Not working, obviously: "Two car bombs exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 56 people and injuring scores in the deadliest attack since U.S. and Iraqi forces began a major security push around the capital last week." Note that this, like the vast majority of bombing attacks, came in a Shiite neighborhood (as did a less deadly attack in Sadr City) which raises the question of why driving Muqtada al-Sadr temporarily out of the country and screaming about Iranian support of Shiite militias is supposed to help stabilize Iraq.
« Pick a Faith; Any Faith? | Main | Hire and Fire »
Surge!
18 Feb 2007 02:50 pm
Comments (34)
Moral insanity is disconcerting, because other than identifying the insanity and wishing there were a drug that might make for sanity what response can there be?
Here then is moral insanity:
"Assuming he was driven out by fear of Americans killing him (and boy what a great idea that would be)..."
I obviously think it would be a bad idea to kill him, though. Is there a drug one can take to cure self-righteous ire?
You don't understand at all. By temporarily suppressing the Shiite militias, we're leaving Shiite neighborhoods open to these horrific attacks by Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda. This bloodbath will lead to a backlash that will solve our problems in Iraq and let us move on to Iran.
Well, we've always been hostile to Sadr. And (while I'm skeptical of this), the CW seems to be that his organization has been the main driving force behind the Shia death squads that have been operating since the Golden Mosque bombing last year.
Attacking him is supposed to limit death squad activity and consolidate governmental authority in the hands of the less objectionable SCIRI. We support them, they help us suppress Sadr, and now we've got a government that still has reasonable majority support and legitimacy among the Shia, but which isn't closely tied to anti-Sunni murder campaigns.
Then, once you have that, the hope would be to cooperate with the SCIRI-led government in combatting the Sunni insurgency. It makes as much sense as any other course of action, I'd say. The missing piece in this explanation is why we're so busy whipping up stories about Iranian involvement. That makes less sense to me. I suppose best case is we're trying to get them to limit their involvement, and hence limit their influence over SCIRI, the party we're implicitly backing by taking on Sadr. Worrst case is the administration really thinks a war with Iran might be a good idea.
Guy ; then I did not understand and I am completely sorry. Irony can be tricky to spot on the Internet and I was shocked by your comment. I am so sorry.
Iraq is not our country and we have no right to be there. We should withdraw and offer diplomatic and economic assistance, and arrange for United Nations peace-keepers if requested. I am sorry, again, Guy. To call for the harm of an Iraqi religious leader would be awful, and I understand there have been such calls.
It's as silly to say that the surge is "not working" based on one incident as it is to say that the surge is a "success" based on a couple of days.
It's clear to me that anyone who comments on whether the surge is working during the first month or so (at least) - both on the left and the right - cares more about scoring political points than about whether the surge is actually working. It is unknowable whether the surge is working yet, given that it hasn't even been fully implemented yet.
I can see Matt in December 1944:
"D-Day clearly hasn't worked, what with the Wehrmacht pushing Allied forces back all along the Western Front"
Or Matt in 1864:
"General Grant is clearly bogged down in front of Petersberg, allowing Confederate cavalry to nearly march on Washington"
Here's a tip, Matt - enemy action does not imply a failure of Allied action. If it did, then there wouldn't ever be a point in making a follow on move in chess after losing a piece.
This gets at an interesting point, which it would be interesting to see Matt or someone develop:
The usual presumption is that US presence is preventing an all-out civil war, with the alternative position that no, the US presence is not preventing the civil war. But perhpas we should go a step fartehr and consider that the US might actually be prolonging the civil war, by preventing anyone from winning it, even locally.
Take the Mahdi Army. If their goal is to retain some kind of integrity as a military force, sufficient to kill Sunni civilians, obviously the US can't stop them -- the fighters can meld into the general population of Sadr City or wherever. But if the Mahdi Army is going to functon like a government in the areas it controls, provide security, enforce the law (not the laws we might prefer, but any law is better than none), and so on, they have to be much more visible and open -- which makes them vulnerable to the US. By insisting that the only legitimate authority in Iraq is a body that is manifestly incapable of governing the coutnry, the US is preventing any authority which could actually govern from establishing itself. The treatment of Sadr is just exhibit A.
