Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
At least 1,073 Iraqis were killed across the country in April, most of them slaughtered in fierce fighting between security forces and Shiite militants, security officials said Wednesday.
According to data collected by Iraq's interior, health and defense ministries, 966 civilians were killed in April, followed by 69 policemen and 38 soldiers.
The death toll in April is marginally lower than in March which saw 1,082 Iraqis killed.
"The death toll in April is mainly driven by fighting between (Shiite) militants and security forces," a security official said.
Combined figures obtained from the three ministries showed that 1,745 civilians were wounded in the violence that ravaged the country, followed by 159 policemen and 104 soldiers.
The April toll maintains the trend of high violence that reversed, mainly since March, a gradually declining trend of violence seen from June last year and follows 721 killed in February, 541 in January, 568 in December, 606 in November, 887 in October, 917 in September and 1,856 in August.
April is also the deadliest month for the U.S. military since September last year.
It lost 49 soldiers in April, according to independent website www.icasualties.org based on the deaths announced by the military so far this month.
These deaths brought the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion to 4,061.
Of the 49 soldiers killed in April, 23 died in Baghdad where the military is engaged in fierce street battles with Shiite militiamen, mostly from the Mahdi Army of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The lowest casualties so far in 2008 have been in February with 29 soldiers killed.
Although insurgent attacks rocked Iraq in April, fierce fighting between Shiite militiamen and U.S. and Iraqi forces has been the main cause of the bloodshed.
The fighting that broke out late last month in Basra on March 25, spread quickly to other Shiite areas of Iraq, but particularly in Baghdad's Sadr City which is a bastion of Mahdi Army militia.
Earlier Wednesday, Tehseen Sheikhly, a spokesman for Baghdad security plan, said that at least 925 people were killed in Sadr City firefights since it started late March.
He, however, did not offer a breakdown of how many were killed in March and in April. He also did not clarify how many civilians and militants were slaughtered in the clashes.
Clashes had erupted in Basra after Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered a crackdown on militiamen in the southern port city.
On Wednesday, fresh clashes in Sadr City killed 13 militants, the U.S. military said, as Maliki accused the militiamen of using civilians as "human shields" while fighting the security forces.
"Criminals and lawless gangs are using human shields in Sadr City ... They are following the steps of the Baathist regime," Maliki told a press conference.
"They are trying to gain sympathy but they are using the lies and the values of the former regime" of executed dictator Saddam Hussein.
The U.S. military says that gunmen have been firing at troops from rooftops, alleyways and houses resulting in firefights in which civilians are often killed.
Maliki vowed to disband the Mahdi Army as well as Sunni insurgent groups, particularly al-Qaida.
"We will not allow scavengers in Iraq. The suffering will not be long in Sadr City. We will save our brothers," he said.
The premier accused the militias of forcing Sadr City residents to stay at home out of fear. "I do not know how those people use the (Shiite religious) names we respect like Mahdi and Sadr," he said.
Maliki was alluding to Moqtada's father Grand Ayatollah Mohamed Sadeq al-Sadr, a revered Shiite spiritual leader before his assassination, as well as Imam al-Mahdi, a central figure in the faith.
January's Iraqi death toll had reached a 23-month low, with U.S. commanders saying that all types of attacks were down to levels not seen before the February 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in the town of Samarra that unleashed a wave of sectarian violence.
The bloodshed that erupted after the shrine attack peaked in January last year, with 1,992 deaths reported by the three ministries.
The reduction in the violence during the six months to January was attributed to a "surge" of an extra 30,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the formation by Sunni leaders of anti-Qaida fronts, and Sadr's suspension of the activities of his Mahdi Army militia the previous August.
© AFP
36 Comments
Login to comment
rjd_jr
Wow, so I guess the surge is working, many militants killed.
jambon
Iraqis Reject Extremist Violence, Coalition General Says http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49732 http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49730
I would agree.
adaydream
Yeah, the United States rejects extremist violence all, that's why we're there.
I'm just so glad the the death toll each month has dropped so low. We can just bring the troops home.
SezWho2
"Coalition General Says" and "defenselink.mil" suggest that the articles may have begun with foregone conclusions and that the facts were selected to fit. The Department of Defense should, of course, be working for the American people. However, since it is under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief there is little hope of objectivity in these reports.
Iraqis also reject foreign occupation. A thin majority may temporarily accept it as long as it promises to bring stability to the country, but they are opposed to the presence of foreign troops on any permanent basis or on any permanent bases. It is one of the jobs of the communications area of the Defense Department to draw happy faces on the walls of debacle.
SushiSake2
"Iraq bloodshed in April kills 1,073"
And the lives of more American troops, thanks in no small part to the hollow, armchair bravado of the armchair generals on JT who still support the failed war.
SuperLib
Ah, so they've been including Shiite and other militia deaths in the "civilian" totals all this time? There is little hope of objectivity in these reports.
medievaltimes
Yes, there are people getting killed. Yes, the war has been going on for five or six years. Yes, the war was started under a lie. You guys are missing the point. This stuff is all old news.
The real questions are should the US pull out of Iraq now? If not now, when? And how should they do it?
