The Greatest Story Never Told

[Overpaid Slacker]

The Greatest Story Never Told

Military progress in Iraq goes unnoticed by the press.
by Dean Barnett
10/23/2007 12:00:00 AM

MOST PEOPLE DON'T know about the website Icasualties.org. Icasualties.org is run by a bunch of lefties who have dedicated themselves to aggregating all the bad news out of Iraq over the past few years. Each day for the past thirty-four months, Icasualties.org has documented every Coalition military death as well as every violent civilian death in Iraq.

The people who run Icasualties.org obviously have little fondness for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Among their many tendentious metrics is a tally of all the deaths since President Bush announced "Bring them on." Yet, in spite of a clear political agenda, Icaualties.org plays it straight--they just report the numbers. It's important to note that all the discussion regarding how David Petraeus classifies deaths has nothing to do with Icasualties.org's figures. If six bodies are found in Baghdad, they get added to Icasualties.org's butcher's bill. David Petraeus doesn't get a vote.

Since Icasualties.org is an ideological fellow traveler of most mainstream media outlets, you'd figure the site's reporting would occasionally get noticed. In the past, Icasualties.org's numbers and mainstream media reports have sometimes marched in lockstep. Who can forget all the "grim milestones" that the media purportedly mourned during the past four years?

IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, the story in Iraq has changed dramatically. The numbers on Icasualties.org have reflected that change. The metric that most animates the mainstream media and the American public is the count of American casualties. In the spring, with "the surge" just being rolled out, over 100 American soldiers a month died between April and June. Even though the surge was just beginning, it was about that time that Harry Reid asserted, "As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results." As an analysis of our military prospects, Reid's comments were risible. Of course, Reid didn't intend to provide a serious military analysis. Rather, he tried to cynically capitalize on American deaths for political gain.

Since Reid's ill-timed comment, the situation for American soldiers in Iraq has taken a sharp turn for the better. The accompanying graph clearly shows the trend, but the situation can perhaps be best summed up by looking at the numbers in May compared to the numbers so far from October. In May, 120 American soldiers died in combat, and six more died from non-hostile causes. With October three-fourths complete, 20 American soldiers have died in combat while eight others have died non-hostilities related deaths.

It would be one thing if this improvement transpired because American commanders, spooked by the relatively high death tolls in the spring, decided to focus their mission on force protection. But that hasn't been the case. American troops have been engaging the enemy more actively over the past several months than at any time during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and they've done so to spectacular effect.

The results of the surge, or "the escalation" as Harry Reid derisively called it, have been obvious in the Icasualties.org numbers. Before the surge, a bad month would claim the lives of roughly 3,000 Iraqi civilians and security force members. In February '07, the exact number was 3,014 Iraqi casualties. In March, the figure was 2,977. As the surge began to have its effects, that number dropped to 1674 in August. In September, with the surge taking full effect, the numbers showed a profound change--the Iraqi death toll plunged to 848.

Happily, September's figures don't appear to be an aberration. October has seen 502 Iraqi casualties so far. If the trend continues though the end of October, the final number should be around 650 for the entire month. That represents better than an 80 percent improvement from the war's nadir.

YOU'D THINK THIS would be a big story. After all, the mainstream media makes such a show of "supporting the troops" at every turn, you'd think it would rush to report the amazing story of our soldiers accomplishing what many observers declared "impossible" and "unwinnable" not so long ago.

It hasn't worked out that way. When General Ricardo Sanchez (ret.) addressed the situation in Iraq on October 11, he proclaimed that America was "living a nightmare with no end in sight." Naturally, the "nightmare" quote wound up in the first paragraph of the New York Times report on Sanchez's comments. What didn't find its way into the Times' report was any context of what's going on in Iraq. The "nightmare" assessment would have been a whole lot more fitting when Sanchez was helping run the show in Iraq in 2004 than it is today.

Some people are trying to explain to the American public what's happening in Iraq. Pete Hegseth is a 27 year-old Princeton grad who spent a year leading a combat platoon in Iraq and now heads Vets for Freedom, an organization that supports victory in Iraq. In yesterday's New York Post, Hegseth wrote an important op-ed piece that explains our counter-insurgency strategy in some depth.

"The term 'surge' is far too simplistic", Hegseth writes, "as it implies simply throwing more forces at the problem, when Petraeus' changes in tactics are even more important. The new counterinsurgency approach--namely, to take territory from al Qaeda, hold it, secure it and empower tribal sheiks to work together and rebuild their communities--finally provides an effective 'counteroffensive' to the chief tactics of al Qaeda militants and Shiite death squads."

And then there's the intrepid Michael Yon. Yon has spent more time on the frontlines than any other American reporters. He reported anecdotal evidence of a sea-change in Iraq that preceded the change in the hard numbers by several months.

The mainstream media's failure to report what's been happening in Iraq frustrates Yon perhaps more than anyone. He has risked his life to tell that story, and the American media has yawned, apparently preferring the anachronistic pronouncements of a former general who hasn't been in the theatre since the surge began. Earlier this week, Yon offered his dispatches free of charge to any paper willing to publish them. It will be interesting to see if he has any takers.

