Data has no Political Bias

Here is an excellent post about the latest casualty figures from Iraq. Civilian deaths were steady even though 1/3 of these casualties came from the worst attack of the war (400 people). US Military deaths were flat, but at pre-surge levels. These are the signs that we are winning in Iraq. And we must continue until the war is won.

--------------
Although I wish more progress were evident in the civilian casualty chart, one has to say that the new strategy adopted by General Petraeus is showing results. Actually, the results have been quite spectacular, but this fact is obscured by the high number of civilian casualties that are still evident. I have thought all along that if civilian casualties did not drop very substantially by the Fall "deadline," Harry Reid would use that fact to successfully convince the American public that "this war is lost." And because most Americans do not pay close attention to the details and therefore do not really understand what is happening in Iraq, I had thought that surrender (to al Qaeda) would be in the cards.

I don't think that any more. In fact, I am amazed that Americans (and even some Democratic leaders) are able to appreciate the momentous turn of events that has occurred in Iraq lately. More and more Americans seem to understand that we really are in a war against al Qaeda in Iraq (whether or not Iraqi politicians reconcile with each other), that al Qaeda has made it so, and that losing to al Qaeda would have profoundly negative consequences. They also seem to appreciate that the tide has turned against al Qaeda in a very big way even though the terrorists remain capable of launching sneak attacks against and slaughtering unarmed and completely innocent men, women and children. Although the mainstream media often refers to these attacks as being carried out by Sunni "militants" or "extremists," the American public seems to appreciate the glaringly obvious fact that these attacks are instead carried out by "terrorists." Al Qaeda terrorists, in fact. They are doing so not because they are participating in a Sunni-vs.-Shiite civil war but because they are trying to provoke a civil war to bring down the Iraqi government and to demoralize you (so that you will throw your support behind Harry Reid and like-minded anti-victory Democrats).

I have long pointed to the eerie code of silence that Democrats have adopted on the subject of al Qaeda in Iraq. On those rare occasions when they do happen to mention al Qaeda in Iraq, they typically deny its importance and point to the absurd notion that the real terrorists are in Afghanistan. You know that this is false. All you have to do is add up the number of civilians killed by foreign suicide bombers in Iraq this year and compare it to the number killed by suicide bombers in Afghanistan over the same period of time. It would be something like 2000 (Iraq) vs. 60 (Afghanistan) in 2007 alone. Obviously, al Qaeda's leaders are hiding somewhere along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they are sending their foot soldiers to Iraq to evict American forces from that country first. Then they'll turn their attention to Afghanistan (at which point the Democrats will finally be right about where the real terrorists are).