Somehat related- on TomsDispatch.com there are two chapters of a new bio on Rumsfeld by Roger Morris that are just murderously fine. He has Nixon sizing him up at first blush as "a man without idealism." Just a despicably shallow and loathesome figure from his rise to fall. Hell is too good for him.
I don't know, if the Wehrmacht was pushing Allied Forces back along the Western Front in December 1948 I can imagine some people would have been calling for a rethinking of the "invading Normandy" plans.
Occupation of Iraq was morally wrong from the day it began, and is morally wrong now, and all the surging in all the world will make no difference to the disaster the occupation has been. I understand better though, the morally insane must have their insane analogies. World War II, American Civil War ... Go on with the insanity, for you have obviously been going on for 4 years with insane war-mongering.
For your chess analogy to work James then the most recent bombing needs to be seen as a part of the American surge strategary and I can't think that you believe that.
Oherwise it is a failure and does not bode well for the surge.
Why?
Recall that the idea is to clear an area, hold against re-infiltration by "insurgents", then move on.
The military (American) had cleared the area and moved on. I suspect but do not know for a fact that perhaps the failure of the Iraqi troops to appear as promised and hold is part of the problem.
Speaking of which Bush set some benchmarks and one was that three divisions of Iraqi troops would be in place by this 15th past. Didn't happen.
So by Bush's own standards there is another bit of failure.
There is a difference between saying "not working" and declaring an all out failure. Matt is too smart for the latter bur I'm not, scabrous reality based traitor that I am.
I'm not comparing Iraq to those earlier wars. What I'm comparing is how Matt - and people of like mind, like Clement Vallandigham - react to enemy actions in wartime.
At a certain point enemy actions indicate the war is lost because the war is, in fact, lost, you know.
tiptap - by that reasoning, the re-conquest of the Phillipines in 1945 failed, because there were Japanese holdouts on the islands up until the early 1970's. You confuse the enemy's ability to make splashy - but militarily meaningless attacks - with useful action on their part.
Blowing car bombs up in Baghdad has no military impact on the US. What it does impact is the information war, and it encourages people like you, and Matt, to declare that "all is lost". That in turn encourages more of those sorts of attacks, as the enemy believes (not without reason) that such attacks will deliver a political victory.
So let me ask you this - say we do what you and Matt seem to want, and pull out quickly. What do you expect to happen in Iraq, and in the region? Which power or powers do you expect to fill the vacuum created by a coalition withdrawal? If a bloodbath ensues (and no, what we have now is not a bloodbath. Cambodia after the pullout - that was a bloodbath), will you accept the idea that pulling out had negative consequences? Or will you simply persist with the brain dead "It's all Bush's fault" mantra? As much as you might like to, we can't rewind to 2003. Whether intervening in Iraq was a good idea or an awful idea doesn't matter. We are there now, and we have to deal with the reality on the ground now.
Area bombing in World War II had no "military impact" whatever on Germany; surely it was useless!
Why do people who see themselves as tough-minded realists not understand that there is no difference between the "military" sphere and the "information" sphere? Actual military thinkers have been stressing this for centuries. If blowing up car bombs in Baghdad makes Iraqis want American soldiers out, costs America political support and makes Americans want their soldiers, it is succeeding in doing what it's supposed to do. That it doesn't blow up a tank or whatever is literally immaterial.
James Robertson, leave the 15th century plz kthx
Oh James are you being silly or deliberately obtuse?
I pointed out that the surge strategary is designed to preclude what just happened and so this bombing must be seen as a failure. Do you think the bombing is a sign of surge success? Or is it meaningless?
Of course no rational person is going to say that means the overall surge is a failure.
But I will.
Because I know that nothing we can do, are doing, is going to end the civil war in Iraq.
Has it not worsened consistently since the occupation began? Well yes!
Will it be worse in the future? Sadly, yes.
And it will be worse whether we are there or not!
America cannot determine the fate of the Iraqi people. We can only postpone their final reckoning with the blood of Americans.