WHAT'S MOST FRUSTRATING about the press's reporting about Iraq is that you just know the next time something goes wrong, be it a car bomb slipping through or a mishap involving American soldiers, that story will get above-the-fold treatment in America's major dailies. The same old voices will begin shrieking "quagmire," and an American pop-singer will probably re-shape John Kerry's tired "Who will be the last to die for a mistake?" query into a lame rock song. (Wait, Bruce Springsteen has already done that.)

The cries of defeat and retreat will intensify.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with the media reporting the bad news out of Iraq. Indeed, it's their duty. But there is something profoundly wrong with the media reporting the bad news while disingenuously ignoring the progress we've made, progress that's only been made because of the sacrifices of 160,000 American soldiers.

US Deaths by Month

Link to Article Page with Graph

Dean Barnett is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

[Superman]

This article made sense. I honestly hope things are improving. Notice the use of the word "hope" rather than "wish." I dislike Dubya intensely. And since you guys think liberals hate America, you're probably assuming I want to see her fail. This is the case only in your minds. Which brings me to another thing. Icasualties.org is probably thought to be "run by a bunch of lefties" because it does not adopt the "administration"s (and FixNews) conclusions. Objective information is just communist treachery to some of you. Failure to shout "victory" shows that Icasualties.org is run by terrorists?

Okay. Even if no progress is made, military operations get more efficient over time. More careful too. so.....a decrease in American casualties is going to happen no matter what. The graph sucks, and I'm not going to take the time to reload the data into a linear graph or some other graph that makes more intuitive sense.

So....bottom line is.......I would like to believe we are achieving success in Iraq. This article made me think I might be able to adopt that belief. But it fell short of that goal. Help me. Help me draw the conclusion this article suggests.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by Superman

And since you guys think liberals hate America,

The far right says "The left hates America"
The far left says "The right hates America"

I don't believe either is true. Most Americans love America. There are just very different ideas how to achieve the same result- Growing economy, lower crime, safe from attack, lots of smooth highways, lots of clean parks.......

When one side points fingers and accuses the other side of hate, all reasonable discussions cease, and the mud starts slinging.

[Tobra]

No superman, we don't think you hate America. Your(the Left) blind hatred of President Bush colors your judgement and makes you(the Left) do and say things that are detrimental to the best interests of the country. Like Nasty Nancy's latest Armenian debacle, or Stark attacking the President vehemently, then realizing after the fact that he offended far too many people and needed to dial back his rhetoric. You will note that certain lefties, ie Barbie Boxer, never dial anything back as they will be elected until they die or retire to even bigger lobbyist cash.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Tobra

No superman, we don't think you hate America. Your(the Left) blind hatred of President Bush colors your judgement and makes you(the Left) do and say things that are detrimental to the best interests of the country. Like Nasty Nancy's latest Armenian debacle, or Stark attacking the President vehemently, then realizing after the fact that he offended far too many people and needed to dial back his rhetoric. You will note that certain lefties, ie Barbie Boxer, never dial anything back as they will be elected until they die or retire to even bigger lobbyist cash.

that's the biggest load of crap I've seen in a long time. First, hatred isn't blind, it's been earned. it's idiots on the Right falling like brand new Commie recruits all over themselves for 3 years cheering on failure. it's George Bush himself shouting to the terrorist world, "Bring it on." It's the U.S. not just ignoring the possibility of an insurgency forming in Iraq, it's the policies of Bush & Co. nurturing the environment to actually grow the insurgency we are fighting today.

Clearly neither you, nor Barnett, has read Galula, and Patraeus, surely handcuffed by Bush, is executing a best-effort of Galula-lite repairing 4 years of incompetence that crosses the line into Treason...bravo to him. But all you got is angry talk radio slogans to shift the blame from your cheering on the most dangerous fools on the planet for the last 4 years. do yourself a favor and do some reading. make sure you have plenty of Kleenex on hand. and the next time you want to FEEL good, get some nachos, but don't shift blame on Democrats for a Republican planned and executed disaster.

[FOG]

Shaun,

As you are the latest to bring up David Galula I am wondering what is the fascination to the almost total exclusion of other broader counter-insurgency studies? You do know that he based his ideas on American work in the P.I. and more on the USMC Small Wars Manual.

You do realize that the hearts and minds in Anbar started in early 04, before the 1st Fallujah incident?

I know a couple of card carrying self professed Democrats who lean heavily towards a Roman solution to Carthage. While this would be cheaper and easier in the short run I believe it would be less than optimal in the long run.

S/F, FOG

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Hey FOG, let's do this. I've taken notes throughout the book and hope to put together a good thread on Galula, the strategy executed in the first 3 years of the way and my thoughts on a solution for a more effective ending to the war. Petraeus is doing a hell of a lot, but you know he wants to, can and should be doing more, more that is so politically unsavory here at home, Washington would never let him. You also know this isn't a military victory and clearly the Bush Admin is not up to the task, and the last thing we really wanted there was a top-down created Democracy...part of the Iraqi government is little more than indoctrinated insurgency. not exactly a winning solution.

