The New York Times reports that enemy attacks continue to rise in Iraq even after lulls.
But this focus on attacks is as misleading as a focus on enemy body counts would be. Both can be used to argue for victories even as both statistics are meaningless metrics for success. Indeed, I specifically warned against assuming that escalating violence means we are losing. Any war escalates if it goes on long enough. Winning and losing is independent of that factor as each side throws more resources into the fight.
What is important in regard to the attacks is that the attacks are failing to have any effect other than inflicting death, maiming, and misery:
True, there are peaks and valleys in the number of attacks. What is not reported when these supposed surges take place is the failure of most of the attacks. The bombings and shootings have not adversely affected operations, they have not disrupted our logistics, nor have they resulted in the enemy gaining one inch of territory. More importantly, they have not hindered the desire of the Iraqis to continue on with everyday life, despite the attempts of the terrorists to target innocent civilians. Yet, the intensity and constant reporting of every negative occurrence in Baghdad would lead one to believe that we have walked into the shadow of death from which there is no return.
Simliarly, killing lots of the enemy would be meaningless if the enemy was disrupting logistics, gaining territory, hindering progress in economic, political, and military realms even as we killed more and more of them.
Ultimately, the real metrics of victory will progress and then attacks by the enemy will decline.
