Insurgents stop targeting Americans, start targeting Iraqis

[tongodeon]

We've finally turned a corner in Iraq. On Wednesday NPR reported that "American combat deaths in Iraq have been declining since late last year. Iraqi security forces now appear to be bearing the brunt of violence in the country." I try to be careful distinguishing single events from ongoing trends, but this seems legit: casualties have declined

Comments

[owenferguson]

Yes, you've turned the corner from argessive imperialist power to civil-war starting international interventionist. Not really the moral high ground, but a lot easier to sell to the fat, debt-ridden fucks who comprise your citizenry.

[freeasinbeer]

Have you been peeking through my webcam?

[owenferguson]

peakaboo!

[kraquehaus]

One comment, one question:

Comment: Sounds like a case of Hot Potatoies [sic]. Or a case of wanting to manufacture a SEP* field

Serious Question: I don't know the layout of the land (and am too groggy/hung over at the moment to do the research) but can any of these problems be solved by redrawing the presumptuous borders of Iraq? I mean, the Kurds seem to really lend themselves to being their own country (sans Turkey being really pissed off). As I recall, the borders of Iraq were drawn up somewhat arbitrally by the British Kingdom, neh?

*Somebody Else's Problem

[owenferguson]

The problem is, when you divide up the country, who gets to keep the bit with the oil in it?

[kraquehaus]

We do, of course. Or, more accurately, Haliburton.

I do realize that redrawing state (country) lines is pretty much out of the question, but in theory it sounds like it would be a good idea, at least for the Kurds.... *shrug*

[tongodeon]

In answer to both kraquehaus and owenferguson: in a country where the borders and land have been "unfairly" drawn (from the perspective of the largest number of the most heavily armed locals) these problems tend to "sort themselves out" on their own.

We're trying to prevent that particular type of sorting-out, obviously. I consider it somewhat likely that we will fail in this effort, and that Kurdistan, Sunniraq, and Shiaraq will emerge with borders more or less equally unacceptable to all parties.

[ponsdorf]

Cole's observations reminds one that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Not a month ago you seemed fixated on the rise in US casualties.

Either way, we've turned a corner. Whether what's behind that corner is better or worse remains to be seen; it's a new game from here on out.

Of course, that's the crux of my position since we met. That's not meant to be as smug as it sounds (truly), but I couldn't think of any gentler way to point it out. Every day is a new corner, every second of that day is, in turn, a new corner. The possibilities are myriad.

Zero Ponsdorf, straight man for the Gods, and the last one to get puns.

[tongodeon]

Not a month ago you seemed fixated on the rise in US casualties.

I was citing old data to support a statement that remains valid. The insurgency is not weakening, is not being defeated, and is not in its "last throes". It continues to devastate its new Iraqi targets with at least as much effectiveness as it devastated American targets.

If you'd told me "casualties have decreased for the last three months" I probably would have said "dip in the road, casualties decreased between April and June as well". But it's been five months now *and* I'm reading reports from Iraqis and Americans that explain the trend. I'm a realist, not an idealogue.

Incidentally, the "less Americans more Iraqis" trend apparently started happening in November/December. I'm looking back over my old posts and news articles to see whether I missed anything back then. Any ideas?

[flwyd]

After the American Civil War, militant whites in the South stopped attacking Yankee targets and started attacking black citizens of their own states. These attacks were inspired, in part, by a feeling that the whites were losing (or might lose) power. Despite this shift in targets, the situation was not close to peaceful resolution

Attacking civilians

[sploof]

It's a gross overgeneralization to assert that insurgencies or other armed groups attack civilians because they're losing civilian support. There are all kinds of reasons to attack civilians--many armed conflicts have consisted almost entirely of attacks on civilians. As you note, it's also not necessarily true that attacks on civilians reduce civilian support for the insurgency, particularly if the particular civilians in question didn't support it to begin with.

Whether or not attacking civilians is a sign of (tactical or strategic) weakness depends on exactly what the insurgents see as their goals. If they can accomplish what they want by killing "soft targets" rather than "hard", of course they're going to do so. If so, US forces in Iraq aren't winning, they're just becoming less relevant.

I think it's a mistake to read too much into this. I don't know that we (or at least I) have enough data to really understand either the motivation for the change in tactics or its impact.