Front Page > World > Article Title/Fixture Title

Front Page > Commentary

Email | Print | Subscribe

Click-2-Listen

advertisement

Trends in Iraq

Michael O'Hanlon
October 1, 2007

Are things really improving on the battlefields of Iraq, or not? There is plenty of room for debate about American policy even after we reach a clear answer to this question. But the problem is even harder if we cannot. Unfortunately, some recent reports have clouded the situation.

The latest confusion has arisen from the Pentagon's own published reports and cannot be blamed on the media or anyone else. As Karen DeYoung has just reported in The Washington Post, the Defense Department's Quarterly Report on Iraq, issued just after the recent Petraeus/Crocker testimony, shows only marginal improvement in the overall security environment in Iraq this year.

That contrasts with a clear trajectory in the right direction, toward a less violent country, displayed in Gen. David Petraeus' graphs for Congress. For example, Gen. Petraeus' numbers show about a one-third reduction in the nationwide civilian fatality rate this summer compared with last winter, a 50 percent reduction in ethno-sectarian killings nationwide, and a 65 percent drop in ethno-sectarian killings in Baghdad (admitting that violence levels still remain way too high even after all this).

What is most incomprehensible is that all these competing estimates presumably come from the same database of violent incidents in Iraq.

How can Gen. Petraeus show at least a one-third drop in violence rates since the winter, while Defense Department/Washington shows virtually no improvement over the same period? Resolving the issue is actually quite important. After all, if after more than six months of surging we have only marginally improved the security environment — matching the scant political progress Iraqi leaders have delivered — it is hard to hold out much hope for this strategy down the road.

My examination of the data convinces me Gen. Petraeus and his team in Baghdad have it right, and that the Pentagon needs to re-evaluate how it is assessing and presenting data. There are four main reasons I reach this conclusion, in increasing order of importance.

(1) Gen. Petraeus' data are more current: This is not the primary explanation for the discrepancy, but Gen. Petraeus had another month or so of data reflected in his graphs. As the surge only reached full force in June, another month makes a difference — even if not a huge one.

(2) Gen. Petraeus' data focus on civilians: The Pentagon database counts all casualties to all groups of individuals. It tabulates killed and wounded not just among Iraqi civilians, but among Iraqi Security Forces and U.S. security forces as well. Gen. Petraeus' data focuses only on the Iraqi civilian population.

Click-2-Listen

Front Page > Commentary