George Bush's Troop Surge is a Spectacular Success

In the past, the word "spectacular" has often been associated with mass-casualty attacks directed at innocent civilians by al Qaeda suicide bombers in their single-minded effort to incite civil war in Iraq. Here is an example from way back in 2005:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — A suicide car bomber killed 22 people in northern Iraq on Tuesday after insurgents lured police to the scene by shooting an officer, officials said. A mortar shell fired at a U.S. ceremony sent the U.S. ambassador and the top American commander scurrying for cover.

The suicide bomber struck on a busy commercial street in Kirkuk, a mixed Arab, Kurdish and Turkoman city in an oil-producing region 180 miles north of Baghdad. About half the dead were police who rushed to the scene after gunmen killed a fellow officer.

In addition to the 22 dead, another 23 people were wounded, according to police Brig. Gen. Sarhad Qader.

The attack was the latest in a wave of spectacular suicide operations which have killed more than 160 civilians since Friday, most of them Shiites.

Back then, I did not realize that these attacks were carried out by foreign suicide bombers sent to Iraq by al Qaeda in order to provoke a civil war. Their plan, as I later came to realize, was to enrage the Shiite militias enough that they would start killing Sunnis on a large scale. This contrasts with what standard reporters in the mainstream media strongly believed to be true, which is that these suicide bombers were Sunni "insurgents" participating in a civil war to defeat the Shiites. In fact, they were al Qaeda terrorists (not insurgents) trying to ignite (not win) a civil war.

After many suicide bombing attacks like this in 2005, al Qaeda bombed the revered Golden Mosque in Samarra in February of 2006. On that day (that very day), the Shiite militias entered the battle (just as al Qaeda hoped they would), and all hell broke loose. In the ensuing months, Americans became profoundly demoralized at the sight of the violence (just as al Qaeda knew they would), and the unthinkable seemed to be unfolding before my very eyes. Specifically, on the battlefield of Iraq, it seemed that al Qaeda was about to achieve a pivotal victory of historic proportions over the Unites States of America. Their apparent victory was made all the more frustrating to me by the fact that all leading Democrats refused to acknowledge any role played by al Qaeda (they preposterously claimed that al Qaeda was active in Afghanistan, where they were doing next to nothing) and instead dishonestly portrayed Iraq as having fallen into a predictable state of civil war. That happened, they thought, because George Bush foolishly removed the strongman who had previously held it all in check. Most Americans came to accept this superficially plausible but completely inaccurate analysis, and, as a result, we were on the verge of surrendering to al Qaeda without even realizing it. That's how good al Qaeda is, and I, myself, have learned a great lesson from what almost happened in 2006: never underestimate al Qaeda.

But I'm not the only one who has learned a great lesson. In 2007, I suspect that al Qaeda learned to never underestimate George Bush (or to overestimate the strength of Democrats, who almost unwittingly secured al Qaeda's victory in Iraq). In the darkest hour, when most Americans and all Democrats were clamoring for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, George Bush ordered a troop surge. I was a very strong supporter of the original invasion of Iraq, but I had some reservations about the wisdom of this course of action (though I supported the surge as well). I had doubts that it would work because I thought al Qaeda's suicide bombers would just start killing civilians in places where our troops did not go and that, as a result, Americans would become further demoralized while remaining completely ignorant of the fact that they were prepared to accept defeat at the hands of the very terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. It seemed pretty hopeless, but I was wrong, and so were you. What I didn't realize at the time was that the troop surge was capitalizing on a remarkable trend in Iraq: the Sunni insurgents were finally beginning to turn against al Qaeda. If you are a Democrat, this makes no sense to you because, to you, al Qaeda in Iraq is neocon myth. But our efforts against that "myth" have resulted in a mind-boggling reduction is civilian and military casualties over the last 2 months.

Here is my monthly tally of civilian casualties in Iraq based on the data at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (with necessary corrections described here):


As you can see, a dramatic drop in casualties occurred in September, and they dropped even further in the just-completed month of October. The black bar shows when al Qaeda finally succeeded in igniting the civil war, and the blue bars show the months of troop surge (with the dark blue bars showing the months during which the surge has been operational). We needed the Sunni insurgents to join us in the fight against al Qaeda, but they obviously needed us to win that fight as well. Right now, we are clearly winning.

