Was it the "Surge" or the Massive Airstrikes?

by D. Cupples (photo from U.S. DoD)  |   Data-analysis methods are still debated and largely
unexplained, yet the Bush Administration cites violence-in-Iraq statistics as evidence that the "surge" worked.

Yesterday's Washington Post reported that the U.S.-led coalition dropped nearly five times as many bombs on Iraq in 2007 than 2006: 1,447 bombs (or about 4 per day) up from 229 (about 4 per week). 

If violence really did decline in Iraq last year, perhaps that was due to the airstrikes ( not the "surge").  If the limbs are blown off enough people, it would be fairly difficult for them to build roadside bombs or point guns at coalition forces.

The Washington Post reported:

"The strategy was evident last week, as U.S. forces launched airstrikes across Iraq as part of Operation Phantom Phoenix. On Thursday morning in Arab Jabour, southeast of Baghdad, the U.S. military dropped 38 bombs with 40,000 pounds of explosives in 10 minutes, one of the largest strikes since the 2003 invasion. U.S. forces north of Baghdad employed bombs totaling more than 16,500 pounds over just a few days last week....

"In Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO bombings picked up in the middle of 2006, coalition airstrikes reached 3,572 last year, more than double the total for 2006 and more than 20 times the number in 2005. Many of the strikes have targeted the Taliban and other extremists in Helmand province, and military officials said they have been able to use air power to support small Special Forces units that engage the enemy in remote locations."

Officials are unsure of the number of civilian deaths and woundings that resulted from the myriad  coalition airstrikes.

Given the difficulty of protecting buildings, roads, and utility lines from airstrikes, it's becoming increasingly clear why the Iraq reconstruction effort is moving so glacially.

A particularly odd comment about the airstrikes came from Georgetown professor Colin Kahl:

"Part of this is announcing our presence to the adversary.... Across this calendar year you will see a reduction in U.S. forces, so there will be fewer troops to support Iraqi forces. One would expect a continued level of airstrikes because of offensive operations, and as U.S. forces begin to draw down you may see even more airstrikes." (Washington Post)

Wasn't our presence announced in 2003, when U.S. forces invaded Iraq?  Hasn't our presence been fairly obvious, given the 150,000-plus U.S. troops that have remained in Iraq for nearly five years?

Incidentally, USA Today (via Memeorandum) cites military statistics showing that "about 75% of Baghdad neighborhoods are now secure, a dramatic increase from 8% a year ago."

Other BN-Politics Posts:

* Different Stories re: Iraqi Benchmarks

* $1 billion More in Military Hardware Lost in Iraq

* Defense Secretary Says Military Can't Protect U.S. Interests

* Iran: is the Administration Telling the Truth or Saving Face?

* High Cost of Private Contractors

Comments

[Charles]

The reason the (reported) violence is down is almost certainly that the two warring sides have ethnically cleansed their territories, are consolidating their hold, and are waiting for the Americans to go away so they can finish their business.

[D. Cupples]

That and the summer weather might have played a part: notice that the violence stats began in or after June.