The deaths in Iraq both in terms of Coalition forces in Iraq and for Iraqi civilians were the lowest since the U. S.-led invasion in 2003:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Nineteen U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq in May, the U.S. military said on Sunday, the lowest monthly death toll since U.S. forces invaded to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The number of Iraqi civilians killed in the same month plunged to 505 after reaching a seven-month high of 968 in April, figures obtained by Reuters from Iraq’s interior, defense and health ministries showed.
The U.S. military says violence in Iraq is at a four-year low following crackdowns by U.S. and Iraqi forces on Shi’ite militias in southern Basra and Baghdad and on al Qaeda in the northern city of Mosul, its last major urban stronghold.
Something that’s not generally mentioned in reports of this sort is that, according to DOD records, in a force the size of the one we have in Iraq—even stationed in the U. S.—something like 120 deaths can be expected per year. That’s 10 per month due to accidents, suicide, etc.
I continue to consider each and every one of these deaths a tragedy but we need to place the situation in some perspective. I don’t believe that the increase in U. S. troops and the associated increase in operational tempo against insurgent forces in Iraq is the sole cause of the dramatic improvement in the security situation in Iraq. I think there are many causes including increased numbers and improved effectiveness on the part of Iraqi security forces, population movements, improved cooperation of Sunni tribal forces with Coalition forces, and just plain fatigue.
Nor do I believe that victory has been achieved or is even near at hand in Iraq. That will take years; decades even. Democratic government in Iraq, such as it is, is only two years old. The training wheels won’t be ready to come off for some time.
While not the sole cause, “the Surge” is unquestionably one of the factors involved in the improved security situation in Iraq. To my mind that highlights the fecklessness and cruel indifference that those urging immediate withdrawal of U. S. forces from Iraq are, no doubt innocently, expressing. To continue to hold that position with the facts on the ground in Iraq as they are today you’ve got to believe both that the U. S. forces are completely irrelevant to the improvement in security and that no level of U. S. casualties is worth saving Iraqi lives or keeping the situation in Iraq for further degenerating into chaos.
The American news media’s coverage of the war in Iraq has decreased as the deaths there have plummeted, no doubt following the “if it bleeds, it leads” rubric. According to the American Journalism Review network news coverage of Iraq has decreased 92% (hat tip: Joshuapundit). Despite that according to the Rasmussen Reports 62% of Americans want our troops removed from Iraq within a year. No presidential candidate is running on that policy and regardless of whom is elected president in November our troops won’t have been withdrawn from Iraq a year from today or a year from when that new president takes office.
A responsible media would be reporting on the changed situation in Iraq as vigorously as they did at the height of the carnage there and responsible politicians would be building support among the American people for the policy that’s required and which I think it’s pretty clear is the operational policy of all candidates: leaving some level of American forces in Iraq until the country is substantially more stable than it is now. But, then, nobody has ever claimed that we have a responsible press or politicians.
Update
Today the Washington Post editorializes in a vein similar to my comments above:
If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq’s 2009 elections will be crucial.
