WaPo Editorial On Iraq
The Washington Post editorial on casualties in Iraq will, inevitably, be met with frothing rage by the left. Because the WaPo says that there is undeniably progress in Iraq with sharply reduced casualties, both civilian and military.
NEWS COVERAGE and debate about Iraq during the past couple of weeks have centered on the alleged abuses of private security firms like Blackwater USA. Getting such firms into a legal regime is vital, as we've said. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month — whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq — have gotten relatively little attention. A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year's surge of American forces.
A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 — down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.
There conclusion is a direct slap at both war opponents like MoveOn and members of Congress, including Clinton.
Nevertheless, it's looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus's credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq's bloodshed were — to put it simply — wrong.
That will get 'em foaming. The WaPo also notes that the Iraqis must reach some political solutions. But isn't political progress more likely if the violence ends? I would submit that it is.
By Sissy Willis, October 14, 2007 @ 8:23 am
There you go again, trying to confuse them with the facts.
By Bill Franklin, October 15, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
What a shortsighted view that this is positive given the methods being used - Petraeus is arming tribal mobs and putting up partitions to divide Baghdad into secular enclaves. While this certainly does quell violence against our soldiers and other Iraqis in the short term, does this work towards the pipe dream of a “free and democratic” Iraq? Or was that just backup excuse once the WMD lie was exposed?
Is a divided Iraq, with rival ethnic factions fighting over oil revenue and territory, really worth all the US lives lost and the 500+ billion of borrowed foreign money?