Or at least with the news being put out about it. The news about the significant progress that U.S. military forces have allegedly made in Anbar province recently, as a result of Sunni “ex-insurgents” allying themselves with U.S. forces to fight al Qaeda in Iraq (not to be confused, of course, with Osama‘s al Qaeda).

The Newhoggers blog provides a scathing commentary that puts the so-called progress in Anbar into a sensible historical perspective. The short version:
• The report (pdf) recently submitted by the Pentagon to Congress says: “Attacks in Anbar have dropped from 35 per day in the previous reporting period to just under 26.”
• That 25% drop sounds significant, but don’t break out the champagne just yet.
• The “number of attacks per day needed in June 2003 across the entire country to force the fragmentation of primary group loyalties and destroy the ability of a modern state to function” was 8.
• 8 attacks a day may not sound like a whole lot, but we are talking 240 a month
• We (they, actually) are now celebrating the fact that we are down to only 26 a attacks a day (or 780 a month) in Anbar province alone? That’s progress compared to what exactly, now?
• “Reducing the level of violence by 25% is a positive step in reducing suffering, but it does nothing to further anything that vaguely resembles a US strategic goal.”
• “Going back to the DOD report, there are at least five provinces” with more than 8 attacks a day on average. Progress, huh?
• “To have a chance in hell of accomplishing any US strategic goals, the level of violence in Iraq has to decrease by 80 to 90% to return to the June, 2003 levels. Everything else is, unfortunately, statistical noise within a very negative trend line.”

He really shouldn’t have used a profanity, but I couldn’t have put it any better myself.