The killings tell a story.(killing American soldiers in Iraq)

NEW YORK, APRIL 4

THE fatality figures in Iraq are perhaps telling a story, which would be that the war focuses progressively on internecine killings. The American death rate for March was 31 fatalities, a gruesome toll, yet the second lowest since the invasion was launched three years ago. Over approximately the same period, nearly 1,500 Iraqi civilians were killed, a significant increase over recent months.

There are contributing explanations. Most obvious, it is easier to kill an Iraqi than an American. To kill an American soldier, it is generally necessary to ambush him in his vehicle, whence the wide use of the roadside bomb. But since the number of these attacks is declining, does this tell us that American soldiers travel about less frequently than they did, say, a year ago, when casualties mostly ranged between 50 and 100 per month? Or does it tell us that insulations against roadside bombs are more sophisticated? Or a bit of each?

One asks then: Is the furious resolve of the insurgents altering in focus? Has the enemy reckoned that the problem in hand is not Americans, who will be gone, roughly speaking, tomorrow, but Iraqis whose ethnic identities will remain the same when the grandchildren of both parties will be eyeing each other? If this is the case, can we assume that the Iraqi rebels are biding their time, in respect of their opposition to the Americans? From a sense that the Americans are transitory and, in fact, are not doing all that much harm?

The insurgents can reasonably assume that there is nothing they can do to drive the Americans away. Three years have gone by, more than 2,300 Americans have been killed, the rate of these killings reduces but is not concomitant with any reduction in U.S. strength. It is brought on by a) the reduction in U.S. exposure, and b) insurgent concentration on non-U.S. targets.

But ask then: Is this reduced exposure a part of the U.S. ...