Is the insurgency over?

[DanS]

Over the last 5 days, no US soldiers have been killed. One contractor was killed in a military convoy near Tikrit. A little sabotage (the refinery near Tikrit), but that didn't disrupt things very much.

After Uday and Qusay were killed, we had a bad week or so. Two or three soldiers being killed a day. But now not much seems to be happening. Much less than you would expect in the heat of summer with all sorts of unemployed men sitting around with nothing to do.

At risk of jinxing our troops, is this insurgency dead?

[DinoDoc]

Give it a while longer before getting optimistic.

[Japher]

There is always risk, besides, revenge is something best served luke warm...

[DanS]

Give it a while longer before getting optimistic.

It appears that the insurgency aimed to keep up the pressure on the United States until the costs became too great and we withdrew. We appear to have had 5 days without much pressure.

[lord of the mark]

ken eina hora!!!

(keep away the evil eye)

you NEVER, EVER point out something like that!


Sorry for the superstition.

[Defiant]

Lets not look a gift horse in the mouth yet, but if we keep taking their money, would you kill for nothing, not likely.

[Lord Merciless]

I'll wait at least 3 months before making such claims.

[GePap]

A five day spell means nothing, either way.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
A five day spell means nothing, either way.

agreed GePap.

But at least we can perhaps now begin to take more seriously the other things that are going well, the restoration of power and water, the setting up of Iraqi police forces, the setting up of local govts and a national governing council, the establishment of a free press and political parties, the reestablishment of the oil industry and the opening of shops and markets, the success in arresting regime figures and in capturing weapons, without seeing it overshadowed by the daily casualty count.

[DAVOUT]

Is the decrease in casualties resulting from a decrease in the number of attacks, or in less efficient attacks?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So much for that idea. The Jordian embassy in Baghdad was blown up today. Though I don't understand the target.

[Boris Godunov]

2 U.S. GIs killed in a firefight, too.

Silly, silly misplaced optimism. The "insurgency" isn't going to stop unless there is a reason for it do so, and nothing has dramatically changed in the Iraq situation since the attacks began.

[Q Classic]

four days is not long enough to make a call.

you can ask it after three weeks of nothing, but not after four days.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Is the decrease in casualties resulting from a decrease in the number of attacks, or in less efficient attacks?

Reports indicate a decrease in the number of attacks - the decrease apparently began some weeks ago, but was not reflected in casualty figures, due to an INCREASE in the efficiency of attacks. Fewer attacks, but a greater percent by real pros, and the pros are constantly learning.


Thats why, pace Boris, this looked significant - lots of metrics - effective raids by US forces detaining militia leaders and capturing arms, decreasing tempo of attacks, increase in number and quantity of info provided to coalition troops even in heart of sunni triangle, even in Tikrit, improving law and order conditions in Baghdad, etc all point to genuine improvement - it was the US death toll that was LAGGING these other indicators. Plenty of reason for it to decline.

But again, as GEPap said, you cant say anything much from a weeks worth of numbers. Theres clearly alot of random variability in daily numbers. Less than 5 deaths in 3 weeks would be better news than zero deaths in 4 days, etc.

I think some folks seized on the 5 days of zero US combat deaths, in response to the pessimists constant citing of the daily casualty count as evidence " americans are killed every day, this proves this is a quagmire" - so its assumed that if several days go by without americans being killed, that disproves this argument and shows its not a quagmire. In all probablity both arguments are wrong. We need to look at the big picture. The problem with looking at the big picture is that most measures of it are subjective. The BBC, Guardian, and New York Times always manage to find folks in Iraq who will tell you that hostility to the US is growing, while US officers and will tell you about improving relations with ordinary iraqis, declining tempo of attacks, and that almost all attacks are ex-baathists or foreigners, not ordinary iraqis. The US military does not have tremendous credibility with many who remember steady lies during Viet Nam. OTOH the more dovish elements of the media do not have much credibility with hawks, in view of both their recent cries of quagmire in Iraq and afghanistan, and a record of misreporting military affairs that goes back, yes, to Viet Nam.

So the only thing people follow is the on undeniable metric, combat deaths. But in doing so they probably fall into the McNamara fallacy of over focusing on what is most easily measured - surely something we should have learned about from Viet Nam.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by dv8ed
So much for that idea. The Jordian embassy in Baghdad was blown up today. Though I don't understand the target.

either baathists attacking cause of Jordans recent pro-US policies, or anti-baathist attacking in revenge for earlier Jordanian support for Saddam. The latter though, if emotionally understandable, is strategically stupid, so i suspect the former.