Apparently the Lancet's 2004 estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqis earned them insufficient ridicule, so they decided to multiply it by six. Extremism in the pursuit of "peace" is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of anti-Americanism is no virtue.

I guess it's the responsibility of the CIA to answer this. We pay them good money to figure this stuff, and they've told us that the death rate in Iraq was 6.4 per 1000 last year (about one-third of the death rate in South Africa) and has declined steadily over the past four years. Maybe they could stop bitching about Valerie Plame for 5 minutes and explain this discrepancy.

One thing's for sure: Coalition troops have an amazingly low casualty rate for having been neck-deep in this colossal carnage for years now. Bullets must be ricocheting off their armor and going through nine or ten civilians. And Iraqi grave-diggers must be some wonder-working sons a bitches to tidy all of this up.

Some of this idiocy might be avoided if we didn't treat enemy casualties as a dirty little secret, to avoid the horror of Vietnam "body counts". I guess our troops won't get any credit for having inflicted incredible casualties on the insurgents. We're supposed to be fighting terrorism by handing out toothpaste and heaping flattery on Allah, not shooting people. Besides, as soon as one of these jihadists drops dead he becomes an innocent civilian casualty, in the same way that the Israelis convert Hisb'allah terrorists into good people by blowing them away.

I'll tell you what all of this is about. The Lancet used to be the world's leading medical journal, but now it's inferior to the New England JoM and the British Medical Journal. Soon it will be less respected than miracle diet advertisments. Then need to start appealing to a less scientific demographic.

Referencing the Lancet article that purports 655,000 Iraqi deaths greatly diminishes your own credibility. That is a terribly flawed piece of propaganda by a previously demonstrated fallible source.

This entire Iraq Report seems to have taken on a whole new tone, too. It seems you've decided to report mostly negative stories, as though that is all there is to report. Perhaps news really is that bad, but I doubt it. This seems more like a "hit piece". I hope not.

Sectarian violence does seem to be continuing unabated, and the (American) ABC story illustrates that.

I don't see any reason to think that "get out of the way and let the Shi'ites win" is a less reasonable recommendation than it was.

I think perpetuation of the civil war at a level that can be sustained indefinitely maintains a war atmosphere that encourages Muslims to do what they are inclined to do anyway, that is destroy the Christians in their midst and support attacks on Americans. Neither of these things is worth our support.

Here is an excellent post on what the Iraqi's think about the fraudulent Lancet report:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/iraqis-enraged-by-lancet-study.html

I think perpetuation of the civil war at a level that can be sustained indefinitely maintains a war atmosphere that encourages Muslims to do what they are inclined to do anyway, that is destroy the Christians in their midst and support attacks on Americans. Neither of these things is worth our support.

A little lesson in spin.

Underlying assumption #1: The US is ‘perpetuating’ a civil war instead of trying to assist the Iraqis to form a government that will be friendly toward the US.

It would be nice if what comes out of this is a nice Western-style democracy but not really essential. What IS imperative is that whatever government eventually shakes down that it not try the same sort of shenanigans that Saddam performed, otherwise we will have to do this all over again.

Underlying assumption #2: That Muslims who are admittedly “so inclined” need an excuse to “destroy the Christians in their midst and support attacks on Americans.” They were doing just this long before the toppling of Saddam. Handwringing about causing Muslim rage is one of the commonest and most nonsensical of anti-war anxieties. Hey, we’re gonna piss off the Germans if we fight the Nazis! It’s a variation on another cherished dictum, that to fight terrorism is to create terrorism.

David Blue: I think perpetuation of the civil war at a level that can be sustained indefinitely maintains a war atmosphere that encourages Muslims to do what they are inclined to do anyway, that is destroy the Christians in their midst and support attacks on Americans. Neither of these things is worth our support.

#5 from grackle: "A little lesson in spin."

#5 from grackle: "Underlying assumption #1: The US is "perpetuating" a civil war instead of trying to assist the Iraqis to form a government that will be friendly toward the US."

Why can't it be both? That is, the Americans are doing their best to help Iraqis build a real country, but the Iraqis generally approve of attacks on Americans, which proves that they (the Iraqis) want blood more than they want things like electricity, which the Americans, if unmolested, would gladly provide. Given that the Iraqis want slaughter and the Americans don't, the Americans, by remaining armed and in place, force the Iraqis to defer the business end of their civil killing-fest till the Americans leave. In effect, the Americans are the reason that a civil war the Iraqis are determined to continue in some way or another doesn't come to a final conclusion.