Can you supply (via PM or email or post here) notes or links on his ideas on American work in the PI and USMC. It's not referenced in his book. If you have other reading material I should look at, please let me know. Have a copy of the USMC SWM? will look, but not sure if I could get one.

S

[FOG]

Shaun,

The single best source that I have seen (doesn’t mean that better ones do not exist) is the Naval Post Graduate book store. Also check the Commandant’s reading list.

The Small Wars Manual is print again, get a copy. One of the better basic primers in expanding the thought/scope of Special Operation is “From Troy to Entebbe” by John Arquilla.

After reading the two above you’ll have a better idea on where to start looking to inform some more in-depth thoughts and perspective.

The problem from my POV is the excessive reliance on a relatively single source of thought and methodology. Just as an example the far different tactics and procedures employed in the same towns by different teams in Anbar to get the same result. The very different TTPs for want of a better description meant that those who relied on quantifiable metrics were stymied. The lack of metrics means higher is unhappy as they don’t have a bland simplified product for consumption.

Think of it as martial arts training and study. You should see what is available, what has worked in the past, applicability to your situation, etc.

As I said before I am speaking as an individual, not as for the DoD or the USMC. I may have some insight into the General Officer’s thoughts and preferences from either personnel conversations or friends on various Staffs but these are not for public dissemination.

Lastly please keep in mind that the job of U.S. is fighting high intensity war. Parts of the DoD and individual services are better than others right out of the block but it doesn’t mean they were/are not good at their primary mission.

S/F, FOG

You have read Dereliction of Duty by H. R. McMaster as required haven't you?

[Tobra]

Shaun, if you will dial back your hatred and anger at the Right enough to think for a moment, you will realize I did not make any attempt to shift blame from anyone, to anyone and made every effort to make this a discussion, rather than shouting and finger pointing, which is what Dantilla warned about in the post directly prior to mine. I gave a few examples of Liberals advancing their own interests ahead of those of the country for no other apparent reason than to hurt the President(which does not help the country at all, and indeed in the cases cited hurt the country). We can talk about Conservatives doing this also if you like, but try and be rational. It is not persuasive to do otherwise.

Thanks for being a typical angry liberal and proving me right yet again

[Shaun @ Tru6]

nice song and dance, I'll give you that.

[HardDrive]

So......fewer brave Americans are dying in this pointless war....and we are supposed to celebrate?

Pardon all involved if we don't break out the streamers and confetti.

"Sure, it stinks that we have to eat this giant crap sandwich, but now it comes with sprinkles! Horraaaaaaaah!"

[DanielDudley]

I'd like to see a peace in Iraq. I don't see us ''Winning''so much as achieving that objective. I hope this is happening. Meanwhile we are spending at a disasterous rate. We could win the objective and still come out worse than we started.

Some however are doing quite well right now. Some. I would agree that if it appears to be working, we should keep it up. Petraeus is no dummy. Still, a successful conclusion to an abortion is nothing to cheer about. But it would help to justify the bloody mess.

From where I stand, a successful conclusion would be great. What follows that is even more important. Namely the United States presenting a new face to the world. This old stuff may work for Americans, but it is getting old to the world. And then there is the problem of enemies earned and compounded. Of course if you say we are not responsible, that could be a stance. But with responsibility comes accountability and solutions that do not require others to change to our will.

It would take a real , world class leader to do that. See any ?

[onewhippedpuppy]

I sincerely hope that we are having success over there. While I can't say I believe that the Iraq war was a good idea, I believe that the Iraq as an ally could potentially be hugely beneficial. The better question is, can Iraq stand on it's own, as a united, soverign country? Currently I would lean towards no, because there appears to be as much internal fighting between tribes as anything else.

However, if anything good happens, you certainly won't see it in our media. Bad news sells, we all know that. It also does not support the liberal agenda of most media outlets. Sad that not reporting or slanting a story is business as usual. Personally, I simply do not trust the media.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Your (the Left) blind hatred of President Bush colors your judgement and makes you (the Left) do and say things that are detrimental to the best interests of the country.

+ a gazillion

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Superman

Even if no progress is made, military operations get more efficient over time. More careful too. so.....a decrease in American casualties is going to happen no matter what. The graph sucks, and I'm not going to take the time to reload the data into a linear graph or some other graph that makes more intuitive sense.

So....bottom line is.......I would like to believe we are achieving success in Iraq. This article made me think I might be able to adopt that belief. But it fell short of that goal. Help me. Help me draw the conclusion this article suggests.

I'm still waiting.

Again, I would like to see some good news. Military operations get better at avoiding casualties, so a small drop in that rate is not entirely conclusive. But I would like to see some good news. I have teased you guys several times here about pursuing a strategy where our goal must be to either exterminate terrorists, or scare them into not hating us any more. But clearly, this kind of operation obviously pursues the goal of crushing or crippling or reducing the numbers of active terrorists. And so......in a strategy like we are pursuing, success is shaped like this: A waning of terrorist acts. Without a decline in terrorist attacks, success is obviously not achieved.

I'm waiting. I want to see terrorist acts decline.

[Superman]

I'll just wait here. I'm ready.