A Clarifying Month

by Charles

First off, I'm getting the graphical information from Engram here and here, and the numbers are based on the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count which, from what I've seen, has the best available data.  In the last three months, we've been at full manpower and our operations have been highly kinetic.  Despite more troops and more action on the front lines, military casualties were relatively low in July and August.

In terms of civilian casualties, July and August are higher than June, but lower than the first four months of the surge operation (which basically started in February of this year).  In the graph below, you can also see the trends since the Golden Mosque bombing in February 2006, where al Qaeda successfully triggered an upswing in sectarian violence.  They tried to start a civil war, and it's still working in parts of Baghdad.

But the above graph only tells part of the story.  The coalition focused its efforts on Baghdad and the "belts", and that strategy has worked.  Civilian casualties in Baghdad are way down.

Importantly, most of the decline in civilian casualties is due to the drop in execution-style killings, which primarily involves Shiite death squads targeting and slaying Sunni military-age males.  With Muqtada al-Sadr announcing that he will stand his JAM militias down, I expect the extra-judicial killings will drop even further in September.

With nationwide civilian casualties nearly unchanged in August and with civilian casualties in Baghdad lower, the obvious conclusion is that civilian casualties were higher outside Baghdad.  Sure enough:

So why is this number higher?  After all, we didn't reduce forces in the outlying areas.  If anything, we increased our numbers both in Baghdad and its suburbs and exurbs.  The answer is al Qaeda and its like-minded affiliates are still in play, and they're murdering civilian wherever they can:

Most of the difference between July and August is attributable to a single terrorist attack, the unfortunate victims being the pre-Islamic Yezidis.  I picked the title of the post as "clarifying" because al Qaeda & Co. further clarified its major role.  It bears repeating:  al Qaeda chose Iraq as the central front in its war against us, and they remain public enemy number one in Iraq.  Not far behind are Iranian-supported Shiite paramilitias.  With al-Sadr standing down, the coalition will have an easier time targeting the "rogue" Shiite squads.  Fred Kagan summarizes the make-up of al Qaeda in Iraq:

AQI, as the U.S. military calls it, is around 90 percent Iraqi. Foreign fighters, however, predominate in the leadership and among the suicide bombers, of whom they comprise up to 90 percent, U.S. commanders say.

Most of the suicide bombers are Saudi, which tells us something about that society.  Most of the senior leadership is foreign born, and so concerned were they that they made up a fictional Iraqi leader (al-Baghdadi) out of whole cloth to hide that fact.

On the national political front, not much has changed, and we're going to fall short on the eighteen benchmarks.  Five Iraqi leaders came together last week and worked an agreement on power-sharing, de-Baathification and oil legislation, but the various political parties were less than receptive.  The oil legislation appears to have the best chance of passing in the near term, but the rest is going to take more time, perhaps quite a bit more time.  So far, political advances are occurring at the local levels, and David Kilcullen (Australian advisor to the U.S. Command) has an excellent piece on how the tribes are moving the stakes.

The Iraqi Army is progressing, and national politics and the Iraqi National Police are faltering.  Another concern is the corruption, both in the Iraqi government and the American, which is flat out maddening.  The political timeline in DC is this month, and there are going to be a lot of heated exchanges in the coming weeks.  As for me, I'm still reserving final judgment on the current counterinsurgency strategy until year end.

Comments

[DaveC]

Maybe when Charles refers to the terrorists, he is thinking about this passage from Engram:

In fact, I am amazed that Americans (and even some Democratic leaders) are able to appreciate the momentous turn of events that has occurred in Iraq lately. More and more Americans seem to understand that we really are in a war against al Qaeda in Iraq (whether or not Iraqi politicians reconcile with each other), that al Qaeda has made it so, and that losing to al Qaeda would have profoundly negative consequences. They also seem to appreciate that the tide has turned against al Qaeda in a very big way even though the terrorists remain capable of launching sneak attacks against and slaughtering unarmed and completely innocent men, women and children. Although the mainstream media often refers to these attacks as being carried out by Sunni "militants" or "extremists," the American public seems to appreciate the glaringly obvious fact that these attacks are instead carried out by "terrorists." Al Qaeda terrorists, in fact. They are doing so not because they are participating in a Sunni-vs.-Shiite civil war but because they are trying to provoke a civil war to bring down the Iraqi government and to demoralize you (so that you will throw your support behind Harry Reid and like-minded anti-victory Democrats).

