The problem with invasion over revolution is that…revolution is usually motivated by people wanting a choice and voice in there countries actions and there own,lives seperate from the ruling powers..where as invasion is motivated by a greater power wanting to limit or control the choices and collective voices in the people actions and lives.
—-Who the invader is doesn’t change this.

I think John was using that statement because when the US military was experiencing high fatality rates, Bush said it was because the insurgents were desperate. So, using Bush’s logic, the insurgents must be gaining confidence, since they are attacking less. Obviously that is absurd, but so was the notion that attacks were increasing because the insurgents were getting desperate.

I should let John answer his own questions, but i think that was what he meant.

I do have some disagreement with any statement about our “strongest allies” if they are meant to imply primarily France, Germany and Russia. The strength and friendship of each of those allies was recognized by George Patton in no uncertain terms about 60 years ago, and all three have expressed bitterness toward the U.S. for at least six decades. I have problems thinking of them as our “strongest allies.” If they are our long-standing friends…..

John, while I often disagree with your opinions, I have always respected the diligent research that goes into your reasoning. In your article, however, your statement that “a strictly logical interpretation would be that the decline in the number of US deaths is bad, since it shows that the insurgency is gaining confidence” baffles me. I’m probably missing something here, but I don’t understand the logic. Confidence usually results in heightened activity and greater casualty rates. Please explain the basis of the logic – sorry if I’m just blinded somehow, but I’ve reread the statement many times in an effort to understand.

As far as predicting failure, I say this whole mess has already been a failure. I believe 10, 20 years down the road this whole campaign in Iraq will be judged as such. The ultimate outcome may turn out to be a success for Iraq, but the way in which this war was planned and executed will go down in history as a massive failure and one that alienated America from some of its strongest allies.

Back in month 3 a certain pro-war weblogger was making a big deal about how the trend clearly showed that Bush’s war was turning out just fine in terms of the US death total, tapering off quickly with quite-acceptable losses. I haven’t noticed him posting any updates to those earlier graphs of his.

I only post on one other blog site, run by a fellow who unabashedly voices his hope for a Gander-type incident that results in massive loss. Again, I simply don’t understand; or, at least, I hope I don’t, because I can only think of one other possible reason to wish for the worst. It’s unthinkable, but I see increasing evidence of people who would happily sacrifice lives of U.S. soldiers and citizens to embarrass a U.S. president.

Part of the reason for the decline is certainly the greater involvement of Iraqi forces (although some still deny the existence of those forces), but there are other contributing factors: among them, (1) the growing resistance of Iraqi citizens against terrorists who are targeting the civilian population and (2) the decreasing numbers of terrorist thugs.

As an example of the latter, we lost about three dozen troops in urban warfare during the al Fallujah campaign, while killing about 1,500 terrorists. Their numbers are thinning, their determination is waning, and their in-county support is fading. All predictions of utter failure seem to be failing, and the results should be pleasing to all of us.