Like most of us, I'm sick of the war.
I feel like a kid in a long car trip. “Are we there yet?” Since 1920, the US has been trying to stabilize the Middle East. If Woodrow Wilson had been successful then in creating a democratic Middle East we would be facing a very different world today. Unfortunately, he was sick (its possible he had a stroke, this was long before MRIs and CAT scans); the French and British took advantage, and we're in the mess we're in today.
Unlike our news media who seem unable to see even last week, my view of the War in Iraq tries to gp at least back to 1920 when the Middle East was effectively created because the British and French wanted to play games there. This problem is 86 years old now. The solution is, and always has been for the people of the region to control their own destiny.
Logically, I wouldn't expect a problem 86 years in the making to go away overnight.
But I don't care. I want this thing over dammit. Screw logic.
Of course, what I want and what reality provides are two different things. For that matter, reality and the coverage of the war are two different things. That's why I started reading blogs and started blogging. I'm trying to get the perspective the major media aren't giving me. Since my job basically involves analyzing financial data, my contribution to all this is looking at the numbers.
Last month, I got a lot of flack for saying December was better then November. Well friends, it's all about perspective. The news media doesn't give us any perspective. Its hard to believe Iraq is getting better when you see 130 people died on the news. I realize that. But 130 people dying on a single day doesn't really mean anything without perspective.
Its harder for the insurgents to kill 130 people then it is to kill 10 or 20. It's more newsworthy for them, but if that attack means that they weren't able to carry out 19 smaller attacks that killed 10-20 people, they're doing worse. Larger attacks but happening more rarely, and in more obscure places can actually be good news. Larger attacks also piss off more of the populace because more of the “innocent” are killed, which ends up meaning more tips to the police and such.
In other words, it takes a month for me to know what is happening in a month, because from looking at the data, that's how long it takes for things to settle out. Figuring out how the war is going takes multiple months, as well as conversing with actual witnesses.
So for those who feel I'm “lying with statistics”, well, that's what the media does by denying you perspective. I'm trying to provide that perspective by asking the simple question: “Was Iraq better or worse last month?”
So bottom line, December was better then November. Was January better then December? Well, lets see. As for February, ask me in March.
First up we have what I feel is one of the most important charts. The soldiers killed in action by cause (all charts popup). I'm providing it in two versions, one showing the total killed per month, and one showing just the details:
62 servicemen died in Iraq in January. 13 of these were in a helicopter crash. Without that helicopter crash, January would be tied for September 2005 as the second best month in Iraq since January 2004. Even with the helicopter crash, KIAs have been falling since October. Even better news, deaths from IEDs, the major cause of deaths in Iraq were the 3rd lowest in January. Whether this is from the election or the operations conducted in Anbar is hard for me to say, but its wonderful news.
The other statistic I look at is 'casualties'. (Note on military terminology. A casualty doesn't mean a killed soldier. It means a solder unable to fight, which can just mean wounded. I try to look at this statistic to guess the operational tempo of the troops. If they're pushing hard on the enemy, they have more chances to get wounded. If they're in a planning stage, they have less chances. Its not perfect, because pushing hard against weak enemies (and the insurgents have been getting steadily weaker from a military point of view) doesn't necessarily cause that much more soldiers to get wounded. So here's the new chart:
So lowest month for soldiers getting wounded since Jan 2005! More good news.
Meanwhile, the number of Iraqi police killed is settling into a steady state:
Note that three times the number of Iraqi Police were killed last month as US servicemen were killed. Perhaps that's only fair (its their country, not ours), but it tells you that the IP are really getting out there.
For the Iraqi civilians, life in Iraq is about the same:
So the 130-person-killed attack in perspective shows that its really same-old same-old for the civilians. It was better in December so its up from there, but there's no clear increase or decrease either way.
There were more bombings in January then in December, but less then there had been previously:
And as far as the people hurt, not as good as December during the elections, but no clear trend otherwise:
Meanwhile, US troop strength in Iraq has gone down:
You haven't seen this on the news because the media is too friggin' stupid, but it's true. The US increased the number of troops in 4Q' 2005 for the election, and now 24,000 of them have left since then. The media doesn't notice because of the lack of perspective I mentioned earlier: If the soldiers are serving 1 year tours in Iraq, and you rotate more soldiers or less soldiers in, that draws down troop strength. If you stop rotating in new troops, after a year, there would be no troops in Iraq.
So don't expect pictures on the news “troops coming home”. That won't happen for awhile yet.
It's no great mystery why this can happen, the number of Iraqi troops has been increasing steadily:
So pretty much all the US troops that went home were replaced by Iraqis.
Electricity production and oil production didn't do so well in January. That is, while those had been rising, they've sort of slipped back the last few months.
So bottom line, better or worse?
