Belmont Club links us to this site where we read the following:
81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25
What are these numbers? This week's Powerball winners? A safe deposit combo? New numbers to torment those poor b*stards stranded on the island in Lost?
No, they're the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.
But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right?
215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)
Okay, okay, so insurgents aren't engaging us; they're turning increasingly to car bombs then, right?
70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30
Civilians then. They're just garroting poor civilians.
527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).
My point here is not that everything is peachy in Iraq. It isn't. My point isn't that the insurgency is in its last throes. It isn't. My point here isn't even to argue that we're winning. I'm at best cautiously-pessimistic-to-neutral about how things are going there.
My only point is that, at the very least, people who complain that good news coming out of Iraq gets shuttered by the press aren't crazy. I'm a regular denizen of the right-leaning blogosphere (though I spend about half my daily routine with left-leaning sites), and I was unequivically shocked when I saw this. Completely the opposite of what I'd expected. My non-scientific sample of three friends, all of whom are considerably more bullish about the prospects in Iraq than I am, revealed three people similarly surprised by these numbers. I'm guessing if I polled people on this site regarding the direction those numbers were going, and people didn't answer strategically (eg figure I was up to something from the question words), no one would predict any of those numbers were on a downward trend, or were even flat.
Again, my point isn't that we're winning. My only point is that if the data you've received left you completely surprised by these numbers, what does that really say about the completeness of the data you've received?
Incidentally, these statistics are compiled by the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank.
Wretchard at Belmont Club quotes an Armed Forces Journal article entitled "It will be better when you leave" which says that it has become so comparatively quiet in former Iraqi hotspots that the troops are wondering what to make of it:
There are more than 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 23,000 of whom are Marines. But even in the most insurgent-infested places in Iraq, the troops aren't doing much. The Fallujahs and Mosuls and Tall Afars are history. The insurgents seem to be lying low. They're not coming out in great numbers to confront U.S. troops. They're not mounting as many effective IED attacks.
Sometimes it seems the American forces are searching for things to do - going on patrol for the sake of going on patrol. At some point that patrol is going to hit an IED - it's a numbers game. But it's unlikely that a patrol was specifically targeted. It's just bad luck.
Could the insurgents be executing a similar strategy to the Taliban in Afghanistan? As Sean D. Naylor reported in the February issue of AFJ, Special Forces officers who work closely with tribal militias in Afghanistan's most remote provinces warn that the former regime that protected al-Qaida is lying in wait, marshalling resources for the day America leaves.
If this is so then the "Last Helicopter" party, the Murthas, Pelosis, and Deans, really are "useful idiots." They're unwitting terrorism enablers whose policy prescription for withdrawal would facilitate and accomodate the Taliban/al-Qaeda strategy of waiting us out. If the Defeatocrats have their way, the enemies of peace and freedom won't have to wait long before the road is open once again to Kabul and Baghdad.