According to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which collects US Department of Defense data, US troop deaths in Iraq declined in March for the fifth month in a row — the first time that has happened since the war began:
Monthly US troop deaths have not been at such a low level since early 2004, before the insurgency really gathered momentum.
As I said in this comment on an earlier post:
Now, a cynic might say that US troop deaths are down because Iraqis are attacking each other. And an equally cynical person might respond that this is precisely what opponents of the invasion always claimed they wanted: for America to let people in other countries fight their own fights.
But it would be wrong for Americans, especially those of us who supported this invasion, to be so callous. Because we removed Saddam, we should aggressively support and protect the people of Iraq as they build a government in his absence. It hasn't been easy so far, and it probably won't be easy in the future. Creating democractic rule in the midst of centuries-old sectarian tensions is a difficult task, and success is by no means guaranteed. But as yet another American president once said, America chooses tasks "not because they are easy, but because they are hard".
Those two quotations from two presidents embody the American spirit. And calls for immediate or premature withdrawal from Iraq are its antithesis. I suspect that's why recent protests on the third anniversary of the invasion were so sparsely attended: Even with mistakes behind us and a rough road ahead, Americans don't like rallying for failure. We'd rather press on.
Monthly US troop deaths have not been at such a low level since early 2004, before the insurgency really gathered momentum.
As I said in this comment on an earlier post:
In any war, mistakes are made, plans go astray, and strategies are changed and changed again. Incompetence in war has less to to with committing errors than with failing to respond to and recover from them.Based on the above statistics (which, it should be noted, include accidental and other deaths not caused by enemy forces), it looks like the US is learning from its earlier mistakes quite well. As an earlier American president once said, "Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
Now, a cynic might say that US troop deaths are down because Iraqis are attacking each other. And an equally cynical person might respond that this is precisely what opponents of the invasion always claimed they wanted: for America to let people in other countries fight their own fights.
But it would be wrong for Americans, especially those of us who supported this invasion, to be so callous. Because we removed Saddam, we should aggressively support and protect the people of Iraq as they build a government in his absence. It hasn't been easy so far, and it probably won't be easy in the future. Creating democractic rule in the midst of centuries-old sectarian tensions is a difficult task, and success is by no means guaranteed. But as yet another American president once said, America chooses tasks "not because they are easy, but because they are hard".
Those two quotations from two presidents embody the American spirit. And calls for immediate or premature withdrawal from Iraq are its antithesis. I suspect that's why recent protests on the third anniversary of the invasion were so sparsely attended: Even with mistakes behind us and a rough road ahead, Americans don't like rallying for failure. We'd rather press on.
This is not what I wanted, and let's not forget that a decades-long trillion dollar war was not what the Administration tried to sell the American people.
But since we're there, we can't easily run away, if doing so makes the country and neighboring regions spiral out of control. The CFR's thoughts on what we should be done are here; I suppose that if we really want peace in the region we should renounce any long-term plan for bases.
Those advocating pulling out of Iraq are not doing so because it's too hard, or because they lack the determination to "press on". I could turn it around and say it's foolish to keep pouring money and lives into a hopeless situation, but that would be the same kind of question begging.
The question is whether our continued presence is doing more harm than good, whether "pressing on" will just make the problem worse. I'm persuadable on this question, but I don't think declining fatalities of US troops tells us anything, and rephrasing it so one side is allied with Mom and apple pie doesn't tell us anything either.
I agree that "pressing on" in the wrong direction is a bad idea. But I think our presence in Iraq is helping it move in the right direction. To explain why would be a whole separate post, which I hope to write in the near future.
It might be that bungling has fatally injured the cause, but as I tried to note before, it is impossible to make a decision about a future course of action without an examination of what it is exactly that we are trying to accomplish in Iraq - what are our several goals, to what extent are they achievable and at what risk to our other goals, and at what cost to our blood and treasure?
I find it extremely frustrating that the Administration does not want to publicly discuss such a cost-benefit analysis, and don't know how to interpret the silence - has it simply not done such an analysis? are there purposes and risks/benefits that it doesn't want to discuss? has it fallen into the sunk-cost fallacy? does it worry about the political costs of reversing course?
It goes without saying that no one thinks we should withdraw prematurely. The question is whether a withdrawal at this point would be "premature".
It goes without saying that determination and perseverance and pressing on are good things, if the problem is solvable by continuing on the current course. The question is whether this is such a problem. Such a post would be worthwhile. If you have an argument to make, please make it. This post, on the other hand, says nothing more than, "I, like most Americans, am in favor of doing the right thing, and against doing foolish things" without bothering to address which category these problems fall under. Please don't insult our intelligence.
In other words, what TT said.
For example, if insurgents perceive that the US may leave Iraq soon, they grow emboldened and step up attacks, causing more US casualties, increasing calls for the US to leave soon. The cycle then repeats. Facts on the ground should not be ignored, but we should remember that common perceptions (both ours and our enemies') can shape them.
Does this mean we need to replace factual reporting with gung-ho propaganda? No. But it does mean we shouldn't be searching for the most negative possible interpretation of the facts. Making a simple commitment to "press on" — and making enemy forces aware of it — is quite possibly the single most important thing America can do to quell the violence in Iraq.
All insurgents or other opposing factions can really do to American forces is try to weaken our morale by picking off troops in otherwise meaningless attacks. And as the above data show, they're becoming less effective at it.