#5 from grackle: "It would be nice if what comes out of this is a nice Western-style democracy but not really essential. What IS imperative is that whatever government eventually shakes down that it not try the same sort of shenanigans that Saddam performed, otherwise we will have to do this all over again."

If we had the power to make Muslims nice of course we would be right to fire our nice rays or use our nice gas or whatever. But in fact Iraq is a Muslim country, and it's going to be as bad as Muslims make it. However long we take to leave, this will still be the case.

#5 from grackle: "Underlying assumption #2: That Muslims who are admittedly "so inclined" need an excuse to "destroy the Christians in their midst and support attacks on Americans." They were doing just this long before the toppling of Saddam."

I was and am all for the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and for a lot of what we have done since, including staying in Iraq till he was caught, and accepting the dissolution of the Ba'athist armed forces, which were an instrument of violent Sunni domination and probably couldn't be anything else. We were right to stay and build armed forces with the physical power to defend majority rule, which in effect means Shi'ite rule.

I was in favour of providing years of support if need be. Well, we did provide it. Good.

And we succeeded: there is a 300,000 man Iraqi military. The people of Iraq have all the power they need, and now they are as secure as they really want to be. Any threat they really want to crush, they can.

And we can already say that Al Qaeda has lost in Iraq. Given that it is unpopular with Iraqis, and given that the Iraqis have all the power they need, the rest is inevitable, and our leaving in a year or so won't make any difference except to make the suppression of Al Qaeda by native Iraqi forces less humane and likely more effective, which will trouble my conscience not at all.

That's all good.

Now what are we hanging around for? For these people to love Western freedoms more than they love domination and bloodshed? That's not happening.

Instead, what seems to be happening is the usual: Muslims in a killing mood look for people all good Muslims can agree to hate and attack, and "tag!" we're it, and so are local Christians.

Not that the future was going to be sweet or even bearable for native Christians anyway, as Muslim countries are being purged globally regardless of the presence or absence of American soldiers. But I think the extraordinary viciousness with which the Christians are being ground down, with aggravated rapes, decapitation and now even a child crucifiction, owes some of its venom to the sustained atmosphere of civil war.

I think the best thing we could do for local Christians is evacuate them all and then get out ourselves. Of course, we won't.

#5 from grackle: "Handwringing about causing Muslim rage is one of the commonest and most nonsensical of anti-war anxieties. Hey, we?re gonna piss off the Germans if we fight the Nazis! It?s a variation on another cherished dictum, that to fight terrorism is to create terrorism."

Suppose you just trust me on this: I don't spend a lot of my free time wringing my hands with guilt over Muslim rage. Not since 11 September, 2001.

However, Iraqis have to take responsibility for defending their own country, and for winning their own civil war since they seem determined to have one.

Our duty to them extended till we gave them the physical power to do what they have to do, or at least gave them an opportunity to learn and build as much as they were willing to.

We did that.

Now it seems reasonable to say: go to it, boys - but from now on, on your own dime.

Unfounded assumption #1: ,,, but the Iraqis generally approve of attacks on Americans …

It’s probably true that SOME Iraqis approve of attacks on Americans – Hell, some Americans approve of attacks on Americans but the assumption that ALL Iraqis approve is hyperbole. Indigenous populations seem to have a tendency to dislike foreign occupiers. Go figure. But it’s only a tendency, not a surety.

If we had the power to make Muslims nice of course we would be right to fire our nice rays or use our nice gas or whatever. But in fact Iraq is a Muslim country, and it's going to be as bad as Muslims make it.

There’s a sizable contingent, elected by the Iraqis, that want to make Iraq less “:bad,” if badness is defined by the commentator as ‘unfriendly toward the US.’ I want US troops to stick around until they can reach that goal. I could care less whether the Muslims in Iraq are “nice,” not nice, or anything in between as long as they don’t try to pull the same crap that Saddam did.

The people of Iraq have all the power they need, and now they are as secure as they really want to be. Any threat they really want to crush, they can.

Untrue. According to their elected leaders the Iraqis are NOT “as secure as they really want to be” and they do not yet have the power to deal with outside threats. Recent visits to the Whitehouse and subsequent public statements by President Talabani have confirmed that the Iraqis think the US needs to stay and Generals Abizaid and Casey confirm it as well.

