Here again is Mario Loyola, world's finest blogger:
I am optimistic about the surge, but I was always skeptical that it would have any appreciable effect on civilian casualties. Civilian casualty rates are the wrong metric by which to measure success or failure in Iraq—especially in terms of small-cell/high-casualty terrorist bombings.
Alright then. As long as the several thousand Iraqis that are killed every month die in large chunks rather than in many more, lower-body count incidents, then the surge is working. It's perfectly OK if the number of dead remains constant. That's the new standard. Got it everybody?

Comments
When I read this blog entry, my first reaction is that nobody could be as stupid as Loyola appears to be. "Surely," I said to myself, "you must have taken that quote out of context." So I clicked on the link and found myself at NRO's "The Corner", which appears to be an affirmative action program for writers who are too stupid (or too dishonest) to work as legitimate journalists.
I did find an defense of sorts of Loyola's assertion that civilian casualty rates "are the wrong metric," but the defense of the assertion is worse than the assertion itself:
A fundamental function of government is to provided security to its citizens, and the recent civilian deaths demonstrate that the government cannot do that even with an unsustainable amount of assistance from American troops. That's hardly the way to enhance the perception that the authority of the government cannot be defeated.
Furthermore, asking American soldiers to risk their lives merely to "enhance a perception" strikes me as morally abhorrant. Perhaps Loyola assumes that changing the perception will change the reality, but he doesn't say so.
Post A Comment