Iraq Success: Only 2,368 Attacks on US Forces in last 30 Days

The New York Times has an article and nice graphic to go with it. Compare it to a political map showing population density, and it's hard not to think that the insurgency pretty much operates wherever you have people.

Additionally, Chris Bowers cites this story, which indicates the resistance is mostly home grown, with foreign fighters comprising less than 1,000 individuals (or, as Bowers notes, less than 5% of those who've taken up arms).

Unlike Allawi's and other's lies, all 18 provinces in Iraq have had violent reactions to the US occupation. Interestingly, the article notes that attacks have subsided in Fallujah--because that's a "no-go" area for US troops.

William Saletan writes in Slate that Bush tries to have it both ways in Iraq--less violence means we're winning, and more violence means we're winning. This is a fitting stance for Bush--more cheerleader than genuine leader.

Our lightning strike took Baghdad fairly rapidly (although not as fast as some thought, given surprising levels of irregular resistance and weather), but now what do we do? Abu Ghraib destroyed what little credibility we had left--credibility which was already largely gone thanks to our inability to reconstruct a country devastated by sanctions and war.

Consider: in 2002, we had Saddam Hussein in a box, surrounded by US and/or allied forces to the north, south, and west, the northern provinces comprising the Iraqi Kurdistan regions (there are two) were essentially autonomous, Iran was to the east (certainly not a US ally, but definitely not an Iraqi ally either), entire sections of Iraq were under "no-fly" rules for Iraq but not for the US AirForce--and now, two years later, there's all but out-and-out general insurrection.

George W. Bush should have been more careful about what he asked for--because he got it.