I'd say better overall in the long term. Fewer casualties and fewer troops in Iraq then in December. This somewhat surprised me because I thought that all the election controversy might lead to more tension in Iraq. That doesn't seem to have happened, so the insurgency is neither growing or shrinking much. It still sucks to be an Iraqi, but then, it always has...
Winding up
24,000 less troops in Iraq now, not that the media noticed/ reported.
IED deaths have been falling for the last 3 months so total deaths were at their lowest since September, lower even then December.
Number of wounded is at a new low since Jan 2005 when I started keeping track.
It sucks to be an Iraqi, like it has since 1920.
Gloating
I called a tipping point in October. Looks like I've been right so far.
I also pointed out on November 12th that according to the rotation plan there would be a troop reduction in January, and there was.
Comments (8)
You should expect to see more or less head-banging until January 2009. Justly or unjustly, Iraqis are as disgusted with the United States as ever. (Maybe not all of them, merely a majority.) Most Arab societies believe in the RKBA in a big way. As long as any significant fraction hates the US Army over there, they are going to attack it.
Meanwhile relations between the Shiites and Sunnis are bad and unlikely to improve.
Above all, the United States is protecting a Shiite power structure that isn’t on our side. They have an alliance of convenience with us at the moment, but that’s as far as it goes.
Posted by Greg Kuperberg | February 8, 2006 1:05 AM
Posted on February 8, 2006 01:05
I expect at least the amount of wrangling we see in our own country during elections…
But I remain unconvinced that democracy can ever be a bad thing…
Posted by Opinionated Bastard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 10, 2006 7:24 AM
Posted on February 10, 2006 07:24
All else being equal, elections are a good thing. What is a bad thing is the idea that democracy solves everything. It doesn’t. Iraq has a lot of terrible problems. The US is spending a monumental amount of money to make things moderately better for them and decidedly worse for us.
It is nothing like the “wrangling” in our country before elections. It isn’t “wrangling” at all in fact, it’s theocracy and civil war. Among other mischief, they are running the Christians out of the country.
Posted by Greg Kuperberg | February 11, 2006 11:35 AM
Posted on February 11, 2006 11:35
Here’s democracy in action for you, Iraqi style:
Shiite lawmakers chose Ibrahim al-Jaafari today to continue as prime minister in Iraq’s next government, after a contentious internal ballot that exposed the growing power of anti-American fundamentalists within the new Iraqi Parliament.
…
In recent days followers of the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr threw their support to Mr. Jaafari, who won 64 to 63 in a secret ballot this morning after efforts to reach a consensus failed. Mr. Sadr’s followers now control the largest bloc of seats — 32 out of 130 — within the Shiite alliance. Mr. Sadr’s followers decided to vote for Mr. Jaafari after he promised to implement their political program, said Bahaa al-Aaraji, a sitting member of Parliament and spokesman for the movement.
Posted by Greg Kuperberg | February 12, 2006 2:19 PM
Posted on February 12, 2006 14:19
Read here about the biggest defeat of all for socialism.
http://futurist.typepad.com/
Posted by Tester | February 12, 2006 10:30 PM
Posted on February 12, 2006 22:30
Great job! A couple of suggestions/observations.
I’d like to see a rolling 12 month graph of casualties/kia. That would better demarcate the actual trends of our solders being at risk.
Also note that while the number of Iraqi Police officers getting killed is stable, the number of Officers in total is going up. Thus, the casualty rate is actually going down.
The number of US casualties should continue to go down as the number of troops declines and as the US troops provide more support for Iraqi troops on missions rather than actually leading the missions.
My two cents
Posted by HK_Vol | February 13, 2006 3:08 AM
Posted on February 13, 2006 03:08
I prefer the icasualties.org 4 week moving average for wounded.
Monthly numbers are misleading becuase there are a different number of various days of the week depending on month. I.E. 5 Fridays or Tuesdays could skew the number.
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
In any case, the 4 week moving average has been declining for 16 weeks, and currently sits at it’s lowest level since March ‘04.
Posted by Soldier's Dad | February 13, 2006 3:09 PM
Posted on February 13, 2006 15:09
Funny that the western fascist-left (daily Kos, Juan Cole, Sheehan, etc.) who support the Iraqi insurgents are complaining that Iraqi innocent civilian deaths are objectionable - when 95% or perhaps 100% of these deaths are clearly the job of the insurgents who target these innocents - or are reprisals by Shiites for the acts of the insurgents.
Make up your mind you fascist-left idiots. Either you stop supporting the insurgents in their atrocities, assassinations, and murder of dissidents, and you stop cheering them on, or you are culpable in their pogroms and murders.
History will not be kind to the western leftists who have supported the most reactionary, ultra-nationalistic, religious, and totalitarian murderer thugs in the Middle East - if not in the world. You will go down in history the way the fascists have gone down. There is nothing progressive or enlightening left of you.
Posted by mandra | February 15, 2006 1:47 AM
Posted on February 15, 2006 01:47