Is the Troop Surge Working?

Since the surge of 30,000 more troops into Iraq on June 15th, it has been difficult for the average American to evaluate whether the effort has been successful or unsuccessful in curbing Al Qaeda and the amount of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed. I decided to examine two different articles about military casualties in the month of September. One is from foxnews.com and the other from abcnews.com. Both provide that the number of U.S. Military casualties is the lowest it has been since July 2006.

The first, from foxnews.com, was very specific in providing statistics of the decline in casualties of each group affected by the war. It also provided the number of Al Qaeda members killed and other terrorists thought to be involved with Al Qaeda. It provides a good quote from the spokesman for General David Petraeus attributing the decline in casualties of troops and citizens to the surge and its allowance for "American forces to step up operations against Al Qaeda in Iraq."

I think one of the most important facets of the foxnews.com article was its introduction of a Senate resolution adopted last week which "proposed reshaping Iraq according to three sectarian or ethnic territories." The article also provided the negative reactions from the U.S. Embassy and representatives of Iraq's major political parties.

In review of the article, from abcnews.com, it too provided helpful statistics to grasping the effect of the surge. However, it took a broader look at the troop surge, including its downfalls in its early months of implementation. It also reveals lesser known facts of military procedure, such as how they rate the level of security in each of Baghdad's 474 neighborhoods.

I found it interesting that the article pointed out possible flaws in the data and statistics represented due to a report issued last week from the Government Accountability Office. "...the Pentagon data may not capture violence produced by militia attacks on each other. It recommends the Pentagon produce more frequent and detailed reports."

After reading both articles, I felt like I had almost read two different accounts on the progress. The foxnews.com article was hopeful and encouraging providing specific, detailed, and colorful accounts pertaining to how certain Al Qeada members had been captured and killed. The abcnews.com article, however, cast a shadow of doubt over how accurate the numbers released pertaining to casualties of US troops and Iraqi civilians were. I felt, as always, that it was most beneficial for me to read both stories to get the WHOLE story.

From the foxnews.com article, I learned about a proposed resolution in the Senate to end the war and allow for the formation of three ethnic or sectarian territories. From the abcnews.com article, I learned that the statistics may be flawed, and we may not be performing as well in Iraq as we think we are.

Getting news from multiple sources seems necessary in learning the most amount of facts, and perhaps, the whole story.

U.S. Military Casualties in Iraq Fall to Lowest Since July, '06; Iraqi Civilian Deaths Drop By More Than 50 Percent (foxnews.com)

Troop Deaths in Iraq Drop in September (abcnews.com)