The killings tell a story

The fatality figures in Iraq are perhaps telling a story, which would be that the war focuses progressively on internecine killings. The American death rate for March was 31 fatalities, a gruesome toll (one per day), yet the second lowest since the invasion was launched three years ago. Over approximately the same period, nearly 1,500 Iraqi civilians were killed, according to the American military, a significant increase over recent months.

There are contributing explanations. Most obvious, it is easier to kill an Iraqi than an American. Americans get about in relatively guarded circumstances. To kill an American soldier, it is generally necessary to ambush him in his vehicle, whence the wide use of the roadside bomb. But since the number of these attacks is declining, does this tell us that American soldiers travel about less frequently than they did, say, a year ago, when casualties mostly ranged between 50 and 100 per month? Or does it tell us that insulations against roadside bombs are more sophisticated? Or a bit of each?

William F. Buckley

Welcome, Tanya. Let's try this one on for size. Is Buckley right? Are the Iraqi insurgents shifting tactics and targeting Iraqis moreso than Americans? If so, why? Is it because they are simply easier to kill, or is it, as Buckley suggests, that the US military is working its way into a virtual stand-down in anticipation of their imminent departure?