I have long pointed to the eerie code of silence that Democrats have adopted on the subject of al Qaeda in Iraq. On those rare occasions when they do happen to mention al Qaeda in Iraq, they typically deny its importance and point to the absurd notion that the real terrorists are in Afghanistan. You know that this is false. All you have to do is add up the number of civilians killed by foreign suicide bombers in Iraq this year and compare it to the number killed by suicide bombers in Afghanistan over the same period of time. It would be something like 2000 (Iraq) vs. 60 (Afghanistan) in 2007 alone. Obviously, al Qaeda's leaders are hiding somewhere along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they are sending their foot soldiers to Iraq to evict American forces from that country first. Then they'll turn their attention to Afghanistan (at which point the Democrats will finally be right about where the real terrorists are).

So, Al Qaeda is mostly interested in Iraq, with the result (currently) that Al Qaeda is losing in Iraq, and the Taleban is losing in Afghanistan.

[sglover]

I have long pointed to the eerie code of silence that Democrats have adopted on the subject of al Qaeda in Iraq. On those rare occasions when they do happen to mention al Qaeda in Iraq, they typically deny its importance and point to the absurd notion that the real terrorists are in Afghanistan. You know that this is false. All you have to do is add up the number of civilians killed by foreign suicide bombers in Iraq this year and compare it to the number killed by suicide bombers in Afghanistan over the same period of time. It would be something like 2000 (Iraq) vs. 60 (Afghanistan) in 2007 alone. Obviously, al Qaeda's leaders are hiding somewhere along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they are sending their foot soldiers to Iraq to evict American forces from that country first. Then they'll turn their attention to Afghanistan (at which point the Democrats will finally be right about where the real terrorists are).

This is just silly hyperventilating. The guy makes it sound like Al Qaeda HQ is deploying regiments hither and yon, so that more guerillas killed or chewed up in one region are evidence of "progress". In fact, it wasn't all that long ago that there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq; their presence now is evidence of strategic failure. And in any case, Iraq remains the finest recruiting tool wily old bin Laden -- now installed in his own statelet! -- could ever hope for.

[Phil]

and the Taleban is losing in Afghanistan.

Losing? Haven't we been fighing this benighted saps for a full six years now? Shouldn't they have done lost, son? We beat the frigging Wehrmacht in less time than that.

Apropos the Poland jokes above: The army gets caught lying about yet another soldier's death so as perhaps not to embarrass our Polish allies.

[Gary Farber]

The Dora market.

[DaveC]

The Dora area is a violent frontline neighborhood. Two battalions of U.S. troops are battling the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, commanders said. Entire streets are being walled off to form so-called gated communities -- another key tactic of Petraeus's plan. Soldiers at the outpost said the main reason for the drop in violence is the flooding of troops into the area. But many stressed that the Iraqi soldiers were not ready to take over security.

"We can't be holding their hands forever," Campbell said. "I'm worried about what's going to happen to this place when we leave."

Minutes before the delegation arrived, Bartran instructed 1st Lt. Ali Husham Salih, 27, the commander of the Iraqi army's 4th company, 1st Brigade, to have his soldiers put on their uniforms and combat gear.

Salih said later that his men could protect the market on their own but that they depended on the Americans for support and weapons. "If the American soldiers leave, you'll find the Iraqi army destroyed in one month," he said. "We still want and need the Americans to stay for a long time until we are strong."

Yes, that's who we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

[DaveC]

Here's where to see Iraq's Helsinki Agreement to end the sectarian conflict

Not a sure thing, but makes me more optimistic.

