism or whatever our Great Leader is calling it this week. Totally unpatriotic. I'd expect a story like this to run in the town's other newspaper, The Denver Pravda, but not the Rocky. Shame on you. The less we know, the better.

  • March 24, 2008

    11:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Reality_Check writes:

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

    "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."
    --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
    Nov. 14, 2002

    "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
    --President GW Bush,
    discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster
    Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should
    prepare the American people for the reality of war
    casualties

    STAY THE COURSE!!

  • March 24, 2008

    12:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JMH writes:

    Five years later and 4,000 dead, over 30,000 more injured and handicaped and Billions upon billions wasted... Let's just remember what we were told...

    * Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

    * March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

    * March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

    This occupation is the biggest shame in our country's history and the biggest foriegn policy blunder every commited by America. Let's just never forget it was all based on lies and wasn't even nessicary!

    Way to go NeoCons... Some pile of dung you will be leaving America to clean up for you guys. Lying bastards and traitors to America... one and all!

  • March 24, 2008

    1:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    oatis writes:

    Missing, (thus far in this story or in this blog) is any mention of the 300,000 Iraqi dead. Keep in mind that I am using the most conservative estimates: the John Hopkins survey set the figure at more that 600,000---in mid 2006.

    This for an adventure extolled by the Bush Adminstration as being justifiable on all counts: from fabricated WMD's to regime change: it just HAD to be done. And privately, all concerned counted on a Ten Billion Dollar Show that would be over in 90 days: a safe demonstration of our superiority and might.

    What it was, of course, was garden-variety revenge. A miscalculated assumption that "somebody" had to pay for 9/11. Why, American pride demanded it. Now, our unborn granchildren are hundreds of billions (in war debt) poorer and hundreds of thousands are dead. No lecturing remains about the nobilty or grand purpose of the thing--not even from the far right.

    All that is left now are debates (necessary ones) about how much further damage will be caused when we abandon the people upon whom we have foisted this disgrace.

    So who feels better now? Is our need for revenge satisfied?

  • March 24, 2008

    2:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dilligaf writes:

    7 1/2 years ago I said I would have voted for a republican for the first time in my life if John McCain would have got the nomination. And I might have considered it this time. But his views on this crazy war has chased me away. His new name is John McSame. End this war and end it now.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints