What does it mean...

... that March 2006 was among the least deadly months for US and Coalition troops in Iraq since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

While April is not necesarily off to a great start (the 8 listed at icasualties includes 5 dead from a truck roll-over in Anbar), I'm left to wonder why the relatively low number of casualties in March (33) - by far the lowest since March 2005 (39) and not a great deal more than the all time low of 23 from way-back in February 2004 - isn't much of a news story.

I mean, don't you think it would be a major news story were March 2006 one of the deadliest of recent months?

So why is this not news?

Well, we all know the answers. Right?

...

So, casualties are down - substantially - in March and we get almost nothing from the MSM. A couple of folks are on the case, noting that March 2006 is well in-line with the overall trend (multiple h/t to Austin Bay), and could, among other things, point to the yet another corner being rounded.

And still, not a peep from the MSM. Strange.

Strange also that our casualties would be going down at a time when Iraq, if certain people are to be believed, is presently in a state of Civil War.

Could it be some people have been wrong about OIF all along?

Pity that reality often doesn't exactly jive with the All Is Lost™, Redeploy™, and Quagmire™ rhetoric we get from the Tough and Strong party, does it.