California Conservative

What Civil War?

The MSM has continued to drone on about the “civil war” in Iraq (if they say it enough, it must be true), about the increase in sectarian violence. Interim Prime Minister Allawi even claimed that the country was in the midst of a civil war. Yet, throughout all of this, soldiers and leaders on the ground said they were unaware of any “civil war”, that on the streets, things were going well. Donald Rumsfeld said that things in Iraq were improving, which was scoffed at by many who want us to fail.

Hat tip to The Jawa Report for letting us know about research done by Best of the Fray, showing a sharp decrease in injuries and deaths of US and Iraqi troops, and a near static rate of civilian deaths before and after the onset of the civil war.

US troops wounded:
Last 3 months of 2005: 1492
First 3 months of 2006: 1092 (down 27%)

Iraqi military and police fatalities:
Last 3 months of 2005: 584
First 3 months of 2006: 537 (down 8%)

Iraqi civilian fatalities (upper estimate):
Last 3 months of 2005: 2003
First 3 months of 2006: 2058 (up 2.7%)

I put the data into the easier to see Chart form. It’s clear from this that during the last three months, the situation has greatly improved in Iraq. US fatalities are down (March marks the lowest number of US Troop casualties in a year!), Iraqi troop casualties are down, and the so called “civil war” caused essentially no increase in civilian deaths.

This should be damning news for those who have been screaming for Rumsfeld to step down, or for Bush to fire him. Doing so would be a huge mistake. With things going better in Iraq, removing the primary source of leadership has the potential to be catastrophic, taking us off the current, succussful, path. While mistakes have been made by the Secretary of Defense, those blindly opposed to the war have placed blame solely on his shoulders. Now that things are clearly going better, will they attribute the successes to him?

Cross-posted at The Gentle Cricket

This entry was posted on Monday, April 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 am and is filed under Foreign Policy, Iraq, Media, Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “What Civil War?”

Stop Bush! Says:
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:28 pm
No civil war? First, let’s define civil war:

Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter’s ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain.” (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, “Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.)

So, as shown on your own chart, there have been more than 1000 deaths in just the last six months:

Iraqi military and police fatalities:
Last 3 months of 2005: 584
First 3 months of 2006: 537 (down 8%)

Fox News Alert (BONG!): I guess since the Iraqis haven’t been able to form a central government yet, there isn’t a civil war.

But as Juan Cole points out:

Some 50 distinct cells, spanning the political spectrum from secular Arab nationalists to religious fundamentalists, direct the activities of at least 20,000 to 30,000 part-time guerrillas, and perhaps many more. They strike regularly throughout seven key center-north provinces, including Baghdad, which at 6 million persons contains a fourth of the inhabitants of Iraq. In civil wars, the violence is staccato and almost random. Journalists or bloggers who visit Iraq and find bustling bazaars and brisk traffic are often fooled by their naivetÃƒÂ© into thinking that the violence has been exaggerated. But it should be remembered that boys went swimming and fished not far from where the battle of Gettysburg was being fought in the U.S. Civil War. Guerrilla violence does not need to be omnipresent to effectively disrupt the society.

So much for all the stories of soldier-reporters wandering around Baghdad not seeing any “civil war.”

And, for the record, it’s not solely Rumsfeld; since he seems to think so highly of him, maybe Bush should hop AirForce One for a quick jaunt to the Truman Presidential Library in Independence, MO and stare long and hard at that little sign that sat on Truman’s desk:

The Buck Stops Here.

What Civil War?

One Response to “What Civil War?”

Leave a Reply