The hysteria in some quarters over the present state of affairs in Iraq actually bears very little relation to facts on the ground. For example, talk of “escalating violence” is patent nonsense. In truth, the violence in Iraq is in control, reconstruction is proceeding, and an orderly transition to democratic government is taking place. It is only a media-imposed blindness that prevents most of us from seeing this elementary fact.

During April, when US forces had to contend with both an uprising the “Mahdi Army” of rogue mullah Moqtada al-Sadr and an upsurge of violence by residual Ba’athist forces and al-Qaeda terrorists in the so-called “Sunni Triangle”, one hundred and thirty-nine American soldiers were killed. A high number, to be sure, but hardly one so high as to be considered astounding or, in military terms, unacceptable.

By way of comparison, US dead during the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War exceeded eleven hundred in less than a month. Moreover, US losses remained high thereafter. In Iraq, however, the death toll for May to date is less than half of that of April at sixty-five. Of greater note is the fact that forty-three of those sixty-five casualties occurred during the first half of the month. In other words, in April, American forces lost an average of 4.6 soldiers per day. In the first half of May they lost an average of 2.9. In the second half of May to date they have lost an average of 1.8.

Equally notable is the fact that eight-seven of the one hundred and thirty-nine US losses in April occurred during the first fifteen days of that month (which coincided with the opening of the heaviest attacks on US forces. So, if we break down US losses by the half month, the following picture emerges:

First Half of April: 5.8 Soldiers Lost Per Day
Second Half of April: 3.7 Soldiers Lost Per Day
First Half of May: 2.9 Soldiers Lost Per Day
Second Half of May (To Date): 1.8 Soldiers Lost Per Day

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Certainly, any pattern which does exist is not one of “escalating violence” despite the use of that phrase by the Associated Press on May 15th and the Washington Post on May 16th. It’s obvious that, after an initial burst of violence, the situation was largely taken in hand. Through a carefully thought-out and well-executed strategy, Sadr’s militia has been destroyed and the remnants forced to flee the various “holy cities” they sought to control. While the Marines were prevented from fully pacifying Fallujah, the terrorists there were made to pay a terrible price for their crimes. The city has now been turned over to Iraqi security forces and, after the June 30th transfer of sovereignty, either their growing forces will take control of the city in the sort of violent, street-by-street battle which US forces did not engage in for fear of losses and negative publicity or they will leave the backwards, broken, habitually rebellious and traditionally lawless city to its own devices, just as previous Iraqi governments have done. So far as I’m concerned the job of the Marines in Fallujah was finished when they killed more than a hundred terrorists for each of the American contractors murdered by thugs in the city.

The thing that really amazed me about the President’s speech the other night is just how practical what he outlined is and how likely it is to work. The events of the previous year have showed us that an overwhelming majority, whether supportive of the occupation or not, hate the thugs and terrorists who oppressed them when Saddam Hussein was in charge and seek to oppress them now. The strategy set out is lucid, practical, and easily put into practice.

The June 30th handover of sovereignty, while sure to be accompanied by violence, is an important symbolic step. The new Iraqi Government, the first Iraqi Government ever to be accountable to the people of Iraq, will continue the arduous process of bringing their country into the modern world. In this they, and whoever follows them, will be guaranteed by American arms.

Already Iraqis have elected hundreds of local governments, showing a preference for secular and democratic parties over Islamist ones. Given the chance to choose nationally, Iraq will choose a fairly moderate and representative government which will, with American support, be capable of leading the nation onwards.

Then, as time passes, US forces will gradually withdraw- either back to the Continental United States or to massive American bases already under construction. In a few years, Iraq will be a powerful and honoured nation once more.

Reconstruction of Iraq, which is already bringing the people of that country one of the highest living standards in the region, will continue. I have little doubt that, if America’s commitment remains true, Iraq will enjoy a Western-level of prosperity just as other American allies in other parts of the world have. Not next year, and probably not in five years, but perhaps in a decade or so, certainly long before any other nation in the Arab world comes even close.

Moreover, a prosperous and growing Iraq will give rise to increased resentment by the people of other nations in the region, all directed against their oppressive governments. A free and prosperous Iraq will serve as a beacon to the rest of the region in a way that Israel never could, showing the people of nations like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran that they too may enjoy both the blessings and treasures of freedom along with the best traditions of their faith. This is at the heart of the long-term strategy of regional transformation which was at the core of the reasons for this war. Just as the prosperity of free Western Europeans undermined the Soviet Bloc, so will a free and rich Iraq convert the people who might otherwise fall under the sway of Islamist Mullahs and terrorist Sheiks.

Nor is all of this mere rhetoric. Consider a few statistics. In April Iraq managed to export 1.8 million barrels of oil a day, up from just 200,000 last June. 2500 Iraqi schools have been refurbished and 32,000 new secondary school teachers trained. Five million children have been immunized for basic diseases in the year since the war. The new Iraqi currency has stabilized versus the US dollar. These are just a few of the accomplishments of reconstruction to date- and all of this in a dangerous security environment.

So, where is the “crisis”? Is this the “quagmire”? Are we still “looking into the abyss”? Or have all of the warnings of imminent disaster been nothing more than overblown rhetoric, the twisted rantings of individuals who hate President Bush so much that they would gladly place the Iraqi people into the hands of terrorists and mass-murderers to ensure his defeat?

Our enemies in Iraq are being crushed and the Iraqi people are moving forward. The only thing which can stop the completion of our victory in Iraq is a failure of nerve here at home. Our forces in the field have done their job, and they’ve done it well. They can only be defeated by the anti-American left, that sad and sick group which sees anything achieved by the United States as inherently evil and amoral.

I said it in December and I say it still today: we are winning in Iraq and we shall go on winning so long as we remain stalwart.