Members of the pro-war faction generally take it as a given that violence in Iraq is falling. This is often used as proof that the surge is succeeding, that we’ve won the overall war, and/or that the only people who refuse to see success in Iraq are willfully ignoring the evidence. There are many problems with this line of argument, but probably the biggest is that violence in Iraq is not falling, but rather rising. The celebrated decline in violence came last fall, and appears to have petered out by December. Since that time it’s only gone upward.
In January U. S. military casualties were up and by early February civilian deaths in Baghdad were up. Civilian deaths in February jumped up quite a bit from January, while U.S. military deaths were slightly down. By mid-March civilian deaths were up even more. U.S. military deaths were also up for all of March. And given the developments so far in April it seems virtually guaranteed that violence will rie in both categories for this month as well. To summarize, we’ve had four straight months of rising violence. In a situation like that, continuing to act on the assumption that violence is falling simply won’t cut it.
Except that some people clearly think it will. How long does the war party think they can maintain this myth of falling violence? Are they hoping it will last until November? Do they want to play it for all of McCain’s hundred years? And if they do acknowledge that violence in Iraq is again on the increase, what effect will that have on the Iraq debate?
Until a Democrat is elected President. Then, we’ll hear all about how the Democrat’s policies are producing a sea of blood in Iraq. And how if Bush’s policies had been followed for just a bit longer everything would have been wonderful, but the Democrats have ruined everything, and it’s all their fault.
It is a frame of reference trick. They compare todays violence with a period that had more and say it has improved. Try comparing it to before we went in. The attacks were zero. Now the Iraqis are being told 100 people dying in violence is a sign of improvement. For them it falls flat. We have made it into a very dangerous place.
See a hundred people died yesterday. Last year it was 120. Don’t you feel much safer now. Thats real progress isn’t it.
People aren’t saying the violence is falling monotonically. My understanding is that violence levels are being compared to those of 2007 (first half) and 2006.
In Jan - Mar of 2007, there were 253 US deaths. In 2006 there were 155. For the same period in 2008, the number was 110. Your claim that US deaths were up in Jan is only a function of Dec being unusually low. There were 40 US deaths in Jan-- exactly the same number as Nov and Oct last year. Link.
If you’re going to accuse others of farcical claims, you shouldn’t make them yourself by selective analysis.
When Dick Cheney or Condi Rice can make announced visits instead of sneaking into Baghdad under cover of darkness, that’s when I’ll believe there has been a significant reduction in violence.
Iraqi casualties have also gone down, I believe – mainly because most ethnically mixed neighborhoods have by now been ethnically cleansed and become homogeneous, so there’s less day-to-day causes for killing.
When last week a bunch of people died, it was called a spike. A spike. Therefore it does not count. yet if it drops a week it is clearly a sign of progress.
When we have a really cold winter we don’t toss out the theory that the earth is warming overall…well, most people don’t anyway. Do you know what the difference between a upward or downward spike vs an average is? I ask because you don’t seem to realize the difference there gonzo.
There is no ‘farce’ about falling violence in Iraq. It HAS fallen. Whether that trend continues is anyone’s guess (my guess is: not). You measure the current violence against past trends…and you come to the conclusion that while there is still quite a bit of it, it’s down from what it’s been in the past.