[Baskaborr]

Charles,
You've endorsed the "ticking bomb" exception to "we don't torture". Part of my problem with that is the most likely real world "ticking bomb" scenario I can imagine is a US bombing sortie where a pilot is shot down. There the opponents clearly have a time critical need to know how many planes are participating in the raid and what their targets are. Knowing is going to save lives. So I assume you believe that the captors should be held blameless for torturing the US pilot. After all, they're just following the moral standard we set.

[DaveC]

This may be good news as well.

via Gateway Pundit

[Gary Farber]

"This may be good news as well."

"Baghdad, Aug 30, (VOI)- Iraqi Foreign Minster Hoshyar Zibari said on Thursday an expanded conference for Iraq’s neighboring countries is to convene in Baghdad in early September, unveiling that Iraq is seeking a long-term security agreement with the U.S. next year once the U.N. mandate given to the Multi-National Forces’ presence in the country was over. Iraq wants to establish a long-term U.S. military presence many years into the future, likely to include permanent bases."

Yes, that's quite a shocker. Who could have predicted it?

I feel more relieved than ever at this good news.

[DaveC]

I'm going big time pony.

How about a Persian Gulf Treaty Organization in 3 years, starting with Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and OAE?

Keeps both Iran and Al Qaeda at bay.

I know, wallowing in neocon fantasies, but still.

[Gary Farber]

"I know, wallowing in neocon fantasies, but still."

Saying "PiG-TO" is a neocan fantasy?

More seriously, how, exactly, would a country-to-country treaty keep a non-state organization "at bay"?

Would that be the way NATO keeps Islamic terrorist attacks "at bay"?

I can't begin to address the number of category errors involved here, let alone your recent series of comments, DaveC.

I am slightly envious of your rich fantasy life, however. I can see how it would be much more attractive than reality.

[Gary Farber]

"neocan"

"neocon," that is.

[DaveC]

Practical Advice.

[Jesurgislac]

Practical Advice..
Er, that's a Youtube "Hawkwind-Sonic Attack Live at Cubby Bear 1994". FWIW. HTH. HAND. Sheesh.

[J Thomas]

I didn't listen to it. Did you listen to it? Did it have any practical advice?

[DaveC]

I just wanted to share a little fantasy/paranoia/whimsy. Figured fantasy fans might like it, what with Hawkwind's association with Michael Moorcock.

The advice:

"Use your wheels; that is what they are for."
"Think only of yourselves."
Etc.

[Charles Bird]

Morat, thanks for mischaracterizing my positions. You've outdone yourself!

And Gary, you're mischaracterizing me, too. I said that I would place less reliance on al-Sadr (as conveyed by his Irish mouthpiece) and more reliance on MNF-Iraq. Those absolutes you are claiming that I'm afflicted with just aren't there. I will say that during the Rumsfeld era, the military command knew what to expect if they crossed the SecDef, and Caldwell was saying those things while Rummy was in office.

Nevertheless, you haven't shown why Caldwell would be lying in a daily press briefing about what the Iraqi roles were in that particular operation, nor have you convinced me that al Sadr's rendition of the "facts", through the filter of an overtly biased journalist, should be given higher credence.

And while we're talking about reliance on various sources, I basically give close to zero value on anything the administration has to say, and I can't remember the last time I linked to them. What's more, I have no confidence in Bush or his administration.

However, for the U.S. command in Iraq under Petraeus, I give quite a bit weighting, mostly because COIN doctrine emphasizes straight-shooting with the media and no happy talk. For that reason, I'll spend little time looking at the upcoming Iraq report that's written by the White House. Instead, I'll be watching or reading Petraeus' direct testimony.

And I asked you about the usage "the terrorists," not about suicide bombers: what's the connection, precisely?

My mistake, Gary. I define terrorists as those folks who indiscriminately kill any and all civilians around them in order to advance their agenda. The suicide bombers who murdered the Yazidis were terrorists under my definition, and those kinds of acts are the tradmark of al Qaeda & Co. in Iraq. As I recall, al Qaeda is fairly well known as a terrorist organization.

Tosh tosh, don't you know that's "completely wrong on the facts"?

