Thought Theater

Iraqi Violence & Casualties Soaring genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

Define civil war however you choose...but numbers do tell a story. The sectarian violence continues to expand in Iraq as the number of attacks and the number of deaths remains alarming. I would suggest that Democrats begin repeating the numbers over and over while asking voters the rhetorical question, "If this were happening in the U.S., what would it be called?" The New York Times has the full story here.

During the period from the establishment of the new Iraqi government on May 20 until Aug. 11, the average number of weekly attacks jumped to almost 800. That was a substantial increase from earlier this year and almost double the number of the first part of 2004.

As a consequence, Iraqi casualties increased 51 percent over the last reporting period. The document notes that, based on initial reports, Iraqi casualties among civilians and security forces reached nearly 120 a day, up from about 80 a day in the pervious reporting period from mid-February to mid-May. About two years ago they were running about 30 a day.

Again, it seems to me that the numbers are sufficient for Democrats to make their point...and they ought to be presented in such a way as to force voters to answer some basic questions in order to make them draw the correct conclusions. By providing the numbers and asking voters what growing attacks and expanded fatalities tell us about the progress being made, voters will be forced to question the current plans for solving the conflict. Double the deaths and double the attacks tells all the story one needs to know and avoids convoluted debates about how to define a civil war.

Still, the study says the fighting in Iraq does not meet the “stringent international legal standards for civil war," without further explanation. Even so, the sectarian fighting has been bloodier than ever.

In discussing daily casualty rates, the report did not distinguish between the number of dead and wounded. But it noted that execution-type killings, in particular, reached a new high in July. “The Baghdad Coroner’s Office reported 1,600 bodies arrived in June and more than 1,800 bodies in July, 90 percent of which were assessed to be the result of executions," the report states.

I'm of the opinion that Democrats let the Pentagon and the administration offer tortured explanations as to why we shouldn't call the situation a civil war. If Americans see the loss of over 2,600 U.S. troops as unacceptable, then it makes sense to ask voters to consider that in less than two months Iraqi casualties exceed our entire three year tally. Is that progress?

The report says that progress has been made in fielding Iraqi Army units and police that can take over the main responsibility for security. It says 5 Iraqi Army divisions, 25 brigades and 85 battalions have the lead for security in their areas.

The report notes that Iraq’s Interior Ministry does not have a system to determine how many of the forces trained by police advisers are still on the job. Advisers from the American-led forces estimate that the attrition rate is about 20 percent a year.

Citing polling data from the International Republican Institute, the report states that almost 80 percent of Iraqis thought in April 2006 that the general situation would be better in a year. By June, it was less than 50 percent. “In general, Iraqis have had an optimistic outlook," the report stated. “However, as time has passed, their optimism has eroded."

OK, call me cynical but if the Iraqi's don't know how many troops they actually have or how many are walking off of the job, how are we able to assert that we know the number of divisions, brigades, or battalions? Further, if the Iraqi's estimate that 20% of their forces are AWOL, what does that say about their cohesion or their capability...let alone their commitment to restoring order to the troubled country? Isn't it possible that the 20% who have vanished are simply being recruited by sectarian groups or local militias? How much equipment and firepower is walking off as well?

If so, wouldn't it be possible to presume that sectarian groups and militias are using U.S. forces to train and equip their followers? So they get free training and equipment and then they return to their sectarian group of choice to assist with the expanding attacks and casualties. Isn't it possible that our efforts to train and equip an Iraqi security force is actually arming and training the very forces that are attacking U.S. soldiers and fomenting "civil war"?

Sadly, my concern is not only that there is a lack of progress, but that we may well be facilitating the violence and the decline into a full scale civil war. Additionally, it may well be that the Iraqi people are simply not ready to resolve their differences and establish an equitable and democratic society. The numbers just aren't adding up.