But I think the extraordinary viciousness with which the Christians are being ground down, with aggravated rapes, decapitation and now even a child crucifixion, owes some of its venom to the sustained atmosphere of civil war.

In other words, for the commentor, all the enemy needs to do is kill some Christians and America is out of Iraq. How about Afghanistan? If the enemy kills some Christians do we leave? South Korea? Japan? What the commentor does is hand terrorists a new weapon – just kill some Christians and the infidels will cut and run. Such a policy would only guarantee that more Christians would be killed by terrorists. Unintended consequences … they’re real tricky.

Talk about spin, Grackle excels below...
"Unfounded assumption #1: ,,, but the Iraqis generally approve of attacks on Americans …
It’s probably true that SOME Iraqis approve of attacks on Americans – Hell, some Americans approve of attacks on Americans but the assumption that ALL Iraqis approve is hyperbole."

Somehow a claim that Iraqis "generally approve" morphs into "ALL Iraqis approve", with both comments still available for anyone to read!

The "generally" is well-substantiated.

See Jay Bookman "In Baghdad, 65 percent of Iraqis now support an immediate pullout of U.S. forces from their country, according to a U.S. government poll. A second poll, conducted by the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis want us gone within a year, and more than 60 percent of Iraqis support attacks on the U.S. troops who are fighting and dying to try to protect them."

Like Bookman says
"Here at home, public support for the war has disappeared as well. In a Gallup poll, 66 percent of Americans disapprove of how President Bush is handling Iraq. In a CNN poll, 62 percent oppose the war.
The most telling numbers, though, come from a poll by the Institute for Southern Studies, based in Durham, N.C. Its survey of 13 Southern states found that 56 percent of Southerners believe that U.S. troops should be partially or completely withdrawn from Iraq, which is about the sentiment of the nation as a whole. Eighty-nine percent of Southerners say they are a little to very saddened about the war; only 12 percent say they are proud of the war.
When you've lost even the South, it's over. Pretending that we can sustain our effort in Iraq for several more years with such meager support here at home is sheer fantasy."

Talk about spin, Grackle excels below...Somehow a claim that Iraqis "generally approve" morphs into "ALL Iraqis approve", with both comments still available for anyone to read!

The statement reads “*the* Iraqis,” not most Iraqis, some Iraqis or a few Iraqis but the Iraqis. Using the definite article, the, in front of the noun, Iraqis makes the noun, Iraqis, inclusive, meaning all the Iraqis. Not spin, just simple grammar and reading comprehension. When one writes ‘the’ book, one means ALL of the book, not just a page or two. When one writes “the” dinner one should mean ALL the dinner, not just dessert. But if the commentor cares to recompose to more adequately express himself I will understand.

The "generally" is well-substantiated. See Jay Bookman "In Baghdad, 65 percent of Iraqis now support an immediate pullout of U.S. forces from their country, according to a U.S. government poll.

Is this the same poll with the question, “Do you want the US troops to leave your country?”, in which the respondents naturally responded ‘yes’? It turns out the question was framed in such a way as to ask them if they wanted the Americans there forever! Who would want foreign troops permanently occupying their country? Maybe the question was framed misleadingly because they used some inexperienced Iraqi nationals to devise it. Translation is very tricky. So is composing unbiased poll questions. Later the question was framed in the vein of “Do you want the Americans to leave right now?” The answer was usually a resounding ‘no.’

The commentor is probably correct that many American tire of the war, what with the onslaught of negativity from the MSM, but in regards to poll findings in general I’ve learn to pay little heed unless I have access to the poll questions and a bit of info about their methodology, sampling technique and demographics. Unlinked references in comments certainly don’t qualify.

The Iraqis don’t seem to want Americans in their country … or maybe they do, for a while anyway. I hear most of them believe 9/11 was the work of Israel, which they believe controls US leaders like puppets on a string. The Talk On The Street. Or maybe not, but my point is: Why care?

