| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Up until a few weeks ago, critics of the war were arguing that the U.S. was failing in Iraq because the price paid by the U.S. in terms of casualties to our soldiers was too high. Well, that argument's out the window. From NewsMax:
The press is marking the third anniversary of the liberation of Iraq with an avalanche of reports that a sectarian "civil war" has broken out, which, reporters say, means U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are on the verge of failure.
But only a few short weeks ago reporters were measuring success [or, in their case, failure] in Iraq by a completely different standard: the number of U.S. troops killed in combat operations.
So why the shift in focus? It turns out that while the so-called Iraqi civil war has been raging, the number of U.S. casualties has plummeted to less than half of what they were over the previous five months.
In fact, as I posted last week, by almost any standard, we're achieving a historic win in Iraq:
Iraq today vs. Iraq under Saddam:
- 3 times less civilian deaths per day
- 60% decline in infant mortality
- A public that believes in democracy 4-to-1 over dictatorship
- "Surging" participation in all elections
- Doubling of oil revenues
- Improved access to clean water, health care and education
- Free print and broadcast press
Other key measures:
- The number of Iraqi boots on the ground has surpassed that of Coalition forces
- Coalition casualties are down by 62% versus year-previous numbers
- Casualties among Iraqi police and army units are down sharply
- Attacks on other soft targets are down
- Popular support for a tips hotline is "dismantling" the insurgency
- Iraqis believe their own security forces are winning the fight against the terrorists
There's no way to look at those numbers and argue that we're losing in Iraq. Has there been a price paid for the great gains we've made in Iraq so far? There certainly has, although the loss of American life is historically low for a war effort. 20 times more U.S. troops -- 58,000 -- died in Vietnam. But if the Left thought that there was no price to be paid to prevent another 9-11, they were kidding themselves. Achieving national safety has always required heroism and tragic sacrifice, and that has not changed.
This week, however, the Left is saying that there's a civil war in Iraq, so all those gains will be lost. It's an argument based, not on a fact, but on a pessimistic prediction: even if there is a civil war, that's no guarantee that all these gains will be lost.
But is there a civil war? Or is it just the people of Iraq vs. the terrorist hold-outs who want to take over and follow Saddam as dictators of the nation? David Frum says it can't be called a civil war, because the insurgents have no chance at gaining control of the country:
Is Iraq engaged in a civil war? Vice President Cheney has taken some heat for saying "no" on yesterday's "Face on the Nation," but he's right. Not to minimize the problems in Iraq, but we do not face the problem of contending centers warring for power - which is what I think most of us mean when we use the term "civil war." Rather, we are facing an attack on a weak government by an insurgency that can command support from only a very small fraction of the Iraqi population. The insurgency is brutal and effective and difficult to suppress. But it is purely a destructive force, not a contender for power.
If the United States were to withdraw prematurely from Iraq, the odds are vanishingly small that the insurgency would be able to take power. Much more likely, unfortunately, would be a "Guatamelan solution," in which the Shiite majority would suppress terrorism by waging all-out war against Iraq's minority Sunni population - with horrific humanitarian and regional consequences.
Conclusion: so far we're winning in a big way in Iraq, and the Left is going to look pretty silly if this so-called "civil war" is confirmed as being nothing more than a clean-up effort against terrorists and remnants of Saddam's supporters.
