Surge No Matter What

That surge architect Fred Kagan thinks the surge's failure to deliver results merely proves the need to take more time with the surge is unsurprising. The end of the article, however, is striking. Kagan, according to Time's Michael Duffy, "fears a significant increase in Iranian support for those fighting U.S. forces. Finally, he noted that the shaky government of Nouri al-Maliki could just implode."

While that might not end the cause of progress in Iraq, Kagan said, it could lead to something worse for those who believed a surge would lead to a stabilization of Iraq: a breakdown in political support for the war effort in Washington.

In other words, according to Kagan even the total collapse of the Iraqi government wouldn't, in his mind, demonstrate that the war had failed. Even under those circumstances he's going to stick to the stab in the back story that the only problem is the collapse of political support for the war here in DC.

Comments

In Kagan's world, the era of personal responsibility is indeed over.

Posted by Rich | June 18, 2007 3:09 PM

Matt,

To be fair here, was Kagan referring to a collapse of the Maliki government in the parliamentary sense (i.e., Maliki loses support in the Iraqi parliament and a new coalition of parties agrees on a different prime minister and cabinet) or the catastrophic sense (i.e., the Iraqi government ceases to exist)?

Which were you referring to?

Posted by Fred | June 18, 2007 3:24 PM

i want to thank kagan for making the issue clear: we're fighting for the "cause" of "progress." who could be opposed to that?

Posted by howard | June 18, 2007 3:31 PM

to call these guys delusional might be an overstatement. They have too much invested in this unfortunate war to ever change course. 'Another friedman unit' will be their likely response for posterity.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | June 18, 2007 3:33 PM

to call these guys delusional might be an overstatement. They have too much invested in this unfortunate war to ever change course. 'Another Friedman unit' will be their likely response for posterity.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | June 18, 2007 3:34 PM

Admittedly, it's hard to totally fuck up a war effort and then just pack up and go home. Or retire in disgrace from your pundit/thinktank job. That would be, like, admitting that your bad decisions led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people. And then where would you be?

Posted by Bill | June 18, 2007 3:41 PM

It's nice to know that Kagan is stuck in the 1950's, if not before.

"http://harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080"

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 18, 2007 3:42 PM

If hitting yourself over the head with a hammer doesn't bring the war to a successful conclusion, it only goes to show that you need to hit yourself harder . . .

Posted by rea | June 18, 2007 3:47 PM

To be fair, the surge has really only been fully implemented in the last few days according to Gates and Petraues.

Bill Roggio wrote about some of this a few days ago
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/06/iraq_report_offensiv.php

You guys may be right about the lack of sufficient progress thus far though.

Posted by Mark | June 18, 2007 3:58 PM

If hitting yourself over the head with a hammer doesn't bring the war to a successful conclusion, it only goes to show that you need to hit yourself harder . . .

Or possibly with a bigger hammer. Or better yet, hit someone else over the head harder and with a bigger hammer. Keep adding hammers and victims until things get better.

Posted by Robert the Red | June 18, 2007 4:26 PM

Mark-
Yeah, isn't this thread hilarious? The surge has obviously failed, even though it technically has only been fully in place since last Friday (i.e. three days ago).

Reality based community, indeed.

Sk

Posted by Sk | June 18, 2007 4:41 PM

In other words, according to Kagan even the total collapse of the Iraqi government wouldn't, in his mind, demonstrate that the war had failed. Even under those circumstances he's going to stick to the stab in the back story that the only problem is the collapse of political support for the war here in DC.

He doesn't exactly say that, he says that the loss of political support in the US is more important than the collapse of the government. Whether that's because of the effects it has here or there is unsaid.

Posted by ptm | June 18, 2007 4:42 PM

To be fair, the surge has really only been fully implemented in the last few days according to Gates and Petraues.

But that little chronological nicety didn't stop a family of Kagans from touting the "success" of The Surge many weeks ago. Nor the Bush administration for that matter.

You guys may be right about the lack of sufficient progress thus far though.

Yup, and here's another one: The Surge won't meet its stated goals going forward. Recall, The Surge is supposed to create the space necessary for Iraq's warring factions to broach their differences, reconcile and end the fighting.

