These are interesting, but carefully parsing how they are phrased shows they don't tell you as much as they seem to tell you.
And for some, I'm not certain of the point?
Note the word "still." This doesn't mean anything unless you have the delta, i.e. you see the difference compared to immediately prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Rebuilding might be a better characterization. The infrastructure in Iraq was in much worse shape than was estimated before OIF - that's one of the reasons why "reconstruction" has been so difficult.
This would be a more useful number if we had an estimate of the total number of insurgents. I'm guessing the percentage would be quite high, especially as compared with U.S. and coalition casualties.
What's the median monthly income for Iraqis generally? And what was it prior to OIF?
I don't see the significance here, unless the implication is that the U.S. pays its soldiers more than Iraq pays its soldiers? If so, what's the point?
Again, the point? That the terrorists are targeting journalists while the VC did not?
Terrorists? Coalition troops? Civilians? Some combination thereof? Obviously, the break down is important.
Again, these need numbers against which to compare them - preferably from immediately prior to OIF.
A better comparison would be to 2004, after the insurgents had time to organize. Those, I believe, would show an improvement. Comparing to right after the fall of the Ba'athist government wouldn't seem to be a good comparison.
Yes, terrorists are targeting foreigners in Iraq.
OK. That's the estimate of the current force on the ground, correct?
Again, comparison numbers are needed. And, from what I understand, regional numbers for comparison would be particularly telling.
OK - but giving a summation for these numbers, and a current force on the ground number above, implies a greater percentage than is accurate.
To impute a proper percentage, they should list the number of troops in total that have rotated through since the start of OIF.
BTW, the "in action" part for the wounded number is misleading. They were injured while on active duty, but that includes sickness, accidents, and all sorts of other non-combat-related injuries. To get a meaningful number, one should compare that to the number of troops "wounded" - essentially injured and taken off of active duty for whatever time period - during peace time.
More properly, the cost of the war and of the rebuilding of Iraq.
Number of WMDs accounted for that he was documented as possessing: 0