Kossacks admittedly panicked over possible success in Iraq

Front-paged at dKos today:

As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have begun to quietly panic in recent days over this question: “Could George W. Bush and Frederick Kagan have possibly been right about the surge?”

Bah, why bother worrying about some marginal, unimportant leftwing bloggers think?

Update: A few more thoughts on the decline in Iraqi casualties. Just to look at some specifics, I downloaded data for the first four days of August and compared them to the start of this month. The differences pop right out. In August, every day in Baghdad, about 20 bodies were being found. In November it’s three or four dumped corpses being reported. Other violence continues. And there were two large bombings in early August; I’d guess those could happen again.

The main question in the Kossack post (while applied to declining US casualties) can be asked of the Iraqi deaths too. Could the Surge be responsible? It’s hard to say, and “self-partition/ethnic cleansing” certainly plays a part. But 20,0001 extra troops on the streets of Baghdad? I think that would make a difference. It’s tempting to get carried away by Shinseki-like numbers of “several hundred thousand troops required,” and in a broad context of 25 million people in Iraq, 20,000-30,000 might seem like drop in the bucket.

But look back to that early August data. What was happening? Well, in Baghdad, lots of people were being killed, out of sight of witnesses and reporters, and then their bodies were being found. Now that has drastically decreased. Are 20,000 extra troops a drop in the bucket in Baghdad? By comparison, in New York City, the total police force is 40,000. So, one wouldn’t call 20,000 extra cops in NYC insignificant. Maybe that same number in Baghdad is having some positive effect. That seems reasonable to me.

Click on this Excel file for details:
casualties-aug-nov.xls

  1. 30,000 overall in the Surge. I’m estimating 20,000 in Baghdad itself. [↩]

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Kossacks “quietly panic” at prospect of success in Iraq on 05 Nov 2007 at 3:10 pm

    […] to a Kos Kid, yes. (h/t Commissar) As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have […]

  2. LeatherPenguin » Oopsie on 05 Nov 2007 at 4:01 pm

    […] Kossacks admittedly panicked over possible success in Iraq at politburo diktat 2.0 Bookmark to: […]

  3. Chuck Adkins » Um, Who’s to say that it isn’t Both? on 05 Nov 2007 at 5:25 pm

    […] typical Conservative response is quite dismissive of this, and on some Blog postings has been quite slanderous of the Liberals. I can see where they’re coming from, as well as the […]

  4. Wake up America- on 05 Nov 2007 at 6:13 pm

    Daily Kos Admits That Casualty Rates in Iraq are F…

    I did…good, just making sure everyone understands that those that are there and have been since before the surge and since it began, are quite adamant that the surge has allowed for the majority of progress we have been seeing….

  5. Kos kooks “panic” at thought of Iraq success « Crush Liberalism on 06 Nov 2007 at 10:12 am

    […] “support the troops”, right?  From Hot Air: According to a Kos Kid, yes. (h/t Commissar) As U.S. casualties have continued to drop, many people on the anti-Bush side of the aisle have […]

Comments

  1. markg8 wrote:

    I doubt it’s just the Mahdi Army standing down either. Ethnic cleansing has largely been accomplished in Baghdad and elsewhere. The winners among the tribal gangs, mafias, militias etc. have triumphed and killed or driven off their rivals.

    Sadr and his nationalist Sunni allies may possibly have the votes in Parliament to demand an end to the UN mandate for the occupation, certainly next year if not this year.

    Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 6:39 pm

  2. TC@LeatherPenguin wrote:

    We need a new map.

    AND THIS TIME, Sullivan gets sent to Mars.

    Posted 05 Nov 2007 at 6:56 pm

  3. Redhand wrote:

    It’s tempting to get carried away by Shinseki-like numbers of “several hundred thousand troops required,” and in a broad context of 25 million people in Iraq, 20,000-30,000 might seem like drop in the bucket.

