On Iraq: If Bush Says It, You Can Bank on the Opposite
Remember the day after the October 15th election when Bush attributed the lack of violence during the vote to progress made by the Iraqi security forces? Of course, the obvious answer had nothing to do with any success of the security forces. It was simply a matter of the Sunnis giving the referendum an actual chance since they felt they could defeat the referendum at the poll.
The poll was heralded by the Bushies as a way to bring the Sunnis into the fold of democracy lovin' peoples. But to do that, there needed to be a fair and transparent vote count. Every Sunni group of which I'm aware, including the IIP that participated in drafting the charter with the Kurds and Shiites, have denounced the count as fraudulent (and given how the count was spun out, who wouldn't be suspicious?)
Due to the lack of transparency, the vote has backfired and further enflamed the insurgency. In the two weeks prior to the vote, Coalition soldiers were dying at a rate of 2 per day. In the three weeks since, Coalition soldiers are dying at a rate of 4 per day.
Of course, if you get your news from the MSM, you wouldn't even know of this latest development.
The poll was heralded by the Bushies as a way to bring the Sunnis into the fold of democracy lovin' peoples. But to do that, there needed to be a fair and transparent vote count. Every Sunni group of which I'm aware, including the IIP that participated in drafting the charter with the Kurds and Shiites, have denounced the count as fraudulent (and given how the count was spun out, who wouldn't be suspicious?)
Due to the lack of transparency, the vote has backfired and further enflamed the insurgency. In the two weeks prior to the vote, Coalition soldiers were dying at a rate of 2 per day. In the three weeks since, Coalition soldiers are dying at a rate of 4 per day.
Of course, if you get your news from the MSM, you wouldn't even know of this latest development.
posted by Macswain at
5:40 PM
2 Comments:
McSwain --- I would be very careful about making trend analysis from the data set that you are pulling from (5 weeks) just because there are too many random variables involved on what causes a fatality --- who knows if there is wider dispersion of better bombmaking ability that would have been put to use no matter what. That is just the first criticque.
By
fester, at 1:35 PM
Fester,
While certainly the insurgency has ebbed and floed. During a number of the ebbs, the Bush administration has speculated a connection to some sort of success by the Iraqi and Coalition Forces or, in the case of the decreased violence last February, as a consequence of an acceptance of democracy following the election. Certainly I can speculate as well.
This is the fourth large increase in US casualties since the invaision. Two in April and November of 2004 were connected to the sieges of Fallujah. The tird was in January of 2005 and was connected to Sunni disenchantment with the election.
Here, there was no significant increase in violence against coalition forces in the weeks prior to the election but a significant increase in the three weeks following it. October 15th stands out as a clear line of demarcation. While certainly I do not expect the insurgency to maintain this level of violence, I can think of no other explanation than the shared feeling voiced by every Sunni I've heard speak on the issue that the votes in Ninevah and probably Diyala were fraudulent.
You are right in hinting that I don't know the statistics on a fatalities/attacks ratio. I will try and find some more info as that would certainly shed more light on my theory.
By
Macswain, at 2:21 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home