Combine that fact with the realization that America can't be terrorized into leaving, and the insurgency's campaign against US forces starts to look like a lost cause. And people have a way of abandoning lost causes.
Realizing this, the insurgents' next move has been to stir up violence among different sects of Iraqis. But most people, given a chance and a fair shake, will choose a life of peace over one of endless conflict. I believe that this natural human preference, plus American perserverance and Iraqi statesmanship in forming a new government will, over time, make the situation in Iraq better than it is today.
(1) A rumor of 32 headless bodies found in Baghdad gets reported as fact in a big, flashy NYT headline, which helpfully explained that it shows the "death squads" are out of control.
(2) The rumor is later proven to be false, but the correction is buried in the middle of another article days later.
(3) Meanwhile, the killing or capture of 18 insurgents who did murder Shi'ites goes unreported by the NYT.
It's quite clear that the NYT is actively looking for negative stories about Iraq, and either intentionally or negligently overlooking positive ones. That doesn't help.
The NYT has reported quite a bit of information from Iraq, both positive and negative, that turned out to be false. As you said, "in any war, mistakes are made." I have seen nothing that makes it "quite clear" that they're going out of their way to find negative stories, You certainly haven't shown any examples of "making up facts", and you certainly haven't shown any examples of "making up facts".
They're reporting the news to the best of their ability, and in a war zone much of it will be uncertain, and much of it will be negative.
so (1) they reported uncertain information, as has the Bush administration on many occasions.
(2) they corrected it, something the Bush administration would never deign to do.
(3) people from out-of-control death squads are actually caught, proving that the problem existed, just not precisely where it was reported.
Therefore, media bias!
But anyway, I would say that reporting a rumor as fact in a big headline, while burying a correction in paragraph 17 of a separate article two days later, is at best irresponsible journalism and at worst evidence of a desire to trumpet bad news.
And yes, people from death squads were caught — but the NYT didn't report that!
We know that this war was started on false pretences and that no-bid contracts were awarded to companies based in the invading countries and with direct links to its leadership.
We know that criticism of the planning of the war, its execution and its false pretense was aggressively, relentlessly, expensively rebuffed using everything from the president's bully pulpit to planted newspaper stories and Pentagon fantasies like the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch fairy tales to "embedding" reporters and accusing critics of disloyalty or worse.
On that basis alone, the war already represents a massive failure of the democratic process, press freedom and fundamental idea of limiting violence to self defense.
There will be no victory in Iraq. Clearly, what GB is talking about is how to dress up this failure as something that will not completely destroy the domestic political fortunes of those who have so far eluded responsibility.
The only sort of victory that could be wrung from Iraq's killing fields would be a lesson learned at less and a corresponding new direction for U.S. foreign policy.
I'm actually optimistic that will happen, because I believe that America's democracy, its free press and its cultural institutions are poised to rally back from the utter failure this war represents.
The occassion for this rebirth, unfortunately, will be the depth of the undeniability of the U.S. military defeat in Iraq. To be sure, there will be those, perhaps GB would be among them, who would never concede it as an actual defeat. Rather, they would blame the media or timid generals, or inadequate weapons or multiculturalism or something--just like they do with Vietnam.
But for a time, their voices will be overwhelmed by those of the vast majority of Americans who know the sky is black because the chickens are coming home to roost. Perhaps this time, that period will be long enough and Americans will approach it creatively and thoughtfully enough to forge a new global role for the country and to begin on the path to restore its leadership among democratic nations.
I'd bet on it.
It's perfectly fine to have a skeptic's eye as to the MSM, but even with that skepticism, one can see that the war is going extremely badly, and for that, one cannot blame the MSM, but the execution by the administration and the differing interest groups and the ground and the region. I hope you will separate the two.
My own view as to suspicions about the MSM is that many on the right are engagaed in a huge amount of denial, simply because they have an attachment to the President and the administration. It is a natural reaction to attack those with differing facts, and much more difficult to reconsider one's premises and change one's mind. This is why those on the right attacked not only the MSM, but dissenters from the within the administration and from others on the right as well. Finally, supporters of the administration are starting to seriously defect.
Finally, I would note that while keeping attuned to potential bias at in the MSM, on e should also not forget the startling mendacity of this administration.
You also refer to I am confident that history will show that it has been incompetent handling of decisions by the administration, much more than failures of execution by the military, that have been responsible for our difficulties in "winning the peace" in Iraq.
It is certainly possible to envisage having won the Iraq war, or at least mitigating its disastrous outcome, with more troops and the implementation of a postwar plan based on the realization that Iraqis would fight back using suicide bombers, etc.
It is not possible to imagine that the Iraq war could be anything but a failure in the broader sense of how it destroys U.S. credibility as a promoter of peace and stability and limits the U.S. ability to take on real existential threats such as China and more significant regional threats like Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.
A user account is required to post comments. If you do not have an account, please feel free to create one. Accounts with obscene or offensive user names will be rejected.
I always have time for a well-articulated opposing viewpoint, thoughtfully and politely expressed in good faith.
However, I have no time for name calling, personal attacks, rudeness, or other types of hostile behavior, whether directed at me or at other commenters.
Therefore, comments I find to be rude, abusive, profane, annoying, or otherwise inappropriate may be deleted. Comments may also be deleted if they are redundant or off-topic.
The maximum comment length is 3,000 characters. Longer comments broken into multiple parts to circumvent this policy will be deleted. If your comment is too long, please edit it down, link to the full text on your own blog, or both.