Iraq: Military Deaths Down for July. Good News?

Let me start by saying, yes, it's good news. Less death is always good news. But I was disturbed by the banner front-page stories on this topic today, on all of the major news web sites, even though I'm thrilled that the carnage was smaller for July.

But "July" is an arbitrary measurement. A 31-day period on the calendar. If you start on June 14, and end on July 15 is it still better? I hope you get what I'm driving at. We still lost 82 people. And for what? Does anybody know?

We hit the tragic 3,000 number coincidentally right around the beginning of 2007. As of this posting, we've lost 3,653. At this rate, 4,000 will be gone by the end of the year. And that is presuming some sort of mass catastrophe doesn't hit by then.

We elected a new Congress in November, largely to end this war. To be fair, actually doing so would be difficult. They have got a bare majority in the Senate, and a larger but not overwhelming majority in the House. Anything they would vote for would be vetoed, and a veto-proof majority would be a very high bar. My friend (and contributor) Lesto would argue that they should do more. I agree. My only argument would be that Democrats aren't as good at "creating their own reality." They see the numbers, and don't see the point.

They need to screw the point, and just do it. Vote to withdraw. Fight the Hannitys and Limbaughs with cold, hard facts. Don't let the "abandoning our troops" meme float for even a second. Easy enough to shoot down with facts. Give Frank Luntz a run for his money, and squash him like a bug with facts and action. The time has come to shit or get off the pot.

By the way, it isn't true that this was the lowest casualty month of the year--it's tied with March.

Images from Iraq Coalition Casualty Count