Surge in Iraq Working?

I was more than a little surprised when I opened up the Sunday Herald, and right there at the top of Page One was a story on U.S. casualties dropping in Iraq.

How can this be? Didn't we just increase the number of troops with the so-called surge? That's right. And it makes perfect sense, too. The Herald article indicates that there is disagreement as to why an increase in troops would result in a decrease in casualties. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that insurgent terrorists want nothing to do with actual warfare?

I don't know, just a thought. But consider this quote from the article:

Supporters of the troop increase say the lower casualty figures show that the larger number of troops and the counterinsurgency approach of Gen. David Petraeus, the latest U.S. commander in Iraq, have turned Iraqi citizens against armed groups, putting them on the run and fracturing them.

''The population is progressively turning to coalition and Iraqi forces and making a positive difference in bringing security to their towns, villages and neighborhoods,'' Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 commander, said in August. ``They are pointing out extremist leaders, identifying caches and [improvised explosive devices] and asking to be a part of the legitimate Iraqi security force.''

And...

Most agree that a second reason for the decline is the dramatic change of conditions in Anbar province, where former Sunni insurgents have teamed up with American troops to rid the province of the group al Qaeda in Iraq. About one-third of U.S. casualties have been in Anbar province, but that has shifted since the troop increase began. In August, about 10 percent of U.S. casualties occurred there, compared with 30 percent in January, when the buildup began.

Shiites are fighting one another for control of the southern provinces. Some Pentagon commanders have told McClatchy that they think rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army left Baghdad before the built-up forces began to fight in the south. Throughout the buildup, Sadr has issued statements discouraging his followers from attacking U.S. forces and Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, most recently last week.

However...

Others, however, noted that as U.S. combat deaths have declined, deaths among Iraqi civilians have remained constant and the ''ethnic cleansing'' -- the street-by-street homogenization -- of Baghdad's neighborhoods has continued almost unabated.

While the Shiite Mahdi Army militia has lowered its profile in the capital, it has battled the rival Badr Organization of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council for control of southern Iraq. Two southern provincial governors have been assassinated -- many allege by the Mahdi Army. In northern Iraq, suspected Sunni insurgents killed more than 400 people in a coordinated attack on two villages, the largest terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

''We know a lot of them have left Baghdad,'' the senior Pentagon official said.

Basically what we have now are the militias fleeing Baghdad and continuing their bloodbath in other less secure areas of Iraq. This part still needs to be resolved, of course. But if the encouraging news from Anbar Province can be replicated with the same focus in other parts of Iraq, then the only question we'll be asking is: Why Didn't George Bush execute the surge sooner?"