Gen. Petraeus off to reasonably good start

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Kamehameha.

Gesundheit.

azei gezunt.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
kenenehara.

The point was that nothing has changed. As you can see from the graphs yourself, insurgency has been "laying low" every March so far, presumably because they've and they're preparing for their kill peaks in mid-summer. Every single spring since the start of the occupation has been less violent than the winter before it and the summer after it. If we encounter another silent March and steadily increasing violence mid-year, this year in Iraq will be exactly like the years before.

Saying that the month's casualties are "down by 60 percent" based on the month before instead of the year before (do economists compare 1st quarter's profits to the last year's 4th quarter or the last year's 1st quarter, Dan? We both know the answer, and we both know why) is merely dishonest spin, but saying that intra-year intervals identical to the ones encountered in the year before indicate that something has radically changed is a blatant lie.

In terms of dead soldiers, nothing has changed from last year. If we're wishing that something changes, well I'm all for that. But reflexive prayers are the same as burying your head in the sand.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Ramo
Unless Petraeus can get a handle on massacres of Shia such as the ones that occurred in Hilla and Sadr City last week, the Shia may come to the conclusion that the Mahdi Army is the only organization capable of defending themselves

Yes, AFAIK, counterinsurgency doctrine as put forward in the WaPo article that I linked would suggest that you should defend the uninvolved populace, even at the expense of some casualties among friendly forces. Hence, Petraeus' advisor's comments deriding the concept of the isolated, large forward operating base and the move toward about 3 dozen local joint US/Iraqi bases in Baghdad.

[Berzerker]

sadly we're just repeating history - recent history... The surge's "success" depends on the surge becoming "permanent", either with us or the Iraqi gov't "controlling" Baghdad. We leave and we're right back where we started unless the Iraqi gov't takes over, and I'm having serious doubts about that happening. If I was an Iraqi I'd be moving to Kurdistan

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VJ

The point was that nothing has changed. As you can see from the graphs yourself, insurgency has been "laying low" every March so far, presumably because they've and they're preparing for their kill peaks in mid-summer..

1. Your data is based on US combat deaths. AFAIK most folks are talking more about the decline in civilian combat deaths. I dont know that theres been as pronounced a seasonal pattern

2. You dont account for intensity operations ("op tempo"). US troops in March were aggressively patrolling in the worst parts of Baghdad. Were they doing that in March 2006? Pundits were expecting a SPIKE in US combat deaths, not that it would be the same as in March 2006.

But I agree, lets wait and see what happens in the rest of March, and in April.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Unless one has a priori suspicion that a response is cyclical and the rationales for cycle's period applying arbitrary analysis on like months is specious.

The rationale for cyclical analysis "presumably because they've and they're preparing for their kill peaks in mid-summer." is as flawed as saying "Things are looking good."

Far too early to claim progress, status quo, or regression.