Is the Surge Working?

[MobBoss]

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/10/01/777211.html

Iraqi Deaths Fall by 50 Percent
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - The number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed in the war fell in September to levels not seen in more than a year. The U.S. military said the lower count was at least partly a result of new strategies and 30,000 additional U.S. forces deployed this year.

Although it is difficult to draw conclusions from a single month's tally, the figures could suggest U.S.-led forces are making headway against extremist factions and disrupting their ability to strike back.

The U.S. military toll for September was 64, the lowest since July 2006, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press from death announcements by the American command and Pentagon.

More dramatic, however, was the decline in Iraqi civilian, police and military deaths. The figure was 988 in September _ 50 percent lower than the previous month and the lowest tally since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.

Seems to me I recall Neomega saying something along the lines that he would be back at the end of September to gloat over us on how the surge would fail and casualty numbers would again just continue up and up. This would seem to indicate otherwise.

Discuss.

 

[Elrohir]

I think so, but it will become more apparent as time goes on.

 

[CaptainF]

I don't really care, since I think the whole war is(was) a piss poor endeavor to begin with.

If it does work, sweet. Let's get the hell out of there already.

 

[Merkinball]

It seems as it is, but this hardly anything to get excited about. We need to the violence down much more still. This level...it's nothing you can claim success on.

Success is almost ZERO US troop deaths. And maybe a hundred, two hundred deaths based on strict sectarian killing and terrorism. Terrorist attacks, car bombs, suicide bombings, things of that nature, those need to be down to just about zero as well. Maybe one every few months or so.

 

[Adamb0mb]

I think it is too soon to tell. Less violent incidents is a definite plus though and I hope the trend continues.

 

[Godwynn]

Too early to tell. I'll give it to January before I comment on the surge.

 

[.Shane.]

This says it all:

Although it is difficult to draw conclusions from a single month's tally, the figures could suggest U.S.-led forces are making headway against extremist factions and disrupting their ability to strike back.

Time will tell.

 

[JollyRoger]

I wonder how Bush's State of the Union address in 2003 would have been received if he would have said:

"In September 2007, we will lose only 64 members of our military in Iraq, the lowest for an entire 12 month period, and we will be talking about whether a temporary surge, accomplished by the overlapping of extended and early deployments, can convince more than 30% of you that I am a competent Commander-in-Chief?"

 

[Ginger_Ale]

The surge is working, indeed - an increased number of soldiers will reduce violence in a certain area (the area they are located). Seeing as that it is not sustainable for the entire country (it's mostly in Baghdad) or for any long duration of time, it's not that impressive.

Is it working? Yes. Is it an effective long-term solution? No.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I dunno, it seems like every now and then there's a "good news" piece like this, and then a month later we realize, damn, we're still crewed.

 

[Gogf]

You can argue either way. The US military is doings its job of preventing violence very well, but the Iraqi government has failed to effectively use this "breathing space" allowed to it.

 

[Masquerouge]

You can argue either way. The US military is doings its job of preventing violence very well, but the Iraqi government has failed to effectively use this "breathing space" allowed to it.

Yeah, seems like the good news from the military have been bashed by the bad news from the Iraqi government...

 

[Gogf]

The surge is working, indeed - an increased number of soldiers will reduce violence in a certain area (the area they are located). Seeing as that it is not sustainable for the entire country (it's mostly in Baghdad) or for any long duration of time, it's not that impressive.

Is it working? Yes. Is it an effective long-term solution? No.

Well, it was never meant as a long-term solution, and therein lies the problem. The surge was originally planned to pacify the country while the Iraqi government tries to reconcile religious sects and build up its own army. So far, it has failed to take any significant steps towards reconciliation.

 

[Elrohir]

Well, it was never meant as a long-term solution, and therein lies the problem. The surge was originally planned to pacify the country while the Iraqi government tries to reconcile religious sects and build up its own army. So far, it has failed to take any significant steps towards reconciliation.

The good news, though, is the Sunni "revolt" by the local tribal leaders. If the government extends a hand to deal with the local tribal leaders instead of shutting them out, then that will do more to unify Iraq than anything Petraeus has done.

This hasn't happened yet, but there are signs that the federal government is coming to terms with the fact that it will have to work with the local Sunnis. It's hardly a bright picture, but it isn't all dark.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Remember last time Mobboss ?
Two months of low casualties and someone was saying that were winning then there was a massive spike of violence.

No iraqi death data save that used by Petraues / DD however Iraq index had a seperate graph for this. Since data from Iraq interior ministry and Iraq health minitary tend to be 75% - 300% higher then that of the DD and they are no longer making those figures public.

That said, yes it is an encouraging trend here with the violence back to the 2006 levels. As Petreaus said very frankly the Iraq government was on the verge of collapse in 2006. Still Iraq 2006 isnt a very good place to be given that the US has spent 30,000 casualties and 500 Billion in money. A long way to go but were FINALLY on the right track
(http://icasualties.org/oif/ <=== wheres my WRD figures ????)

Heres US


From icasualties.org


Heres Iraq

 

[Ball Lightning]

In some things it might have, but for most of there goals they failed.

 

[Yoda Power]

A short period of small loses does not mean the war is won, just as a short period of high loses doesn't mean it's lost.

BTW I voted no, but I admit that's more a guess than something I believe in for sure.

 

[Integral]

Militarily, violence may be down, so militarily, the surge may be working. It is still too early to tell.

However, this is about Iraqi politics now, not American military strength. One cannot force a political solution merely by throwing more infantry at the situtation. The solution must be internal, but while Iraqi politicians bicker, American infantry and Iraqi police die.

Is this effort towards Iraqi security worth 1,000 American soldiers per year? I can't even answer that myself anymore...

-Integral

 

[azzaman333]

In a year's time we will know.

 

[Japanrocks12]

It's difficult to extrapolate given a month's worth of results. I don't have any expectations for the future