Over There

The improving security situation in Iraq appears to be un-improving as five soldiers were killed today in an increasingly unstable Mosul.

Comments

This is pretty stupid. It's like saying "The problematic economic situation went away as the market rose 176 points today." Or "Global warming ended as the temperature dropped into the teens." Day-to-day fluctuations like this aren't usually very meaningful.

Of course, it's entirely possible that when we have a Democratic president, Yglesias will tout each day that the stock market goes up as evidence of the superior wisdom of the administration. I can't wait.

Posted by y81 | January 28, 2008 5:41 PM

Y81's comment is unnecessarily snide, but I agree with his point. Picking one example and using it to justify a generalization isn't sound reasoning.

Also, focusing on the security situation reinforces the view that we should determine success or failure in Iraq by how secure it is. Security is an important factor, but the most important factor by far is political progress.

That is why the claims that the surge was a success because violence went down is misleading. The ultimate aim of the surge was to use a combination of more troops and new tactics to reduce violence and this create a better environment for political change. The violence was reduced, but the Iraqis have showed little progress towards uniting.

The big question that is maddeningly absent from the political debate on Iraq is, "Why have the Iraqis made little political progress so far, and what can we do to change this?" It's a complex question that is difficult to answer, but I haven't seen it even asked once in a presidential debate so far.

Is our presence over there giving the Iraqi government incentive to avoid doing anything, meaning we should announce that we are leaving? Are they trying hard but just need more time, which means we should stay? I haven't heard a convincing argument for either position. The two arguments seem to be "It's costing too much money and lives" and "We can't afford to lose", and those arguments miss the point: what is the best way to improve the situation?

Posted by Jason | January 28, 2008 7:45 PM

January casualties are similar to those in October and November. December was an outlier.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

30s to 40s is probably the new normal for now, or has been for 3 of the last 4 months.

It's easier to imagine it getting worse than getting better, and even if it stays the same, I don't think the American people will be satisfied with statis and no sense of progress in November, much less if things seem to be deteriorating again.

It matters politically whether the chocolate ration has been reduced to 20 grams or raised to 20 grams, so there will probably be a push to reduce casualties in the run-up to November. This would be easier to achieve if casualties rise now (I'm not suggesting there is a nefarious conspiracy to do so, but merely pointing out the political consequences of casualty trends.)

Posted by Tim | January 29, 2008 2:37 AM

McCain has mindlessly, belligerently taken ownership of the situation in Iraq. While there must be many Republicans who want to talk about a responsible end game there, perhaps Baker-Hamilton, McCain squelches all such talk through accusations of "surrender" and Munich-like appeasement. But his candidacy will sink out of sight with an increasing casualty trend.

Posted by bob h | January 29, 2008 7:38 AM

Testing

Posted by John Doe | January 30, 2008 3:47 PM

Testing

Posted by John Doe | January 30, 2008 3:48 PM

Testing

Posted by John Doe | January 30, 2008 3:49 PM