Back Talk has a post Distinguishing the Insurgency from Sectarian Violence in Iraq. He points out that Bob Woodward's new book and the New York Times are focusing on the number of attacks statistic and ignoring the other available metrics ("the number of troops killed, the number wounded, the number killed by IEDs") that show a different story. His conclusion is that the mostly Sunni insurgency (Iraq v US) is not strengthening but that the Sunni v. Shiite sectarian violence is a lot worse. "Sectarian violence is not caused by the presence of American troops. Instead, even the editors of the New York Times understand that US troops are preventing Sunni-vs.-Shiite slaughter on a massive scale"
He pointed me at the Brookings Institute's Iraqi Index. The latest on is a 57 page PDF and it makes all the statistics on Iraq publicly available. Draw your own conclusions. I mostly agree with Back Talk but I note that the insurgency is not weakening so I don't think we're succeeding and if it is Sunni v. Shiite I'm not sure it's worth the US being in the middle of that.
In addition to hard statistics on security (attacks, troop levels0, infrastructure (number of phones, internet connections, news outlets) and the economy (unemployment, number of doctors, etc.), the index includes a poll of Iraqis from June that shows they are less optimistic, 59% says economic opportunities are poor and 75% say security is poor. 66% strongly disagree with segregation on religious or ethnic lines (so much for the Bidon plan). A poll from January shows 47% approve of attacks on US forces and 87% approve a timeline for US withdrawal. They want us out so they can kill each other, what a wonderful position to be in (and yes we knew this already).
No comments:
Post a Comment