Between September 2008 and April 2009, 72 troops died in Iraq from accidents, illness, or suicide, compared with 67 who died in action, according to the Pentagon - the first extended period in the six-year conflict where insurgents did not pose the greatest threat.
We are darned near close to effectively zero casualties in Iraq. We could only halve our current low casualty rate with no combat deaths. We will never get to zero casualties in Iraq since any large group of heavily armed young Americans will have accidents (including suicides).
I explained this new reality back in October:
The reductions in American combat casualties in Iraq is most striking, and provides a clearer picture of the reduction in our combat role than total casualties. While non-combat casualties would surely be lower back in the United States for a comparable number of troops living and training at peacetime activities, the fact is we can't reduce our casualties to zero because even without bullets and bombs, people die. ...
Further, even with no KIA in a completely peaceful Iraq, our monthly toll that is averaging under 30 total deaths (KIA plus NCD) per month so far this year likely can't be reduced by more than 2/3 since we'll probably suffer 10 deaths per month just in accidents and sickness. Already in the last 3 months, KIA are running less than NCD.
The actual events since I wrote that match my expectations. After we pull out of Iraq's cities, we'll probably get pretty close to effectively zero war casualties--that is, ten or so deaths per month.
