It needs no defeatists to see that the state of disorder still is way beyond that before the attack, and that distribution of electricity and water still is very bad, and that the rate of major crime still is at so high levels that there is no way to speak of a safe live in Bagdhad and many other places, not to mention he industry that has evolved around hijacking.
Also, Neal is completely ignoring the future prospects of Iraq, and after a phase of keeping a somewhat lower profile, Al Sadr is on the way to grow in influence again, this time more based on civilian-political bases and even more civil popularity, not so much on basis if his militias like before, while Iran now just waits and sits it out until the troops are gone in 2011, and then will have heydays in the Shia dominated areas again, and especially in the south.
Just giving a momentary decreasing bodycount statistics, is simply not good enough to make an argument about how it really is in Iraq, it says not more than that there has been slightly less fighting and bombing - why it is, for reasons of the other side deciding to do less so, or is forced to do so, it says not.
It's still a mess. Prospecst for Iraq becoming a failed state (if it already isn't) are excellent. I see that it becomes an internally torned apart state with a weak and corrupt central government like in Afghanistan, religious orthodox just waiting to go to the streets and push their demands like in Pakistan, and external powers (Iran) trying to get their bite of the cake, like Syria in Lebanon.
On the streets, the SOFA agreement gets a relative majority of approval only, but no absolute. And the general mood about crime rate, unemployment, future perspectives, is as pessimistic as it was reported to be one year ago and two years ago.
So don't smirk, Neal, there is no reason for that.
Most Iraqi people's life is far worse than before the attack.