Month-to-month data can be noisy, so here is a similar chart with each bar now representing the average of the last 3 months:


Do you detect a trend? It's the very trend that Hillary Clinton sarcastically denied mere weeks ago when she all but accused General Petraeus of being a liar. If we had the media we want (instead of the media we have), a reporter would now ask her if it still requires a "willing suspension of disbelief" to accept that civilian casualties have been dramatically reduced in Iraq. I'd like to hear her answer (and her apology to General Petraeus). In fact, here is a question I recommend for the next Democratic debate: "Senator Clinton, in light of recent casualty figures from Iraq, will you now apologize to General Petraeus for insinuating that he was misleading the nation when he testified that the troop surge was having a dramatic effect on violence in Iraq?" She wouldn't apologize, of course (instead, she'd just say that the future is bleak due to the lack of political reforms), but I'd like to hear the question asked anyway.

Even more dramatic is the recent reduction in U.S. military casualties:


Had we started to withdraw our troops during the height of violence in Iraq (i.e., had we adopted the plan favored by the Democrats), my guess is that we'd be facing higher military casualties right now. But the steady pacification of Iraq is, for the moment anyway, reducing casualties across the board (including military casualties).

Are Democrats happy about this success? It seems like a legitimate question in light of this poll (question 19 in this pdf file) from back in January:


Amazingly, half of the Democrats polled either did not want (or were not sure they wanted) the troop surge to succeed. Now that it is clearly succeeding, it seems reasonable to infer that half of the Democrats are unhappy about (a) America's apparent victory over al Qaeda and (b) the thousands of innocent Iraqi lives that have been saved. Well, maybe someone should ask them just to be sure. Perhaps they have come to their senses and are actually happy about this turn of events.

At the beginning of the surge, George Bush said the most important objective was to reduce casualties in Baghdad even if violence spread to other areas. Here is my tabulation of civilian casualties in Iraq's capital:


And here is a tabulation of execution-style killing in Baghdad (these almost certainly reflect killings of Sunnis by rogue Shiite militias):


Same trend. To accept the claim that things have not dramatically improved in Iraq requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

Although Shiite militias are killing fewer Sunnis in Baghdad, that's not the main reason why casualties are down over the last few months. What's missing lately are attacks like this:

Around 150, Death Toll in Iraq Attack Among War’s Worst

BAGHDAD, July 8 — The death toll from a suicide truck bombing in a remote village in northern Iraq rose to around 150 on Sunday, making it one of the deadliest single bombings, if not the deadliest, since the 2003 invasion.

And this:

Car Bomb Kills at Least 87 at Shiite Mosque in Baghdad

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

BAGHDAD — A truck bomber attacked a revered Shiite shrine in the heart of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least 87 people and wounding more than 200 in a resumption of Iraq's relentless sectarian slaughter.
...
Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a military spokesman in Baghdad, said the truck was loaded with propane tanks and that a suicide driver detonated his bomb when the vehicle became stuck trying to drive over a curb.

And this:

Suspected Qaeda bombs kill nearly 200 in Baghdad
Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:42 PM EDT

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Suspected al Qaeda militants killed nearly 200 people in a wave of car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, including one that was the single deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

In September, al Qaeda's suicide bombers killed only 75 civilians. In October, it was 75 again. In August, the number was closer to 600, and it was high (though not quite that high) in the months before that as well. But the number of civilians killed by suicide bombers has simply plummeted, and that means that, for the moment anyway, al Qaeda is losing to the United States of America. There is a random element to the success of any suicide bombing attack, and these deranged Islamic extremists are still self-denoting on an almost daily basis in Iraq. As such, there will be more "spectacular" successes in the days and months ahead (i.e., an occasional suicide bomber will get lucky), and an excited media will undoubtedly use any such such success to knowingly declare that George Bush's troop surge is a failure. But the point is that the frequency of large-scale suicide attacks has come way down. What al Qaeda used to achieve in a single day's work has not been achieved over the last 2 months. And that's why casualties have been so dramatically reduced of late.

Slaughtering Muslims to incite civil war as a means of defeating U.S. forces in Iraq was a big gamble for al Qaeda. Recent international polls show that this once revered terrorist organization has lost its standing throughout the Muslim world because of the strategy it adopted in Iraq, but it all would have been worth it to achieve a glorious victory over America. Except that now, thanks to George Bush's troop surge, that victory appears to be slipping away. Al Qaeda sacrificed its reputation among Muslims worldwide, and then they lost to America in Iraq anyway. If they don't make a strong comeback, they will suffer for many years to come. Never forget that National Intelligence Estimate that Democrats excitedly leaked because it said that our invasion of Iraq was inspiring foreign jihadists to take up the fight there. That NIE also said this:

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Indeed. George Bush's troop surge is creating the impression that the jihadists have failed in Iraq. Not bad for the "worst president ever."