Terrorism on the decline and the surge is working: UN
posted at 8:56 am on May 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Global terrorism has declined over the last several years despite gloomier analyses by think tanks, the UN stated yesterday, because of the inclusion of data from Iraq. Calling the consensus “misleading”, the elimination of data from Iraq shows a steady decline in attacks and deaths. And when Iraq does get included, the data show that the surge is, well … working:
A study released on Wednesday reports a decline in fatal attacks of terrorism worldwide and says U.S. think-tank data showing sharp increases were distorted due to the inclusion of killings in Iraq.
“Even if the Iraq ‘terrorism’ data are included, there has still been a substantial decline in the global terrorism toll,” said the 2007 Human Security Brief, an annual report funded by the governments of Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain.
For example, global terrorism fatalities declined by 40 percent between July and September 2007, driven by a 55 percent decline in the “terrorism” death toll in Iraq after the so-called surge of new U.S. troops and a cease-fire by the Shi’ite militant Mehdi Army, the brief said.
Can we have Congress take a look at this data? Recall that Hillary Clinton responded to this very assertion from General David Petraeus by claiming that she needed a “willing suspension of disbelief” to accept that the surge had succeeded in a significant decline in violence. Instead of calling a serving American commander a liar, perhaps she and the rest of her Democratic colleagues may have done a better job in checking the data.
The UN criticizes other think tanks for their inclusion of data from Iraq but not from other internal conflicts. Terrorism as defined by those including Iraq should also cover areas like Darfur and other militia-led violence in Africa, but these are usually excluded from their analyses. The spokesperson for the project calls this a”US-centric view of terrorism”, but it’s probably more of a biased analytical viewpoint intended on casting Iraq and the US effort against terrorism in a bad light.
This new data shows that an aggressive posture against terrorism works, and deflates the argument that fighting terrorism breeds more terrorism. Allowing terrorists to operate freely encourages these networks to grow, and only by making such efforts a sure way to a quick death can we keep recruits from flocking to training camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Somalia. It will take a long time before terrorists get that message, but as we see in Iraq, even radicals don’t want to get used as meat in a sausage machine when they have no chance to prevail.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
So the UN got something right?
Strange times indeed but I’m glad for it in this case.
Yakko77 on May 22, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Excellent news to wake up to!
Can’t wait to see this plastered all over every news show and newspaper front page.
// Like that’s actually going to happen.
techno_barbarian on May 22, 2008 at 9:09 AM
LOL, Ed!
Hey, y’all, enjoy your own Memorial weenie roast!
maverick muse on May 22, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Ouch. The UN hath spoke. The Democrats will not be pleased with the words of their Master…
JohnAGJ on May 22, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Wasn’t Bush making the world less safe?
Cheney 08
vinman on May 22, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Lets see if they get their investigation of racism in the US report right. It is scary that the UN might try to sway an American election with lies and innuendos like our mainstream media does.
volsense on May 22, 2008 at 9:11 AM
I don’t see this move by the UN, or any acknowledgment by liberals as something strange at all. They are all betting on a Democrat president for next term, and they all know that USA can not leave Iraq as the liberal public want. So good news gives the excuse: hey we are winning, we can not leave now. Don’t take me wrong, the surge is working, is the recognition of the facts due to political convenience what is in play here.
Ropera on May 22, 2008 at 9:11 AM
How to ruin a liberals day…print the truth.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Hey, whether voting for him or not,
toast the surge and McCain, folks.
With or without the UN,
Thank God for America!
maverick muse on May 22, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Thank you Ed ! HOT AIR you’r great!
Monas on May 22, 2008 at 9:19 AM
I can’t buy into the they-won’t-leave argument. The pundits claim this election is about the economy, global warming, immigration, taxes, yada yada yada, but the driving force behind the Dem popularity is the war. If the Obama or Clinton administration tried to prolong the war their own party members would storm the WH. They are cyclopic. The war MUST end and if anyone stands in the way of that goal it will be political curtains for them. Obama and Clinton will go which ever way the polls tell them to go, and damn the consequences.
Limerick on May 22, 2008 at 9:22 AM
We’ve got 6 more months till the election. Things are getting better in Iraq by the day. Obambi can’t stop sticking his foot in his mouth. Clinton will sway whichever way the polls do, and the polls might be very different in 6 months.
This is going to be hard (impossible) for the hard left to accept. But that will simply hasten their ridicule by the majority in the US that are sane.
Now all we need is for the public to become aware of the huge global warming extortion scam, and the foundation of the dem campaign platform will crumble completely.
I remain optimistic.
techno_barbarian on May 22, 2008 at 9:31 AM
The Democrats in Congress have been essential to the appropriation of every cent that has supported the war in Iraq. Whenever I point this out to my Democratic friends they loose interest in discussing politics. It’s like a magical incantation that can shut up a Bushitler-war-criminal rant.
snaggletoothie on May 22, 2008 at 9:32 AM
I pray you are right. The lessons of ‘75 haunt me.
Limerick on May 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Limerick: I don’t see any Democrat president risking chaos in the Middle East by leaving Iraq. We are there for the long run.