As for Al Quaeda and Iran we are doing their handiwork. It is like Osama is in the WH Situation Room. Puhl de schtrings, puhl de schtrings!
You and I agree that we must deal with the reality on the ground. For that to happen you and the neocons must remove your rosy glasses and admit to the debacle you have birthed.
Your Golden City on the Tigris has become a charnel house. And your answer is to spill more blood.
Ending a bloody occupation in which we have continually been bombing in urban areas for years is right, what happenes in the future is up to the Iraqis and we can offer peaceful assistance. But, to occupy a country violently with the continual excuse of there being future violence is a false argument. We can all hope for a peaceful future for Iraq, but no one can know what the future will bring other than that we will have done what was right and withdrawn. Doing wrong on an imagined future pretext is doing wrong.
The deaths of 650,000 Iraqis is beyond my comprehension, so worry about the present and do what is right and withdraw.
Re James Robertson on Grant at Richmond
Mr. Robertsons' statements about Grant at Richmond in 1864 shows that his knowledge of military history is somewhat deficient. The fact is that, at the time, Grants' inability to take Richmond was seen as a failure, especially considering the immense casulties the Army of the Potomac had suffered. In fact, the reelection of Lincoln was in great danger. It was Shermans' capture of Atlanta that saved the day.
James, maybe you're new here and don't understand matthew's style of snark: we have been hearing for a few days already about how well the surge is "working." save your ire for those who have been desperately trying to peddle that line.
meanwhile, do we have to go through this crap about consequences yet again? matthew, like many of us, has pointed out time and again that an american withdrawal could well lead to worse conditions than exist now: we have no way of foretelling. that there could be odious consequences from an american withdrawal is neither here nor there: the relevant questions are whether the american presence is in any preventing rather than precipitating the conditions we have, and whether or not american national security interests are being served by the presence of american troops.
that you seem to think that the genocide in cambodia in the 1970s resulted from the american withdrawal from vietnam suggests you are not well-informed, confirmed by your other sloppy analogies. i'd suggest silence until you complete a course of remedial reading.
Doug, what you outlined would make sense IF SCIRI was any less guilty in the death squad arena than al-Sadr. They are not less guilty.
SLC - In 1864, Grant was outside Petersberg, not Richmond, and yes, I know it was seen as a failure (the siege lasted nearly a year). My point was to ask this: where would we be now had we listened to the 1864 version of Matt? Not in a good place, I'd warrant.
As to the person who said the surge is supposed to prevent car bombings? Yeah, and increased police patrols are supposed to decrease crime. Shall we pull out of the quagmires that are DC, Detroit, and Baltimore, since the murder rates are still absurdly high, or should we keep trying?
My point was to ask this: where would we be now had we listened to the 1864 version of Matt? Not in a good place, I'd warrant.
Hopefully it would be the CSA dying in Iraq and we could just wish them the worst.
Oh, come on.
Matt, you're a smart guy.
The surge is "obviously" not working because a car bomb explodes? What penetrating analysis.
Oh, and the Shia are not the main culprits in Iraq because the bomb exploded in a Shiite neighborhood? As long as you assume that 1. a bomb exploding by location A was necessarily planted by the people occupying location A and that 2. if someone else than the Shia do something bad then it means the Shia aren't doing much of anything bad, i.e. if the Shia don't do everything bad, then they're not the main culprits. Hmm.
I think you're a very smart guy, and I read your blog with enthusiasm, but sometimes you let your biases get the best of you.
OK, bombings and sectarian killings are continuing in areas we have "surged". But the escalation supporters say thart this is not evidence that the surge is not working. Okey dokey, for the sake of discussion.
Now you must tell us what benchmark you will set to show the surge is working.
Of course you also discount the fact that benchmarks set by Bush and the command have not been met.
So tell us your own benchmarks.
You will not do it. Or if you do it will only be some nebulous airy fairy down the road somewhere bullshit. The Golden City on the Tigris. And meantime we just need to keep at it.
Well get thee into uniform and risk your life. That is an easy way for you to contribute to this battle that see as so critical to America and the world.
Abandon the Keyboard Battalion and join the real army.
