the drop in casualties in iraq is often touted by conservatives as proof that "the surge worked", but in fact, the drop seems to have had three different causes: (1) the increase in u.s. troops from the surge, (2) the "sunni awakening", and (3) muqtada al-sadr's ceasefire.
when i see american pundits talking about iraq, that seems to be the order of importance assigned to the three. #1 is viewed as the principal reason, with #2 sometimes mentioned, and #3 rarely mentioned. maybe that's because americans want to see themselves as in control, and thus responsible for the drop. #1 is completely within the u.s.' control. #2 only is to the extent that the u.s. is providing aid to the sunni awakening councils. and #3 is almost completely beyond american control. if the u.s. wants to take credit for the drop in violence, it is only natural that the emphasis would fall in that order.
but the ordering might soon be put to a test. there have been increasing signs that the sunni awakening councils are pretty unhappy with the way things are going. last week, the councils threatened to stop cooperating with the americans. if they follow through this would undermine any gains attributed to factor #2. and today, it looks like sadr's ceasefire seems to be over, thus undermining any positive effects of factor #3. meanwhile, u.s. troop levels are projected to remain steady. i.e. there won't be much real change in factor #1.
the three-way confluence of factors that have contributed to the drop in violence in iraq seem to be separating.
