hope these numbers are true…

Posted on Wednesday 17 October 2007

icasualties.org is admittedly only able to give a guesstimate of the civilian casualties in Iraq [from news reports]. Nonetheless, their numbers for October look good. Whether it means "the Surge is working" in the way the Administration will interpret it, or something else doesn’t matter to me. I’m just glad to see that maybe fewer people are being killed…

Better Numbers
The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

… A month later, there isn’t much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 — down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.

During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say — so far, with stunningly little success.

The trend could change quickly and tragically, of course. Casualties have dropped in the past for a few weeks only to spike again. There are, however, plausible reasons for a decrease in violence. Sunni tribes in Anbar province that once fueled the insurgency have switched sides and declared war on al-Qaeda. The radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr ordered a cease-fire last month by his Mahdi Army. Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top day-to-day commander in Iraq, says al-Qaeda’s sanctuaries have been reduced 60 to 70 percent by the surge…

This doesn’t necessarily mean the war is being won. U.S. military commanders have said that no reduction in violence will be sustainable unless Iraqis reach political solutions — and there has been little progress on that front. Nevertheless, it’s looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus’s credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq’s bloodshed were — to put it simply — wrong.
No Spin coming from me on this one. If deaths and casualties are down, I say good. If we’re finally controlling ethno-sectarian violence in Iraq, that’s great. If it means that David Petraeus is a good General, terrific, that’s what we should expect of our Generals. If it’s because we sent more troops, it’s fine with me. It’s what should happen with more soldiers. It happened with our previous Surges:
But if anyone says that it means we should occupy Iraq in perpetuity, wash their mouths out with soap. If anyone thinks that this justifies pre-emptive strikes on foreign countries without provocation based on trumped up intelligence reports for questionable motives, send them to time out. If anyone suggests that Bush is vindicated, forget it [no one rational is going to suggest such a thing].
[program pre-recorded on the back porch]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.