Problem is, the violence that The Surge will address is not the cause of the lack of reconciliation, but a symptom. In other words, the various Iraqi factions would rather fight and try to vanquish their adversaries/secure as much of the power, money and influence as possible through uncompromising force. The Surge is not going to change that calculus, and without such a change, The Surge will amount to very little.

At best, a temporary reduction of some violence in certain parts of Baghdad. That cannot be sustained for very long due to strains on our military.

What we need is a way to convince the warring factions to stop fighting. What we don't have is one of those.

Posted by Eric Martin | June 18, 2007 4:48 PM

the surge has really only been fully implemented in the last few days

so 'the surge' is supposed to succeed in 3 months at the most - sorry, I really wanted the US to get this right, for the Iraqi's sake, but now it seems this was all a half-hearted smokescreen to establish permanent bases

Posted by novakant | June 18, 2007 4:50 PM

The best statement about the Kagans ever:
http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-have-kagans-been-wrong-about-now.html

And now, let us turn, once again, to our Kagan Family Hymnal, page 1 (I may have to work on another one, but not right now)[to the "Addams Family Theme"]:

They're creepy and they're chubby,
Warmongering and schlubby,
With Freepers they are clubby,
The Kagan Family.

Think Tanks they do employ 'em
For Wars that are a screa-um
Please pay them their per diem
The Kagan Family.

Da-da-da-surge
(Neat)
da-da-da-surge
(Sweet)
da-da-da-surge da-da-da-surge da-da-da-surge
(Petite)
So c'mon and get your War On
Cuz' Congress you can crawl on
For Op-Eds you can count on
Use the KAGAN Family.

Posted by Northern Observer | June 18, 2007 4:56 PM

But the implication here of "collapse of Nouri al-Maliki's government" is not the collapse of the Iraqi state. Kagan seems to be u sing "government" in the non-American sense, of "cabinet" - i.e., the collapse o f Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet, and his replacement by a new government, with a new PM.

Not that Kagan's not a moron, but I think you're misreading here.

Posted by John | June 18, 2007 5:27 PM

Petraeus’s statement;” In fact, typically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years." That matches with what other senior officers and theoreticians have been repeating since Iraq became a nightmare. I assume they are referring to some successful examples. What exactly are they? What counterinsurgency operation in the last sixty years resulted in a stable, peaceful, democratic nation?

To a general losing is when the enemy destroys or captures enough of your forces and material that it prevents pursuing your strategic objectives. If you haven’t reached that point and that point isn’t inevitable based on tactical conditions you aren’t losing. In today’s world that means the US can’t possibly lose a war to any opponent with the possible exception of China. The inability to stop the bloodshed and protect the innocent isn’t losing; it’s a tactical challenge

Posted by Roger Tompkins | June 18, 2007 6:38 PM

'to call these guys delusional might be an overstatement.'

They're not delusional. If they believed the crap they were saying then they'd be delusional but they don't. They know its bullshit but they also know its more important for their cause for 'us' to believe it. Just ask Baghdad Bob, George Orwell, Leo Strauss or Herr Goebbels.

Posted by jg | June 18, 2007 6:39 PM

'What counterinsurgency operation in the last sixty years resulted in a stable, peaceful, democratic nation?'

Our civil rights movement in the 60's?

Oh wait that just created a different insurgency didn't it?

Posted by jg | June 18, 2007 6:42 PM

"The surge has obviously failed, even though it technically has only been fully in place since last Friday (i.e. three days ago)."

General Lute over a week ago said that the surge has made at best halting progress. So which is it?

Posted by Reality Man | June 18, 2007 7:54 PM

No one in their right mind believes this "the surge hasn't started yet" game. Every week it's like "oh actually we won't have all the troops quite in place for another 2 weeks." It's bleeding obvious at this point that they're going to keep kicking the can down the road forever if they can get away with it.

Posted by Steve | June 19, 2007 12:03 AM

Our civil rights movement in the 60's?
Oh wait that just created a different insurgency didn't it?
Posted by jg

Maybe you were being sarcastic, but I've seen that comparison (Iraq to the civil rights movement) being made seriously before, believe it or not. I still think it's nuts. Ending segregation and getting human rights taken seriously within one country, with interconnected cultures and at least some peaceful efforts on all sides, was obviously not easy. But somehow, I don't think it's the same as triggering an outright civil war between at least three long-divided factions on the other side of the world...

Posted by Cyrus | June 19, 2007 9:41 AM