I'm still avoiding big political debates, but here are some really interesting statistics. They are in the form of chart slides. I'll throw them out there for consideration without further comment after.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/ ... slides.pdf

They are from a press briefing November 1st by Lt.Gen. Ray Odierno.

The slide #3 is particularly interesting. It illustrates a very slight increase in violence up until the Samarra Mosque bombing. That's when Al Qaeda in Iraq began in earnest to play the Sunni's against the Shiites so as to stimulate civil war. Note also the upticks during elections.

After the bombing (Feb 06) there is a steady increase until the Baghdad Security Plan (Feb 07) when things flatten out. Then there is a brief uptick while the Surge is put in place, and then once it is activated (Jun 07) there is a dramatic and sharp decrease in violence for the next 6 months. The level of violence is now down to less than where it was before Al Qaeda in Iraq began its bear bating tactics.

Over that same time period (the active surge) slide #4 shows a similar plunge in IED's to late 04 - early 05 levels, and similar reductions in civilian deaths (slide #5), coalition (mostly US) deaths (slide #6), and coalition wounded (slide #7).

I think 6 months is long enough to discount claims of statistical noise or the like.

The current level of violence is back down to where it was before the Samarra bombing. This, in combination with the Sunni rejection of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the subsequent pounding and fragmentation of Al Qaeda in Iraq, their expulsion from Anbar Province, and al Sadr's decision to suspend violent action for 6 months...this all may just give some breathing space for progress where it is needed most...the Iraqi political process.

For the sake of the vast majority of Iraqis who want peace and their own form of a workable democracy...here's hoping.

Let the nay saying begin...

This is called counting your chickens before they've hatched.

Let's revisit this in 5 years. Until then, all we can discuss is how the Bush Admin short changed even their own policy. If they really want success in Iraq, why haven't they instituted a draft? Ramping up the troop levels to over 500,000 is the only way to possibly guarantee any level of success. The fact that they are willing to try with a 20,000 troop surge, when there is such widespread criticism of the troop numbers, just shows you that their commitment is not 100%.

Factually, your point is like watching a basketball game and after the first possession the score is 2-0 and you say "Look, our team is better."

The downtick in violence is all well and good, but it seems to be happening during a period of very little political progress. Getting the violence down is more of a treatment than a cure - what I still don't see is progress towards a long term solution where we can play a less significant role in Iraq. My fear as that once the political process resumes in earnest, the violence will erupt again.

*dbl*

You've made a couple of inferences that I would argue with.

First, you're inferring that a drop in violence means that the chances for securing a long-term peace have risen. I don't think that's the case. Keep in mind that the entire infrastructure of the country has been completely shattered. The police units have been corrupted. Food, water, health care and electricity are very scarce. And the same tribal and religious animosities that led to the mounting violence of the past few years are still in place. No amount of short-term pacification can eradicate these problems.

These problems were caused by the invasion. No two ways about it. The immediate instances of violence may become scarcer, but we need to worry about what happens when American troops finally leave.

Second, you are under the assumption that Al-Qaeda is the major de-stabilizing force in Iraq. I think that's incorrect. Major sections of the country have split along religious lines and have formed their own vigilante factions. Al-Qaeda surely has some presence in Iraq, but keep in mind that 80% of Iraqis want the U.S. out of their country immediately.

We need to get out of there immediately. This war has been an unmitigated catastrophe from the get-go. Worst U.S. policy decision ever. It's fitting that Bush's approval ratings are hovering around 27%, where Nixon's were right before he resigned, for Chrissakes.

After millions of refugees have fled the country and hundreds of thousands of civillians have been murdered with the rest left to quickly choose sides there must just be less people around to kill.

I propose galanter as the administration's official speaker for this forum.

chart slides?
they're cute for 5th graders.

After the farce of Petraeus' testimony before Congress, you'll be hard-pressed to convince me that a military assessment of "security" is anything other than a well-spun sham.

galanter wrote:I'm still avoiding big political debates

Please cease and desist with this new mantra.

If you want to avoid political debates, don't start politically provocative threads on one of a handful of topics guaranteed to generate 10 pages of comments.

You obviously enjoy being the "voice of reasonable people" on all things Iraq on the PRF. Own up to it or avoid the topic entirely.

Also:

The surge was supposedly designed to provide enough security in Baghdad to promote political progress. There has been zero political progress. The surge is a failure, like the war before it.