So, almost three weeks after the Iraqi elections, have things gotten more dangerous, or less? Has the insurgency continued unabated? In the words of John Kerry, should we not "over-hype" the positive effect that the elections may have had on the stability of the situation there? That's definitely the line the press is feeding us. These headlines were each written on different days since the election.

Rumsfeld Visits Iraq, Violence Simmers
Iraq Violence grows
New Wave of Iraq Violence
Iraq Violence Increases After Lull
Iraq Violence overshadows vote results

First of all, I love how the press uses the term "violence" as if there aren't actual human beings behind the violence. "Violence" is treated like the weather - it comes and goes without much anyone can do about it. It's as if a neo-Nazi burns down a synagogue and the headline were to read, "Fire destroys house of worship". Well, we can't put "Fire" in jail and lock him up and throw away the key! What can we do?!?

Anyhow, I know there's still the occasional car bomb against Iraq civilians and police, but the effect on the coalition casualty rate has been profoundly positive. For the first half of February, the average daily casualty rate is 1.76 which is comparable to the lowest rates since the capture of Saddam Hussein. (In Janauary leading up to the elections, the rate was 2 1/2 times that). In fact, this rate significantly overstates the casualties resulting from hositle fire, which represent fully half of that number. In other words, since the election, only about one soldier is dying per day as a result of hostile action.

Try and find an article in the news that talks about the great reduction in attacks against colaition forces. I dare you.