Before the war the Iraqis were languishing under a dictatorship who was toppled basically for being a bloodthirsty egomaniac. Even a modicum of compliance during the thirteen years he mooned and gamed the UN after he was defeated by Bush senior and he would still be sitting pretty. His son could still be feeding his big cats prisoners for sport and he could still be reveling in his role as all-powerful ruler. I recall one of his purges at a political gathering of some type. It’s the one where he was brandishing a rifle at a podium, smiling as protesting underlings, whose names were read from a list, were led out to the back of the building to be shot. Eventually he might have had it all, some nukes to use for leverage and at the right time to slip to the terrorists to deliver his wrath to the stupid Americans, perhaps even supremacy over the Iranians, but no, he chose another path.

All I want is for the US to leave a government(or governments) in place in Iraq that will be friendly or at least not inimical to the US and strong enough to perpetuate and defend itself. If the Iraqi government ends up as democracy that would be nice, icing on the cake so to speak, but by no means essential. A smart dictator, not an ignorant screw-up like Saddam but a savvy strongman, will do – as long as their intentions toward the US and our allies are benign. I don’t give a damn what the average Iraqi thinks about the strategies and tactics that support this policy goal. Whether a government(s) that eventually forms in Iraq is friendly toward the US in the future depends not at all on whether the average Iraqi is presently ticked off by the presence of American troops.

Furthermore it doesn’t pain my conscience that a majority of Americans apparently tire of the war. I wouldn’t expect much else given the bias problem with the MSM. However, there is a fairly sizable informed minority(bloggers all, I’m sure) that continue to strongly support it, otherwise we would already be out. Majority opinion can easily stand to be thwarted every once in awhile and it wouldn’t be the first nor will it be the last time that the majority was dead wrong. The US is not a place where the majority rules absolutely anyway – the Constitution and Bill of Rights settled THAT particular issue. Let the majority elect a leader that feels as they do about the war when the next Presidential election comes around. That’s true democracy – not this whoring to the tune of the polls that some seem to feel is the way to go.

If the problem is that I didn't express my idea delicately enough, here is Barry Rubin at the Jerusalem Post saying the same thing in professional prose. (link)

(I would disagree only with his remarks on and focus on who will be the winner and loser in American domestic politics. The war on terror, not who gets elected, is the big issue.)

There remain in Iraq no problems that ought to be solved by Americans and not Iraqis. We won.

It's time to declare victory, take the troops home and let them enjoy victory parades.

David (#11),

I wish that were true. Yes, we did topple Saddam and without the horrible consequences the left [conveniently forets they] predicted. And we stuck it out for three years. But we're dealing with people who are still pissed off about the Crusades over a thousand years ago. Three years isn't a blip on their clock. The jihadis will claim (true or not) that they drove the mighty American war machine out of Iraq with the help and blessing of Allah yada yada yada. More importantly, they will be believed, not only by other jihadis, but by Arabs in general. They will see it as part of the pattern beginning with the Iranian hostage crisis, continuing through Beirut, Achille Lauro, 1st WTC bombing, Somalia, African embassy bombings, and the Cole bombing. All events to which America a) didn't respond b)responded weakly or c)began with a strong response and cut and run after a few casualties. And I'm not sure they're wrong. Talk about a recruitment tool. Believe me, the lunatic savages are going to follow our troops home in a major way.

#12 from Fred:
David (#11),

[...] Believe me, the lunatic savages are going to follow our troops home in a major way."

I understand and agree with what you said, but our task list is complete, nothing that should be done by Americans and not by Iraqis remains undone, and everything that remains to be done has to be done by Iraqis, not by Americans.

If we won't go till we are loved, that means staying forever, taking casualties, with no real tasks to perform. That's the part that makes no sense to me.

Check out Iraq The Model's response to The Lancet's death figure.

I understand and agree with what you said, but our task list is complete, nothing that should be done by Americans and not by Iraqis remains undone, and everything that remains to be done has to be done by Iraqis, not by Americans.

Yet our Generals in Iraq claim otherwise. They advise President Bush that despite much progress in the direction of autonomy the Iraqi government is not yet strong enough to defend itself against the Jihadists waiting eagerly throughout the Islamic world for the US to cut and run. With all due respect for the time being I will continue to defer to their judgement on this.

If we won't go till we are loved, that means staying forever, taking casualties, with no real tasks to perform.

To a realist the affection of the Iraqis people should be of little concern. Indeed, the Iraqi public will probably NEVER love the US – conquered populations rarely love their conquerors. But they may be smart enough to realize that to support anti-American idiots like Saddam is a sure path to ruin – unless of course they see the US leaving before the job is done.