Background Violence in Iraq is Way Down

When you are running an experiment, you usually don't watch the data as the numbers come in. It's a waste of time because apparent trends based on small samples of data are meaningless (but, if you continuously watch the numbers, you can't help but assign meaning to the random noise). This rule applies to tracking casualties in Iraq. At a minimum, you need to wait until an entire month's worth of casualty figures are in to get a sense of what is happening. I know that, but I am going to take an early look at the September figures anyway. The reason is that we are now 1 week into Ramadan, and I had expected an explosion of violence in Iraq. But 3 weeks into September and 1 week into Ramadan, casualty figures in Iraq are astonishingly low. I have no doubt that al Qaeda will stage a spectacular mass casualty attack in the remaining days of the month, but casualties will still be comparatively low even if al Qaeda replicates its record-setting 500-casualty attack against the Yazidis in August.

Background violence in Iraq -- that is, everything other than suicide bombs and car bombs -- is way down. You might think of this background violence as the much-cherished "civil war" in Iraq, whereas the violence caused by al Qaeda's foreign suicide bombers represents attempts to incite civil war in Iraq (and to demoralize Americans and embolden Democrats). Because violence by al Qaeda has been almost non-existent so far in September, we can get a clearer-than-usual reading on the magnitude of the "civil war." Based on the numbers at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, here is what the casualty chart at the end of September will look like if that violence continues at its current pace and al Qaeda fails to stage any mass-casualty attacks:


Here is what the casualty chart will look like if al Qaeda kills 500 additional innocent civilians in the next 10 days (a tragic outcome that will be no surprise to me):


The point is that even if they replicate their horrific attack of August against the Yazidis, casualties for the month of September are still likely to be relatively low. Thus, for al Qaeda to create the casualties that the Democrats need in order to portray the troop surge as a failure, al Qaeda will have to exceed their record-setting total from last month, and they'll need to do it in the next week and half. Perhaps they will, but if they do, even the Democrats will have a hard time not noticing that al Qaeda is a major force in Iraq.

You might think it is unfair of me to suggest that al Qaeda is slaughtering innocent civilians in Iraq to embolden the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but I do not think it is possible to suggest otherwise. Last month's attack against the Yazidis was as spectacular as it was ineffective at inciting civil war (al Qaeda's avowed goal in Iraq). To incite civil war, al Qaeda needs to slaughter Shiite civilians and to destroy their mosques. That's how they created the current civil war in the first place, and attacking the Yazidis is not going to advance that cause one iota. As such, the attack was almost certainly designed to empower anti-war Democrats in Washington. Also, in a recent message, bin Laden himself expressed frustration with the ineffectiveness of his Democratic allies:

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."

Bin Laden's frustration sounds a lot like the frustration of anti-war Democrats represented by MoveOn.org:

This month, MoveOn sent an e-mail message to members asking whether it should start organizing potential primary challenges against Democrats who were not tough enough on the war, a move that upset Democratic leaders. The group plans to announce the results of its survey on Monday.

The group also sent a strongly worded warning in the spring to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill not to capitulate to the White House as they struggled to come up with a strategy after President Bush’s veto of the $124 billion Iraq spending bill that tied the money to a troop withdrawal timetable.

“We felt it was important for Reid and Pelosi to understand, if they were unable to come through to a conclusion that was seen as bold, they were going to lose the faith of a lot of people,” Mr. Pariser said.

My point is that another random mass-casualty attack by al Qaeda in Iraq like the one against the Yazidis will be nothing more than a calculated effort to drive American forces that country. And I have no doubt that MoveOn.org will use any such attack in just the way that bin Laden Hopes they will.

Meanwhile, here is what you will find on MoveOn.org's web page:


This is in response to the Senate's recent condemnation of MoveOn's "General BetrayUs" ad in the New York Times. I don't know how to tell them this, but the Senate most certainly did not tell them to sit down and be quiet. Quite the contrary. Senate Republicans are absolutely giddy about this. Their message to MoveOn? Bring it on. The more you stand up and shout, the better we like it.