The graph on US casualties clearly shows a recent drop although that means little given the up and down variability in the trend. However, it is at one of the lowest levels since the insurgency got going in late 2003. It should also be clear that we hear about every spike, but I don't recall the news covering drops in casualties very often. The recent spike was also the lowest of the four and far lower than the previous 2 spikes. While I wouldn't claim these indicated a clear improvement trend, they sure don't make a claim of steady US casualties seem at all accurate. There's nothing steady at all about them over any period.

Did I miss something? Weren't you supposedly wanting Iraqi forces to take over fighting insurgents? Did you expect their casualties to go down as they took up these duties? I sure don't see a big increase in most negative statistics for civilian Iraqis either. The number of civilian attacks is up. The fact that the casualty rate is not suggests the increase in attacks is to counter increasingly effective counter measures. Attacks on infrastructure are down.

The report paints a picture of treading water overalll to me. This indicates an ineffective strategy on the part of Bush's team to me. The fact that the Democrats don't offer a better strategy and continually try to paint treading water as going downhill indicates to me they are as intellectually bankrupt on Iraq as they were with regard to fighting Al-Queida. Got no ideas?-throw stones instead.

Regards,
Mark