I've spent much of the summer making posts, both on this blog and in comments at other forums, about the ineffectiveness of the "surge" in limiting casualties both among American troops and Iraqis. Therefore, it is only fair I point out this past month bucks the trend.
There were only 64 US soldiers killed in September, the lowest monthly figure in 14 months, and the first time this year a given month had fewer US soldier fatalities than the same month the prior year (by comparison, 72 US soldiers were killed in Sept. 2006).
Meanwhile, the initial figures for Iraqi civilian deaths in September is 922, a more than 50% decline from August, and the lowest figure in 15 months.
Before the "see, the surge is working!" brigades get going full force, however, there are several things I would like to point out:
* In Sept. 2005 there was a relatively low number of US fatalities (49 in Sept. 2005, compared to 85 in Aug. 2005). There were some comments then about "turning the corner". We all know how that turned out.
* Regardless of how many or how few casualties there may have been, it remains true on the political front there has been no further progress. Without political resolution, events in Iraq can not be termed a success.
Given we've had single-month periods like this before, I'll give it some more time before declaring a trend is in progress. Call me back in two months if casualty counts continue to decline. If they do, though, that much-vaunted "breathing-space" the surge is supposed to be creating may actually come into existence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You & I will never agree on this. But if you do get a chance, read that book, Natan Sharansky "The Case for Democracy"...it's not pro- or anti- war, just a great read, he states that it is nearly impossible for Democracies to engage in wars with other Deomocracies...free people have a voice & they don't want to fight unless they have to fight.
Later,
TR
Heh ... I've read Sharansky. I've also, somewhere in my past, written a graduate research paper which discussed the propensity (or lack thereof) of Democracies engaging in wars against other Democracies.
One problem with this, though, is democracies have generally been Western European, either in actuality or in cultural inheritance, meaning there have been a lot of shared ties between these nations which help limit the possibility of engaging in wars with each other.
There is no guarantee (and I think it's actually quite questionable) that should, for example, a number of true Arabic democracies arise that this somehow would work as a significant barrier to these same nations entering into war with Israel (or even with each other, along the Sunni-Shiite divide).
That's not to say we shouldn't encourage Democracy -- to paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst form of government, except for all the others (As an aside, I don't really agree with this -- IMO, a truly benevolent, enlightened dictatorship is the best form of government, but it has issues of sustainability). Mind you, I don't think promoting Democracy via the bayonet is the best, most efficient way to go about it.
Sirocco,
Here is some further food for thought(long post):
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/
He covers a lot of what you have seen, but adds another positively incredible stat:
Iraqi Deaths from al Qaeda Suicide Bombings:
July <500
August >700
September <100
It appears that al Qaeda is quickly losing the ability to cause mischief on the scale thay once could.
And yes, we need to get something from the Iraqi government as well.
Here's something interesting from 10-1:
""BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Residents of Iraq's southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.
Political assassinations and sectarian violence continue, some city officials say, but on a much smaller scale than at any time since British troops moved into the city after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
Mortar rounds, rockets and small arms fire crashed almost daily into the palace, making life hazardous for British and Iraqis alike in Iraq's second-largest city. To many Basrans the withdrawal of the British a month ago removed a proven target.
"The situation these days is better. We were living in hell ... the area is calm since their withdrawal," said housewife Khairiya Salman, who lives near the palace.
Civil servant Wisam Abdul Sada agreed. "We do not hear the sounds of explosions which were shaking our houses and terrifying our women and children," he told Reuters.""
Post a Comment