(…because it went utterly unreported), Wretchard at The Belmont Club notes that our troops in Iraq just sustained the lowest rolling three-month death toll of the entire war in October through December:
US deaths in Iraq are at the lowest 3 month total ever…The three month total for October, November and December 2007 is 93. It’s also the first time a 3 month total has dropped below 3 digits.
A commenter notes that the combat death toll is even lower; seven of the 21 December deaths were non-combat related. Not to trivialize them, but to note that combat casualties are even lower than the numbers would show on the surface.
I like Laura Ingrams “But Monkey”. Whenever MSM reports progress in Iraq, they follow it by “But….”.
I can’t believe RickDFL didn’t come in here and argue with you on this post, Mitch.
British casualties went way down after Yorktown too.
Paying people huge sums of money not to hurt you can reduce casualties in the short term, but it means you face a much stronger enemy if they ever decide to go back to their old ways.
And yes of course Mitch, cleverly buying off the locals can be an effective CI strategy, but there is no evidence that, in return for huge amounts of cash and arms, the U.S. has acquired any sort of strategic leverage with either the Sunni or Shia militias.