Gee, Rod.  It only took 15 seconds of googling to let find out you mislead us on your "Newsweek web exclusive " and that this is "information the military in the past has been very reluctant to share in such depth".  

Go ahead, google "iraq sigacts", the first entry is from globalsecurity.org.  This site from a third party shows charts dating at least back to 2005 with same level of detail (separation between US/Coalition, Iraq security, civilian data points).  Michael Yon, in an interesting blog in 2005 ( http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/and-now-for-the-rest-of-the-story.htm/ ) tells you how SIGACT individual reports are generated and then re-processed by media.  The charts are thence just taken from these data points thru something like Excel spreadsheet graphics.  Hey there's even a Milblog aggregator site called SigActs (http://delobi.us/sigacts).  What you may be considering as reluctant was the methodology defining the violence, Talking Points Memo actually had the exclusive on that in Sept ( http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/icd-methodology/ , http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004266.php)  Also worth a look are the quarterly reports on http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs  (http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Iraq_Reports/index.html)

I think that the upgrade in technique of charts to make it camera ready for Petraeus' report to Congress confuses you in the amount of unclassified data there has been available for Years if major media had bothered to do more than "punch up" press releases of casualty reports to define Iraq's violence.