    Well, OK, but you’ll never convince me that Shinseki wasn’t spot-on in his initial assessment of the numbers of occupying troops needed. Countless lives have been lost because arrogant, know-it-all A**holes like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz found those figures “hard to believe.” All of which makes anything Bush & Co. no say on the subject harder to believe.

    Of course I want as good an end to this debacle as is possible, but if we get one it still doesn’t justify this disgraceful conflict.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 10:08 am

  4. Stephen wrote:

    Of course Shinseki was spot-on. My point is that the issue of securing all of Iraq permanently is one thing (for which +/- 20,000 troops might not matter). But to explain a drop in violence in the city of Baghdad, over a few months, then an additional 20,000 troops would very likely have helped.

    I agree with your second point. If this thing winds down in some way that is less than a disaster, that would not be any justification for the conflict.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 10:36 am

  5. canuckistani wrote:

    If I may bring this forward from a previous thread..

    And if it does, and I hate to say this, Bush will get the credit. We’re a long way from “victory.” And the goal posts have been moved out of 3 or 4 stadiums. But if, if, it muddles through, history will vindicate Bush. Read it and weep. I’m sorry, my friend; I would find that infuriating too.

    I’m ashamed to say that you caught me out - my first reaction was to think “I can’t stand it if Chimpy McHitlerBurton* is right”. But I gave it sober second thought and came to the following conclusions.
    1) For the sake of the Iraqi people and the American troops, the sooner this is over, the better.
    2) Bush took 4 years, 2 trillion dollars and 4000 American lives to overthrow a tinpot dictator hated by his own people - one who could have been bought out for a mere 1 billion dollars.
    3) The following victory conditions were met : Iraq was cleared of WMD’s - all 60 Gulf War era mustard gas shells. Democracy was brought to the middle east in the form of a pro-Iran government in Iraq and a Hamas victory in Palestine.
    4) America was shamed by it’s failure to defeat a sad and broken third world power without stumbling into a 4 year quagmire
    5) America alienated allies and antagonized enemies with its embrace of torture
    6) The whole business was a distraction from the war against Al Qaeda. OBL is still at large, 6 years on.

    I’m thinking that the whole business will be marked up as a humiliating failure for George Bush no matter how it ends, so I’m content to get this mess over and hope you’ve learned enough to not invade Iran.

    *emphasized for humorous effect. I always just called him “that f****r Bush”.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 2:04 pm

  6. Stephen wrote:

    Canuckistani,

    Good points. Perhaps the judgement of history will not be as simplistic as I said.

    But “victory” covers a lot of problems. Original causes, the costs, etc. frequently get less attention than perhaps they should.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 2:20 pm

  7. John the Marine wrote:

    A couple of months of reduced violence does not a victory make. Lets wait and see what happens down the road. However, just a thought, it would be extremely bad for the Dems if we finished strong in Iraq. The Republicans would club them to death with defeatist, weak on security and so on.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 2:52 pm

  8. Bill from INDC wrote:

    FYI, I’m writing a piece on the reasons behind the reduced violence based on conversations with and the perspective of senior military and intel officials.Look for it Thursday.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 8:12 pm

  9. Bill from INDC wrote:

    One thing: as you noted much earlier on than others (bemoaning US withdrawal to fortified bases), it’s not just how many troops, but what you do with them.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 8:14 pm

  10. Stephen wrote:

    Looking forward to it, Bill.

    Posted 06 Nov 2007 at 8:18 pm

  11. a former european wrote:

    Although I am a very anti-Bush conservative, don’t be so quick to talk about the judgment of history. During the Clinton years, Al Gore was a boob and a laughingstock. Now he is the Holy Father of the environmental movement, showered with awards and accolades even Jesus himself would not receive upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

    Even the King of all Idiots, Jimmah Cartuh, has had periodic rehabilitation attempts by the MSM and historical revisionists. If Carter can be rehabilitated over time, so can Bush. Personally, I would rather they both were thrown onto the garbage heap of history, but then again, I’m not some big-shot journo or a historian so my vote doesn’t count.

    Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 12:04 am

« More traffic-building blog pimpage
The Golden Wingnut »