Surge led to decline in troop deaths

McClatchy-Tribune/Houston Chronicle:

U.S. combat deaths in Iraq have dropped by half in the three months since the buildup of 28,000 additional U.S. troops reached full strength, surprising analysts and dividing them as to why.

U.S. officials had predicted that the increase would lead to higher American casualties as the troops "took the fight to the enemy." But that hasn't happened, even though U.S. forces have launched major offensives involving thousands of troops north and south of Baghdad.

American combat casualties have dropped to their lowest levels this year, even as violence involving Iraqis remains high.

Military officials and observers are wondering whether the lower U.S. casualties are a sign of success or an indication that insurgents and militiamen simply chose a different battlefield when the Americans mounted their offensive in Iraq's capital.

...

Supporters of the troop increase say the lower casualty figures show that the larger number of troops and the counterinsurgency approach of Gen. David Petraeus, the latest U.S. commander in Iraq, have turned Iraqi citizens against armed groups, putting them on the run and fracturing them.

"The population is progressively turning to coalition and Iraqi forces and making a positive difference in bringing security to their towns, villages and neighborhoods. They are pointing out extremist leaders, identifying caches and IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and asking to be a part of the legitimate Iraqi security force," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 commander, said.

Others, however, noted that as U.S. combat deaths have dropped, deaths among Iraqi civilians have remained constant, and the "ethnic cleansing" of Baghdad's neighborhoods has continued almost unabated.

While the Shiite Mahdi Army militia has lowered its profile in the capital, it's battled the rival Badr Organization of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council for control of southern Iraq.

Two southern provincial governors have been assassinated, many allege by the Mahdi Army. In northern Iraq, suspected Sunni insurgents killed more than 400 people in a coordinated attack on two villages.

Most agree that a second reason for the decline is the dramatic change of conditions in Anbar province, where former Sunni insurgents have teamed up with American troops to rid the province of the group al-Qaida in Iraq. About one-third of U.S. casualties have been in Anbar province, but that's shifted since the troop increase began. In August, about 10 percent of U.S. casualties occurred there, compared with 30 percent in January, when the buildup began.

...

One of the counterintuitive effects of the use of force is that the greater the number of troops used the lower the casualties. There is a logic behind this that the left refuses to grasp. The more force you have available the quicker the other side realizes its cause is hopeless and the quicker he shrinks from battle. Trying to tailor the amount of force to meet a given threat tends to encourage an enemy to think he has a chance and thereby causes more attacks.

The report on the "sectarian violence" casualties is segued by the mass murder of the pre Islamic tribe in northern Iraq by al Qaeda units trying to restart the religious wars. The report also does not take into account how Sadr's forces have been ineffective against US forces from the beginning. They have recently stood down. Sadr has pretty much lost control since his retreat to Iran, another product of the surge.

The major point is that those who want the US to retreat back to forward operating bases are just dead wrong on where the troops should be deployed and what effect it has on their safety not to mention the safety of the Iraqis.

Don Surber asks if the enemy is waiting for the Democrats to bail them out.