Zaphod
adaydream:
You and others have been rattling off this soundbyte for months, if not years. Sure, bring the troops "home", I am all for that. Just be clear about what enfolds in the region then. "Peace" it ain`t, you can be sure about that.
rjd_jr
I agree with you Zaphod, but regardless it's best to pull out. Yea it wouldn't exactly be sesame street but let them Iraqis fight and die for their country, best man win. I mean, it ain't the first time American forces have left the Iraqis to fend for themselves (first gulf war anyone, bush senior telling them to rise up against Saddam).
At this rate American forces will never leave. They will continue to die, fighting shias one month, the al qaeda of iraq sunni boogeyman the next. What's the purpose?
Unfortunately there is this one big building in the middle of baghdad, and methinks the employees there ain't gonna be happy with the iraqi army to solely guard them.
SushiSake2
Zaphod - problem is that some people look at the war in Iraq as if it is occurring in a fish bowl, without looking at the fuller picture, which, unfortunately includes the faultering U.S. economy.
What would you rather have - a small scale civil war in the ME, or a U.S. economy in depression that will affect the entire global economy??
jambon
Nice try, pal.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90C9CPG0&show_article=1
jambon
Feed the fish: US troop deaths push monthly toll to 7-month high in Iraq http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90C7UD00
The enemy is getting their butts handed to them. No doubt about it.
Zaphod
SushiSake:
Alas, that is not a simple either-or-choice. Once Iran moves to take control of all of Iraq and the Sunni Arab regimes start help the Sunni groups and Turkey moves in to "pacify" Kurdistan, you can have a full-blown war in the region -- on which the whole world depends for its oil. Ond once the Gulf oil is shut down, you have a world-wide depression the that makes current US troubles look like boomtown.
So, by all means withdraw, just not on fictious premises.
adaydream
Zaphod - Yes I've been advocating peace for a long time.
I was here before george bush pre-emptively attacked Iraq based on his fabricated lies.
I'm still here.
If he'd have listened to me there would be over 4000 US troops still alive. There would be over a half/million Iraqis alive that have died since he attacked and we'd be over $600,000,000,000.00 ahead of the game looking at another $2,000,000,000,000.00 going out for this trumped up war.
But yeah, I preach peace.
pathat
Lessseee...From 1,082 to 1,073. This means the surge is working. And so many of us doubted the Cheney/Bush administration?
Zaphod
adaydraeam:
Well, everybody likes peace. But the US withdrawal will not cause "peace", to the contrary. To assume it does is every bit as idiotic as Bushès assumption that the removal of Saddam would bring democracy.
So which one is it?
adaydream
No, every body doesn't like peace. Postings on this site has proven that.
adaydream
pathat, I never ever doubted the stupidity of the bush/cheney administration.
Zaphod
adaydream:
Well, that includes you, since all you write about is troop withdrawal. However, that will not bring "peace", to the contrary.
So again, what do you want? Troop withdrawal, or peace? Trying to link them is dishonest.
SezWho2
Troop withdrawal may not "bring" peace. But troop presence hasn't brought it either. I think that Iraqis will have to fetch peace on their own. The question is whether or not troop withdrawal will clear the way for them to do that.
adaydream
The continuation of troops in Iraq will never bring peace. After 5 wonderful years of war, that has already been proven.
Bringing troops home at least takes one number out of the equation. The equation of continued war.
The government, Army nor the police have not stepped up to do their jobs. Carring the Iraqi people forever isn't the way.
John McCain has said that he is willing to leave troops in Iraq for 100 years if it would sustain peace.
Leaving troops in Iraq only leave that continued presence of who ruined their country. Our presense does nothing to bring sustained peace. The Iraqis have to do that and us there just rubs salt in the wounds.
No, it's not dishonest to link peace and troop withdrawl together. It's my honesty.
Sarge
The U.S. military, along with the Iraqi security forces which are still in the process of being built up, are bravely fighting the extremist wackos who would torture and kill or enslave us without hesitation or remorse. They ought to be applauded and given our full support.
redacted
"Iraq bloodshed in April kills 1,073"
A mere 1, 073 for the month of April ?
Cahn't be.
Lancet figguhs (figures) published in 2004 showed that there were a thousand Iraqis dieing every single day - 600,000 dead in the first 18 months of Bush's War for Oil! that has brought gasoline down to 30 cents/gallon in America, wot?
A figguh (figure) of 1,073 for an entire month (and the dead mostly insurgents)is pro- surge propaganda of the vilest sort.
SezWho2
Sarge,
I don't think there is any doubt that our troops are fighting bravely. When they are fighting al-Qaeda, though, they are fighting people who weren't there before we ventured into Iraq. And, when we are fighting the Sadr-ists we are fighting a native population who would prefer to fight al-Qaeda on their own.
We have applauded our troops, recognized the sacrifice of over 4,000 dead, winced at the many more wounded who thanks to the miracles of our medicine will bear the physical loss of war all their lives and worried for the thousands upon thousands who have have been psychosocially maimed. To the tune of half a trillion dollars we have supported the troops with the best of equipment that money can buy.