I await your missive from Iraq telling us how great it all is.
I love how the Bush defenders always reach for WWII and the Civil War for their analogies. When, in fact, the closest military/political analogies in US history will come from the Vietnam War. But somehow they just can't go there.
Luc-
I agree with you. That's what I meant to indicate with the parenthetical in the first paragraph. It's also true that, even if SCIRI is less bad than Sadr on the death squad front, they've certainly been implicated in Internal Ministry torture. They're also, if anything, more closely tied to Iran than Sadr.
Having said that, they're still probably less objectionable than Sadr. SCIRI is at least an organized political party with some structure, while Sadr is more of a violent street thug populist.
Given the range of bad choices available, backing SCIRI at this point is probably the least bad one. The other possibility would be to try and ally ourselves with some faction of the Sunni resistance, and try to put the genie back in the bottle by restoring a Sunni dictatorship. But the Sunni resistance is very fragmented, so I'm not sure there's anyone to negotiate with there. Even if such a faction did exist, given that we haven't been able to suppress the Sunni insurgency, there's no chance we could suppress a Shia one.
Of course, the gross failure of the invasion and the overall strategic incoherence of our entire Middle East policy is fairly amply demonstrated by the fact that our best course of action now is supporting the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Sorry, Matt you're wrong as evidence I appeal to authority:
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the bombings underscore the "increasing desperation felt by criminals" and would only serve to "galvanize Iraqi forces and their coalition partners."
(Emphasis Added)
See, the worse the better.
You can cut the irony with a knife. James Robertson, I can only describe your affiliation of the massacres in Cambodia to US withdrawal from Vietnam as a sick joke. The ten-year war in Vietnam, and the massive escalation of the conflict, not to mention Nixon's Cambodian bombing campaigns, created the Khmer Rouge. Since we never had ground troops in Cambodia to begin with, you look like an a** when you claim that withdrawing troops from a completely separate country caused the Khmer Rouge. Tell, me, when we "withdrew" from the occupation of the Phillipines, did we create Hitler?
I'm not looking at the same data as the U.S government, but SCIRI has been involved in plenty of unexplained killings. Read about it in Juan Cole, or do a Nexis search. We should be supporting, I guess, whoever looks least likely to massacre civilians indiscriminately, but I'm skeptical that SCIRI qualifies. Which is why, again, we shouldn't be supporting anyone. We should be negotiating with, and pressuring everyone to make nice. There's a difference.
Re James Robertson
1. Grant invested both Petersburg and Richmond by the end of the 1864 campaign. The trench lines were over 30 miles long.
2. As described by General Fuller, Grants' strategy was to eventually fix Lee in place and operate on his rear with Shermans' Army. It was the success of Sherman in capturing Atlanta, marching across Georgia and eventually marching north through the Carolinas that caused thousands of desertions from Lees' army and deprived it of sustenance from those Southern states, weakening it sufficiently so that the Grant could successfully attack in 1865.
By the way, is Mr. Robertson by any chance the celebrated Civil War historian who is a professor at VPU and holds an endowed chair therein?
Now you must tell us what benchmark you will set to show the surge is working. Of course you also discount the fact that benchmarks set by Bush and the command have not been met. So tell us your own benchmarks.
How about the overall frequency of attacks in Baghdad? Or is the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods continuing unabated or is any progress being made to combat it? Is this kind of occurrence happening in any significant numbers?
It strikes me that it will prove to be much more feasible to take on and evict resident neighborhood thugs than to prevent every suicide car-bombing, so deciding the surge has clearly failed because of a suicide bombing that happens after the surge has started seems a little ridiculous.
Comments closed March 04, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Have I missed anyone pointing out the absurdity of the "driving al Sadr out of the country" triumph as it relates to the surge?
Assuming he was driven out by fear of Americans killing him (and boy what a great idea that would be), how does this relate to a rise in troop strength? Surely the issues are knowing where he is and being willing to kill him. I don't understand how having more troops would make us more able to drop a bomb on his house. Are we really so short-staffed we don't have dudes to press the button that makes the bomb drop?
Posted by guy | February 18, 2007 3:17 PM