Posted by D. Cupples | Today's New York Times ran a confusing article, titled "Military Group is out of Baghdad, U.S. Says." It states:
"American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned.
"Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of United States forces in Baghdad, also said that American troops had yet to clear some13 percent of the city, including Sadr City and several other areas controlled by Shiite militias. But, he said, 'there’s just no question' that violence had declined since a spike in June.'
.
“'Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak,' and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said....”
After wondering why General Petraeus hadn't given this report himself, my first thought was: Good! Troops can come home, and President Bush will stop seeking billions in war funding. When I finished the article, I realized that I'd wishfully jumped to conclusions....
About violence statistics, the NY Times did not discuss what counted as "murders" in Iraq. Just two months ago, this very point was up for debate, when intelligence analysts and the GAO (likely our government's most non-partisan entity) disputed the military's statistics.
Here's what a September Washington Post article said:
"The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. 'If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian,' the official said. 'If it went through the front, it's criminal. Depending on which numbers you pick,' he said, 'you get a different outcome.'"
Another thing confused me: why did Gen. Fil cite a decline in violence from June-September? Weather-wise, those are some of the worst months in Iraq, what with the heat, debilitating sandstorms and shamal -- which have been known to make even flying impossible (GlobalSecurity.org) If violence did decline during the summer months, might the harsh weather conditions have played a role?
Amid the glowing report of decreased violence in Iraq, today's New York Times also mentioned that two mass graves were discovered in a rural area south of Baquba this week: one contained 17 handcuffed bodies, and four were headless.
On one hand, Gen. Fil said that 2008 would be "a year of reconstruction, a year of infrastructure repair" and a year of economic surges. He also said that removing Shiite militias' control of gasoline, government ministries and other power sources "would be difficult"-- meaning that it hasn't been done yet. Hasn't Shiite control been a major obstacle to economic reconstruction in Iraq all along?
The last two lines of the New York Times article:
"Stability, General Fil said, 'is within sight but not yet within touch. Close, but not yet within touch.'"
In other words, the news is good (i.e., we've done a good job) but not good enough to seriously scale back on troops or funding. It's as though every time the Bush Administration takes a bite of cake, seconds later the missing portion magically reappears.
Memeorandum has other bloggers' reactions.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* How Accurate are Iraq War Statistics?
* Good News out of Iraq: What it Means & Doesn't
* Billions over Baghdad: Poor Accounting Enabled Contractor Waste/Abuse
* How the Defense Department Flushes Dollars Down the Latrine
Comments