But applauding the troops and supporting the troops does not mean endorsing their efforts. Iraq is a game that a large number of Americans--if not the majority--believe to be not worth the candle.
redacted
"When they are fighting al-Qaeda, though, they are fighting people who weren't there before we ventured into Iraq."
By gum, sezwho, I do believe you have been caught prevaricating.
Again.
Zarqawi was in Iraq after leaving Afghanistan in 2001. This is well-known, but the Left just keeps reconstructing their narrative about Iraq:
"bush wants to steal all a duh oil. "
"bush needs a war to keep the dollar the world's main currency"
"America are fomenting civil war so they can like, divide Iraq."
And now that those have been shredded it's this line about no Al Qaeda in Iraq till we went there.
If you're going to admit to AQ's existence why is it you can not take them at their own word?
Zawahiri and bin Laden have both said Iraq is the most important battlefield.
Zaphod
Sezwho2:
Not "may not bring peace". It will bring an eruption in the region the likes of which you have not seen, because the current troop presence keeps a lid on it.
Again: It is perfectly valid to discuss troop withdrawal (and I am for it), but be honest about the results, for crying out loud!
Claiming that by withdrawing the troops, Iraq will become peaceful is a totally idiotic statement. Those who present that are either dishonest or clueless about the situation.
SezWho2
redacted,
The commissions appointed by the Bush administration disclose there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the invasion. Why can you not take your own administration at it's word?
Zarqawi may have been there. One swallow does not make a spring.
SezWho2
Zaphod,
Who made the statement that "by withdrawing the troops, Iraq will become peaceful"? Don't you need to stuff a little more straw into that man?
What I suggested was that troop withdrawal may be necessary to clear the way for peace. I don't think I ever suggested--and to the best of my knowledge no one else has either--that an immediate breakout of peace would attend the removal of troops. No one ever said that the aftermath of a troop removal would be pretty.
The question is whether troop presence can guarantee anything other than a permanent state of conflict and whether that would be any better or worse than the result of troop withdrawal. We know what is happening now. We do not know what would happen with a troop removal--and wouldn't that depend on the manner of the troop removal anyway? It's fine to call for honesty, but it's a little silly to be dishonest while doing so.
SuperLib
Well, on the plus side, it is nice to see the monthly figures back in the headlines on Japan Today. When they were falling during 2007 they wouldn't even print them.
skipthesong
Why can you not take your own administration at it's word?"
thats a very odd to ask.
SezWho2
skipthesong,
Why do you say so? Are you suggesting that the administration lies?
What I am suggesting is that Zarqawi does not equal al-Qaeda. For Zarqawi to be in Iraq does not mean that there was any militant al-Qaeda movement in Iraq. I am also suggesting that the administration has indicated that this was so. And that it would be far better to take the administration's word for it since it would have the greater reason to wish the information to be otherwise.
adaydream
Yep, I've been convinced by Zaphod and the longer we stay in Iraq and kill the Iraqi people into sunmission, the better.
The longer we walk down their streets and show the US military strength/might this will bring peace.
The longer we do the jobs that the Iraqi Army and Police are supposed to do, the better.
I'm starting to get this.
If we make our presence in Iraq for 50 years or 100 years it's alright. What ever it takes to get peace, it's perfectly alright to take away from future generations of this country.
It's perfectly alright for Iraq to make money off petroleum sales ($70,000,000,000.00 last year) and none of it is going to Iraq reconstruction.
I'm starting to see now.
The countries in the middle east told us to leave Saddam, but george bush knew better.
That's why we pay for the entire george bush Memorial War in Iraq and none of the countries in the middle east are helping to fund our fight, when it protects them more than it does us.
That's why other countries have slowly pulled their support.
Yes Zaphod the longer we stay in Iraq the better.
WhiteHawk
adaydream,
Your solution for victory in Iraq is...?
adaydream
Too bad you've been gone WhiteHawk.
I've given my solution several times.
Tired of it.
I can see that the republicans have better plans.
I told you, I'm convinced.
WhiteHawk
Since you won't repeat it, can I guess?
Drop everything and leave it for Iran to take over.
Was I close?
WhiteHawk
Your poll numbers are from five years ago? That's hardly relevant now. How about coming up with somthing current?
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
What part of IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD do you not understand? Does it say "other terrorist attacks throughout the world except 9/11"?
"Wipe Israel off the map" wasn't a threat? Fascinating. Do you do translation work for Barack Obama too? Because he's had a rough time being understood lately.
Oh right, nothing about hating the decadent West, eh?
Now there's a steaming pile of bovine scatology. You've got some proof, right? Real proof, not some YouTube/Alex Jones den of paranoia.
A friend of mine, a fellow pilot, his dad used to deliver airplanes to the Shah. He used to fly with his dad on some of those trips. He never mentioned killing, torturing or kidnapping any Iranians. Sure, the Shah was no saint, but considering what we had to pick from in that culture, at that time, there wasn't much better.
If we ever start a bloodbath in Canada or Mexico, you might have something. Because those are our two biggest importers of oil. Until then, you're only trying validate your bigotry and fantasies.