Dramatis Personae

Many-Headed Multitude
[+/-] academic blogs
[+/-] other blogs we like

Our Ongoing Series

In Sad Conference
... live reports from the field
[+/-] RSA 2008
[+/-] SAA 2008
[+/-] MLA 2007
[+/-] SAA 2007
[+/-] RSA 2007
[+/-] MLA 2006
[+/-] SAA 2006
[+/-] RSA 2006

Read On This Book
... our occasional reading group
About the reading group
[+/-] Inkhorn reads the Anatomy [+/-] FS Boas, University Drama [+/-] D. Shuger, Political Theologies

The Motto Thus
... our silly woodcut caption contest
[+/-] Past Contests

More Foolery Yet
... which we write periodically
[+/-] Holzknecht Redivivus
[+/-] EEBOnics
[+/-] Notes and Queries

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Counting in Iraq: Update I

A few months ago I projected that Coalition military fatalities in Iraq would surpass 9-11 World Trade Center fatalities sometime in mid-June. Yesterday, June 26th, that grim statistical milestone was achieved. World Trade Center fatalities: 2,749. Iraq Coalition military fatalities: 2,752 (and counting).

The first six months of 2006 have, fortunately, been slightly less deadly than the year before, thus causing my estimate to be off by two weeks. Here's a comparison of [the first six months of] the previous four (!) years.
2006: 371 fatalities (Jan-June 27th)
2005: 449 fatalities (Jan-June)
2004: 401 fatalities (Jan-June)
2003: 249 fatalities (March-June)
If this trend holds--and let's hope it does--the other projections I made in that post will also probably be off by a few weeks or months. But since the current U.S. policy is "more of the same," I have no doubt that they'll all eventually come true.

[UPDATED to clarify the comparison I wanted to make.]

  • At 6/27/2006 11:29:00 PM, Blogger Hieronimo wrote…

    Sadly, I think your figures are off. According to the figures here, as well as the US-by-month stats on their front page that you link to, the US fatalities alone are:

    2006 (through now): 346

    2005: 846

    2004: 848

    Which would put this year, if the trend holds, somewhat below the previous two years, but not much below.

    Unless I've misunderstood somehow...


  • At 6/28/2006 01:00:00 AM, Blogger Simplicius wrote…

    Those were fatalities through the first six months, not the whole year.


  • At 6/28/2006 01:02:00 AM, Blogger Simplicius wrote…

    But I can see where the confusion crept in, which I've now tried to clarify in the post itself.


  • At 6/28/2006 01:05:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous wrote…

    What "trend" do you mean? The rising number of deaths?


  • At 6/28/2006 01:21:00 AM, Blogger Simplicius wrote…

    There were fewer deaths in Jan, Feb, March, April, and June 2006 than there were in the same months in 2005. So the number of deaths per month have been pretty consistently falling in 2006, a trend I hope will continue.


  • At 6/28/2006 11:21:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous wrote…

    Ah, my mistake and thanks for the clarification. I did not examine the data closely enough.


  • At 6/28/2006 10:02:00 PM, Blogger Simplicius wrote…

    No problem--the first version obviously wasn't the clearest of sentences.


 Scribble some marginalia

<< Main