Ropera on May 22, 2008 at 9:48 AM
imagine if they did and Iran or some terrorist strong arm seized all the oil in Iraq, Kuwait, etc. They would be blamed and never trusted again.
but of course their real plan, if they were too actually withdrawal, is to withdrawal to Kuwait(so whats the difference??? obviuos question). and then if things get hot, move right in.
jp on May 22, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Democrats prepare to take credit for the Iraq war succeeding in 3….2….1….
Bishop on May 22, 2008 at 9:50 AM
I understand your concern completely, Lim. But the situation on the ground is changing rapidly right now and in our favor.
There’s been all this good and positive news dammed up behind the walls of the msm. That dam is starting to crack and leak some of that good news out. Pretty soon the cracks will widen and more of the truth will come out.
There is a reckoning coming for the msm and the tools in leadership positions in our government. Both should’ve been completely discredited a long time ago, and it can’t happen fast enough to suit me.
I’ve been waiting for this for a long long time. Faster please!
techno_barbarian on May 22, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Looks like the flypaper theory was right after all.
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2008 at 10:02 AM
That is EXACTLY what is about to happen. Thankfully we’ve got their non-stop defeatism recorded forever on the likes of YouTube.
The contrasts will be stark. Can’t wait.
techno_barbarian on May 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Also makes the Bush adminstration look a lot more competent, since it has successfully implemented the US policy of regime change in Iraq that was advocated and established by Clinton before W took office.
Heads exploding on the left in 5…4…3…
techno_barbarian on May 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Henry Kissinger (from the letter to Fall of Saigon Marine Association)
Limerick on May 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Maybe this is because Obama said he was willing to talk to them.
Sarc/off
Maxx on May 22, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Also makes the Bush adminstration look a lot more competent … - Techno
They could’ve looked competent all along had they held weekly updates with maps and charts and graphs instead of letting the media define success or failure. We still have brainwashed morons in this country who think we’ve lost the war, and that really IS Bush’s fault. He rather be redeemed by History than be proven right in the present.
Tony737 on May 22, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Great news, if you can believe it. I don’t know why the gloomier analyses by think tanks are all of a sudden wrong while this one is right, Ed.
And what the heck does this mean:
Without some base of data this tells me very little. If the numbers were roughly equal, then the non-Iraq decline would be 25%. But if the Iraq total was a huge portion of the sample, which, it would seem to me for the measly three month window, it would be, then the non-Iraq portion of the 40% might actually have been an increase.
We don’t need some global terrorism study, cast as painting a rosy global picture against the gloomy ones by other think tanks, indirectly reporting the surge’s success in Iraq to allow us to conclude the from an independent review of Iraq that we are succeeding and the TREND for attacks and civilian deaths has been spiraling downwards for a long time.
I haven’t read the report so I don’t know what they are selling. This story is what the media organizations are selling and that is:
Notice how they morph the numbers in Iraq into “not terrorism” by calling them killings. Either the fatal attacks of terrorism worldwide include Iraq or it isn’t a “worldwide” surge or decline.
The bottom line is that the stern “no negotiation with terrorists and radicals” backed by an attitude of “unconditional surrender” is reducing the worldwide incidence of terrorism. It is declining faster now that we have a policy in Iraq that matches it. But be sure, our winning in Iraq will not cause them to quit fighting. The terrorists will just move to easier targets.
Dusty on May 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Exactly right, and one of my major frustrations with Bush. In my opinion he had nothing to lose and everything to gain. They already thought (and think) he’s an idiot. Just stand up and speak and show the truth. I have never understood the wisdom in letting the enemedia shape the debate for the Long War.
Well said, Tony737.
techno_barbarian on May 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Good point, and wise to be clear-eyed. I do not expect them to quit. I expect this to be a Long War. But the thing I’m taking away from the facts on the ground is that our counter insurgency tactics and operations work. That those tactics and policies can be duplicated and replicated in other ME populations with the same expectation of success.
The radicals will always be with us and will continually need to be wiped out. This will take a long time, but we are and have been brilliantly adapting and modifying how we combat the threats.
It’s working and that is extremely encouraging news.
techno_barbarian on May 22, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I have a schizoid good Obama/ bad Obama thinking on this.
The good Obama scenario is that after taking office he makes noises about leaving Iraq and then simple continues the Bush strategy to completion and then declares that he fixed the problem and with the help of the MSM take and gets credit for the success while branding Bush a failure. In a similar manner, he discovers that global warming is the biggest scientific hoax in history and with the willing support from Congress removes restrictions from energy product, driving gasoline prices down to below $2 a gallon earning the Democrats praise from the electorate.
The bad Obama scenario is really bad. He withdraws precipitously from Iraq with intent of aiding Iran in its domination of the region and leading to the destruction of Israel and its people. At the same time he implements draconian environmental policies that by design permanently reduce the American standard of living to South Side of Chicago levels.
jerryofva on May 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I believe they stated that violence is decline because the Isrealis stoped causing problems.
Rbastid on May 22, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I predict that fingers will go in the air to see which way the winds blow and Hill and Barry will start altering their Iraq policy.
RobCon on May 22, 2008 at 11:55 AM