A Puzzle: More Attacks, Fewer Kills

The NYT reports that attacks on US forces are nearing on all time high in Iraq. Yet, casualty rates for US troops seem to have stabilized. Why is this? I’m not sure, but here are some guesses:

• Defensive measures, including armor and anti-IED tactics, continue to improve. The NYT report indicated that they were counting “exploded” bombs, but I don’t know if that includes IEDs that were exploded at a safe distance by US forces. This explanation is plausible, given what we know about the lack of preparation, both tactically and materially, by US forces in 2003 and 2004.
• The US hasn’t launched any major operations against insurgents in 2006. Large operations in 2004 and 2005 led to very high death rates in particular months. Of course, we may see such an operation in the next month or so in Baghdad. Then again, maybe not; the Bush administration may try to wait things out until the elections are over, as they more or less did in 2004.
• As Max Boot and others have noted, US troops may have reduced their participation in the most dangerous operations, including foot patrols and excursions into insurgent held territories. We would expect that attacks under such conditions would have the highest chance of success, given a favorable local environment. Of course, such operations are absolutely critical to success in a counter-insurgency campaign.

All of this, of course, is speculation, and doesn’t even begin to consider what appear to be escalating civilian death rates. What’s certain is that conditions in Iraq are bad and are getting worse, and there doesn’t seem to be much indication that any progress is being made.