A Surge in Iraq Security

War opponents are intent on highlighting 2007 as the deadliest year in Iraq since the invasion (see here, here, here, and, here, for example). While this is true in total, the bulk of deaths came early in the year, with the last three months showing a dramatic drop in casualties.

The Los Angeles Times has more:

December emerged as possibly the safest month for U.S. forces in Iraq since the 2003 invasion and the least deadly for Iraqi civilians in the last 12 months, but overall 2007 was the bloodiest year of the war, according to figures released Monday.

The Iraqi Ministry of Health said 481 civilians died nationwide last month in war-related violence such as bombings, mortar attacks and sectarian slayings. It said 16,232 civilians died last year. The 2006 death toll was 12,320.

"I remember 2007 was the explosions year," said Abd Hadi Hussein, a Shiite Muslim resident of Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. He recalled carrying a woman who had been injured in a bombing to a hospital in August. "She was completely burned, and people could not recognize whether she was a man or a woman. She kept asking about her little girl. But then the woman died. This memory I can't remove from my mind.

"But this year, 2008, I am very optimistic," he said, citing the recent celebrations for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha and the crowded Christmas Masses held in Baghdad.

On the military front, 21 U.S. personnel died in Iraq during December, according to Department of Defense figures released by the independent website icasualties.org, making the average daily death tally last month the lowest since the start of the war. It was possible the military could report additional deaths for the month in coming days, but the casualty number was striking when compared with the December 2006 total of 112.

The key factor in declining casualies has been the U.S. military buildup throughout 2007.

After May, both civilian and military deaths declined, with the last three months seeing the lowest level of military deaths compared to any other 3 month stretch since March 2003 (by mid-2007, non-combat troop deaths were the lowest in three years).

The question going forward, as discussed in the Times piece, and other sources, is how long can the improvements be sustained?

Here's Michael O'Hanlon's assessment:

Iraq’s security environment is considerably improved, with security at its best levels since early 2004. This is largely thanks to the surge-based strategy of Gen. David Petraeus and the heroic efforts — and sacrifice — of so many American and Iraqi troops and police officers (more Americans have died in Iraq in 2007 than in any previous year, though death rates have dropped greatly in the last few months). But Iraq’s political environment and its economy are only marginally better than a year ago. High oil prices have helped the latter, but violence and rampant corruption remain huge problems.

The number of trained Iraqi security forces steadily rises. It had better, since American troop levels are scheduled to drop to pre-surge levels by summer, although the new strategy, with its emphasis on protecting the civilian population, is to continue. Given Iraq’s fragile sectarian relations and weak institutions, the likelihood is that further American troop reductions will have to be slow and careful if the progress is to continue.

General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, takes a cautiously optimistic view, arguing that a continuing U.S presence in the country over the long-term is the best guarantee of security.