Here's why you and Morat are wrong on the facts, Doug. The only timeline I've given as it relates to Iraq has been for this particular surge strategy. I first wrote about it last January, stating that I'd like to see it given a chance, and that I'd give it to November. If there's no discnernible progress, then we should go to Plan B. Shortly after that initial post, I changed the timing to December, and have stuck to that timing in at least a dozen other posts and comments, and I'm sticking to it here. If you think that's a Friedman unit, then I suggest that you don't know a Friedman unit is. But hey, who really cares about facts when there's a good pile-on to jump onto!

Part of my problem with that is the most likely real world "ticking bomb" scenario I can imagine is a US bombing sortie where a pilot is shot down.

I was thinking of the WMD-in-major-city sort of ticking time bombs, Baskaborr. Torturing a downed pilot in a conventional bombing run, particularly a bombing run that follows internationally accepted rules of engagment, would be a war crime. If we know that a detainee has intelligence on an imminent WMD attack on a major city, a la 24, then I wouldn't be opposed to coercive interrogation. That may be a war crime, but if it saves thousands or tens of thousands of lives and there are no other reasonable alternatives available, then I'm in favor of it, albeit grudgingly. However, the odds of this situation happening are virtually non-existent, so for all practical purposes, I'm against inhumane treatment.

[Jay C]

Charles, it's nice to know somebody (in this case, you) is still maintaining a certain level of optimism about US prospects in Iraq; but I really wonder why you would assume that optimism and reality are going to coincide in the upcoming "Petraeus Report"? To wit:

"However, for the U.S. command in Iraq under Petraeus, I give quite a bit weighting, mostly because COIN doctrine emphasizes straight-shooting with the media and no happy talk."

And since when, in dealing with the entire history of the Iraq conflict since 2002, has the Bush Administration ever endorsed "straight-shooting with the media" (either in its own pronouncements, or those of its military mouthpieces)? What on Earth would lead you to expect that the "surge" report is going to say anything other than exactly what the White House wants it to say?

"For that reason, I'll spend little time looking at the upcoming Iraq report that's written by the White House. Instead, I'll be watching or reading Petraeus' direct testimony."

And why do you think there will be any significant differences between the two?

[Morat20]

Charles -- if they're mischaracterizations of your position, perhaps you should wonder why so many people have them.

Now, I suppose it's possible we're just a conspiracy of people devoted to misunderstanding you, misrepresenting you, and generally making you look bad.

Or maybe -- just possibly -- you've managed to give the impression, whether you mean to or not, that you seem to "see signs of progress in Iraq" no matter what.

I've been reading your thoughts on Iraq as long as you've been posting here, and while they have evolved from "We're winning" to "We're winning, but it's going to take longer than the optimists had hoped" to "We're not winning yet, but we're obviously on the path to winning" to "We'll win, if we just don't give up" to our current "It's too soon to say if we're winning, but I see lots of positive signs we're winning".

At this point, is there anything that would convince you we're not winning? Because frankly, Iraq is a hell-hole that I wouldn't wish on my worst-enemy, and the Lord God Almighty would probably throw up his hands in despair of the situation.

And yet here you come, on schedule, still trotting out the party line. You're completely out of touch with reality on this topic.

You'll read the Petreaus report, which will be positive because Petreaus' career hinges on it and because his own doctrine says he has to push the positive, and you'll ignore every other report on Iraq. You'll conclude we're winning.

And in April, when we start withdrawing troops because we simply can't keep them there anymore and the Army's broken, I suspect you'll claim we've "won" even though things just kept getting worse.

It's my honest assesment of your words on this topic. If that's not the meaning you're trying to convey, I suggest you rethink how you're saying it. I'm not the only one who's come to the conclusion that you will constansistantly see us on the "Edge of Victory" -- or at least "Within sight of the edge of victory" as long as this war goes on, no matter what is going on in Iraq.

And when the Army leaves -- either because it's too worn out to continue, or because Democrats and the American people have grown too tired of this useless waste to continue, I suspect you will be the first to bitterly complain about how we were stabbed in the back.

