Thursday, March 03, 2005
Are declining troop fatalities evidence of success?
American fatalities declined in February to their lowest level since July. One is tempted to stitch that fact to other recent good news, including the success of the elections, spontaneous demonstrations against the insurgency and the evidence that bin Laden wants al Zarqawi to direct his attention to the American homeland. (This last bit, if true, suggests both that al Qaeda's honchos are getting pessmistic about Iraq, and that they are not certain that other assets can hit the United States -- otherwise, why try to refocus al Zarqawi?) Does all of this (and other) good news mean that the "Big Mo" has moved to the counterinsurgency's advantage?
Perhaps, but the lull in American casualties is not in and of itself evidence of success. Last year at almost exactly this time, for example, we went 16 days with only one American KIA. I wrote this triumphalist post, which turned out to be, er, "early."
Perhaps, but the lull in American casualties is not in and of itself evidence of success. Last year at almost exactly this time, for example, we went 16 days with only one American KIA. I wrote this triumphalist post, which turned out to be, er, "early."
0 Comments:
