How can you tell that the news from Iraq about American casualties continues to be good? You barely hear about it.
It would be better to report no deaths, of course. But according to icasualities.org, 17 US soldiers died in Iraq during November. Only seven of those deaths were the result of hostile enemy action, tying an all-time low:
And here's another "surprise," considering how we were told during the presidential campaign that the situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating: Combined November coalition deaths from all causes in Afghanistan and Iraq were the lowest in over 4-1/2 years, and the two-month total is by far the lowest ever:
Back in Iraq, the 2-, 3-, and 6-month totals for US soldier deaths from all causes, as well as from only hostile causes, came in at record lows:
In fact (I can see leftists gritting their teeth now, and I'll spare readers the calculations until there is another safe month), it was only marginally less safe to be a US soldier in Iraq during the past two months than it was, on average, to be a 30 year-old man anywhere stateside (the average age of US soldiers in Iraq is 30).
Press coverage? Let's just say that it's way below anything resembling a level of saturation.
The only thing about Iraq getting less coverage is the idea that the situation represents what less-jaundiced observers like IBDeditorials.com, Zombietime, and the incomparable Michael Yon have all called ..... (wait for it) ..... victory.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