[hilzoy]

I didn't read this for a few days -- between prepping for classes and guestblogging and stuff, I was kind of busy -- but: Phil, both the bite me and the waaahmbulance comments violate the posting rules. I don't want to ban you, but do it again and I will.

Grr.

[Charles Bird]

Charles -- if they're mischaracterizations of your position, perhaps you should wonder why so many people have them.

I can only surmise it would be intellectual laziness on your part, Morat, laced with a predilection to read what you want to read instead of the actual words, and it's abundant in your most recent comment. For example, the last time I said that we were winning or had "turned the corner" in Iraq was early 2004. Anarch already checked and he came up empty.

Charles, it's nice to know somebody (in this case, you) is still maintaining a certain level of optimism about US prospects in Iraq...

What I've actually written, Jay, is that I range from mildly optimistic to mildly pessimistic that the current strategy will work.

And why do you think there will be any significant differences between the two?

Because I wouldn't know where Petraeus' assessment ends and the WH spin begins. I'd rather hear it directly from the source. He is an author of the COIN manual, and the doctrine is explicit about accuracy and openness.

[Morat20]

I can only surmise it would be intellectual laziness on your part, Morat, laced with a predilection to read what you want to read instead of the actual words, and it's abundant in your most recent comment. For example, the last time I said that we were winning or had "turned the corner" in Iraq was early 2004. Anarch already checked and he came up empty.

Then it must be your boundless optimism coupled with your belief that will alone can lead us to victory.

[Morat20]

Actually, Charles, I have a substantive question -- an answer to which would probably make a useful post in of itself.

What would it take to convince you it's time to leave Iraq.

Not "When Bush says so" or "When Petreaus says so" or "When whomever is currently the savior of our Iraqi effort admits failure".

What events, what situations, what facts -- not other people's assesments -- would lead you to decide victory is no longer a possibility, and it's time to cut our losses.

[Model 62]

Charles has addressed that (what it will take for him to switch to loser-defeatism), Morat20. In this thread, even (progress by November/December). I'm sure a search of the archives will turn up a post or two in which he spells out the details.

[J Thomas]

Model 62, as I understand it Charles wants "discernible" progress by december.

So the switch would come if he sees *no* discernible progress.

But Charles already sees discernible progress. US deaths are down, reported civilian casualties are down in the areas we control, and the iraqi army is making progress. By december we might have other progress. Maybe electricity will be on an average of 3 hours a day up from the low of 2 hours. Maybe the official unemployment rate will drop from 30+% to 20%. Maybe a thousand insurgents will storm a US base and be repulsed with heavy casualties -- that would show the insurgents are desperate and are getting themselves killed off. Progress.

What's the chance there will be *no* discernible progress by december? Very very small. If nothing else the air force can release statistics showing that their bombing strikes in iraqi cities has declined by 15% since october. That would be progress, if fewer airstrikes were required.

Anyway, serious COIN guys say we should expect it to take ten years from the beginning of the surge, so we shouldn't expect a whole lot of quick results. We really ought to wait at least 5 years before we decide whether it's working or not, if how well it's working is what we use to decide by.

[Morat20]

Thomas hit it on the head -- you can always cherrypick the data to find "progress". If nothing else, statistical noise will make something look 'better'.

As with Bush, and with Petreus now, and Charles as well, what they're doing is taking whatever looks like progress (because they desperately want and need there to be progress), claiming it's progress, and that things are getting better.

Which is why one sets metrics up first. Which is what I'm asking Charles to do, and what Bush and Petreaus are trying very hard to dodge (as everyone notes, Iraq hasn't hit any of the serious benchmarks and isn't even holding steady unless you play silly buggers with the numbers. And it's so bad that even the statistics games come across as lame. When professional spinners and liars find themselves stuck with transparently bad lies, reality is truely not on their side).

So what would Charles consider progress? Right now, as things stand and looking forward over the next six months -- what metrics would convince him things are getting better? What events, milestones, whatever would he base his judgement on?

