I have not called it a success because I never liked the idea of judging the surge by the levels of civilian deaths. Six months ago, I wrote:
Are we really saying that we will define whether our surge is successful based on the number of attacks over the next six months?
This is what I'm worrying about. Certainly, victory in the end will be signalled by the great reduction of enemy violence. Eventually. But in the near term, this is problematic. An enemy determined to fight can pull off spectacular kills even with our troops all over the place. Terrorists need only the will to kill and nearby civilians grouped together.
And if there is little violence, it could mean the enemy is waiting until we leave as much as it means we have won. This metric of levels of violence assumes near-term success can be achieved when a counter-insurgency against a well-financed and fanatical enemy could go on a decade more.
I would rather have a metric of success that judges whether we have prepared Iraqis to fight this decade-long fight. If we have done that, even if the violence in Baghdad is roughly the same, we can call it a victory. But if we truly are judging the surge based on ending violence, unless the enemy suddenly breaks, I fear we are setting ourselves up for a paper defeat. Which in our political environment will quickly be translated into actual defeat.
We need a surge of patience in Iraq more than anything else. The plan we have is reasonable. The hopes we have for it may be dangerously unreasonable.
So when I read an AP article noting that already in 2007, the overall civilian death rate is higher than in all of 2006, my fears of judging the surge incorrectly could be coming true:
Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. AP reporting accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006. The United Nations and other sources placed the 2006 toll far higher.
Declining deaths now do not yet erase the massive killings that took place over the last 12 months. It is far too easy for killers devoted to mass murder to kill innocents who try to live their lives. As I wrote about the initial signs of reduced deaths:
For this trend to be significant and sustained in the long run, it must be the result of political progress enabled by military actions and not from direct military pressure. As I've mentioned, levels of casualties are a troubling metric for me.
If the movement of Sunni Arabs away from terrorism and toward the government can be sustained, our surge will be a success.
And when that movement has advanced enough, we will be able to track down the killers and discourage new killers from coming to Iraq. And only then will civilian casualties go down.
Dramatically reduced civilian deaths will be the result of victory, not a metric of demonstrating the progress toward victory.
Our burden seems heavy. But we cannot yet set it down. Nor even think too much about the day when we will rest.
Do we have the patience to understand this? And act on it?