In fact, is there anything -- short of Bush or Petreaus or whatever War Czar or Savior General we have running things flat-out admitting it's time to go -- that would convince Charles it's time to close up shop?

Thomas: The problem with 'serious COIN guys' is that we can't maintain the surge for 6 months, much less 5 to 10 years. We're forced to draw down significant troops in April.

[DaveC]

When professional spinners and liars find themselves stuck with transparently bad lies, reality is truely not on their side

I don't think so.

Our military are not the spinners.

This is not a deal where we just get out and the whole thing ends.

No, things are not great,

but maybe it is manageable.

I remain cautiously optimistic, but we need to keep in mind two things; the enemy wants to kill our national will and morale; there will be no clear cut end like V-E and V-J Day. If we resist their efforts and manage our own expectations, we will continue to be successful.

Don't listen to the pundits and the politicians, if you don't want spin. Badger 6 refers to the information war. Get the news from the grunts. It is possible if you try.

[Jesurgislac]

DaveC: Get the news from the grunts. It is possible if you try.
Yes, it is:

"Even though we've out-stayed our welcome, in the big picture of whether we've helped or not, I know we have," said Sgt. Christofer Kitto, a 23-year-old sniper from Altamont, N.Y. "But now it's just in a state of quagmire. The U.S. time here has come and gone."

But I guess he's not one of the grunts you'd want to pay any attention to: after all, he's just a soldier fighting in Iraq. The 101st Fighting Keyboarders whom you link to above must know much more about the situation in Iraq than a soldier who just happens to be there.

Chuh.

[J Thomas]

Our military are not the spinners.

Here's a quote from your link:
"The stories that warriors tell that gain exposure through our mass media outlets are very different than the stories that warriors tell each other."

This is not a deal where we just get out and the whole thing ends.

"Iranian troops have been accused of bombing border areas for weeks against suspected positions of the Free Life Party, or PEJAK, a breakaway faction of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party. Iran says PEJAK - which seeks autonomy for Kurds in Iran - launches attacks inside Iran from bases in Iraq."

We somehow chose to stand up for the kurds yet again, after we'd betrayed them every time before, except maybe this last.

So, are they the kind of people who'd get into a four-front war against iran, turkey, syria, and iraq all at once? Yes. And we can try to protect them if we want to. What kind of commitment do you have in mind?

Probably the best thing we did for them was give them that no-fly zone. We did it without troops stationed in iraq, and we could do that again. But then, last time we did it against iraq, and this time we might be doing it against iraq (which no longer has an airforce) and turkey and iran.

So, this isn't just COIN. It isn't something that we could stay in for 10 years and then it just ends like korea or something.

No, things are not great,

Gee, you think?

but maybe it is manageable.

You think maybe? All it takes to make it manageable is that we choose to accept our losses indefinitely. Call it a round billion dollars a day, and we need more troops of course. We could do it. Just lower our expectations and ignore the costs, and we could manage. Not like we really need to be a first-world nation.

Don't listen to the pundits and the politicians, if you don't want spin. Badger 6 refers to the information war. Get the news from the grunts.

Oh. So, you think the independent grunts who set up their own blogs and such don't get shut down? You figure the ones who get to keep writing aren't giving you spin?

Hey, you weren't born yesterday. You've been paying attention to this occupation for what, 4 years 5 months now? You can't expect us to believe you were born yesterday.

I get some news from grunts who come back from iraq. Privately. What they say that they don't think I'm going to quote them on is probably true, except for the stories they want to see if I'll believe. But if I quoted those on blogs then for you it would be FOAF. (Friend of a friend.) What I say a veteran told me is rumor. And what an actual veteran puts out so it can get attributed to him, he's responsible for and he can very definitely get punished for.

So DaveC, why do you spin it this way? Do you think we aren't on to you?

[Morat20]

DaveC:

How about the 44% of the 2000 West Point class that buggered out of the Army, the highest loss of a West Point class to date?

That seems like the sort of "information from the troops" that's hard to ignore. Actions, not words.