Surge's End

What Kevin said about press coverage of Bush's plans "to order troop cuts only because of the success achieved on the ground in Iraq." Obviously, this is BS. We're returning to pre-surge troop levels next year because the surge was a surge -- something temporary -- because the military lacks the logistical capacity to further prolong it.

But if the policy is simply to continue the surge for as long as possible in hopes of a stroke of good luck on the political end, and then to end the surge when the operational strain requires it whether or not that luck has actually emerged, then what's the point of even having this whole argument about "progress"? Bush's position is actually one of studied indifference to conditions on the ground and the logic of the policy, namely that more US troops equals more security and security is the precondition for reconciliation, is that the surge should continue if there's progress (because it's working) or if there's no progress (because more security is needed). Either way, the surge is both a self-sustaining and self-limited policy intervention.

Comments

Matt,

Try flipping this around in your head: Are there any conditions on the ground that would have convinced Dem leaders to stop agitating to cut the surge short? Of course not: failures mean it's not working, so end it; and successes mean we don't need it anymore, end it.

The difference is that Bush wants to apply the maximum resources to try to stabilize Iraq because he wants the situation in Iraq to improve. On the other hand, Dems would rather it didn't, because the worse things are in Iraq, the better things are for them politically. Why else would they oppose continuing the surge as long as possible? It's not as if the choice is between continuing the surge and having no Americans in harm's way in Iraq -- the Dems have already conceded that we will keep troops in Iraq for the rest of Bush's presidency and beyond. What other motivation could they have for wanting 130k troops and worse prospects for improvement in Iraq between now and March versus 160k troops and better prospects over the same time frame?

Posted by Fred | September 12, 2007 2:31 AM

Bush wanted troops in Iraq because he expects to attack Iran. It's that simple.

As a side benefit, he expected to bamboozle everybody with this dog and pony show until 2009, by which time he will have his war in Iran, and the next (probably Democratic) President will be hamstrung by that war. And he probably also expected that a war in Iran might boost US jingoism so that a Republican might STILL be President after next year's elections.

But that was never the main goal. The main goal was to increase the number of troops in Iraq in preparation for Iran, without being obvious about it. And to keep US troops there so they would be ready when the Iran war starts.

Never mind that what that WILL do is get the troops in Iraq killed as Iraq and Iran align to destroy the US army in Iraq. Neither Bush nor the Pentagon understand just how vulnerable the US military is in Iraq. To drive the point home, one of the senior Iranian military commanders pointed out today that Iran has "pinpointed US weaknesses" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and suggested that the 200,000 US troops in those countries would be effectively dealt with if the US attacks Iran.

The main point of Petraeus's testimony was in declaring that Iran was funding a "Hizballah-like" force in Iraq to attack the Iraqi government and eventually take over Iraq.

This is bullshit, but everybody ignored it which means it worked.

Lieberman followed up by proclaiming that Iran was responsible for the deaths of "hundreds of US soldiers" and asked Petraeus if that meant we should invade Iran.

The obvious intent of all this is to lay the groundwork for Bush's next war.

Keep your eyes on the ball. The whole Iraq business is no longer relevant. Iran is the next game, and if you keep fixating on Iraq, you'll miss the signs.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 12, 2007 2:48 AM

I know it's not exactly wise to indulge this ominous speculation about iran. But why, exactly, would we disperse our invasion force across the urban areas of a hostile territory heavily influenced by iran?

Seems like ships off the southern coast or troops massing on the turkmen border would make more sense. Or, you know, it just might be that the government is already overwhelmed and doesn't have any designs to invade iran.

Posted by southpaw | September 12, 2007 4:43 AM

"Try flipping this around in your head: Are there any conditions on the ground that would have convinced Dem leaders to stop agitating to cut the surge short? Of course not: failures mean it's not working, so end it; and successes mean we don't need it anymore, end it."

Political reconciliation, meaning the very thing that the surge was supposed to promote. In addition, the surge could only last until April anyway before our ground forces broke.

"The difference is that Bush wants to apply the maximum resources to try to stabilize Iraq because he wants the situation in Iraq to improve."

Then he could repeal his tax cuts to pay for the war and institute a draft to get the key resource - boots on the ground - into Iraq. He refuses to do either one.

"On the other hand, Dems would rather it didn't, because the worse things are in Iraq, the better things are for them politically."

You're simply projecting the Republican 51%-play-to-the-base mindset that has been so catastrophic in this war onto the Democrats. Republican leadership post-Eisenhower has been about making sure that Americans are divided against each other. According to Fukuyama, the Weekly Standard crew (who have strong contacts with Cheney and PNAC) in the 1990's hyped the China threat because having a foreign threat would help the Republicans at the polls.

"Why else would they oppose continuing the surge as long as possible?"

See April, above. This isn't a Star Wars prequel where we have a clone army at our disposal. If we did, a lot of Samantha Power-type liberals would be urging us to invade Darfur.

"It's not as if the choice is between continuing the surge and having no Americans in harm's way in Iraq -- the Dems have already conceded that we will keep troops in Iraq for the rest of Bush's presidency and beyond. What other motivation could they have for wanting 130k troops and worse prospects for improvement in Iraq between now and March versus 160k troops and better prospects over the same time frame?"

Wow, your emotional issues come full circle here. Are you arguing in bad faith or do you really think you have established a chain of causality? Dem voters would like to have 0 troops (at least in the Arab areas), but concede we'll still be in Iraq until 2009 due to the Congressional Democrats spinelessness and Bush's inability to put the American national interest above his ego. He's obsessed with his place in history like some vulgar Marxist at a low-level Czech college history department.

Posted by Fred | September 12, 2007 2:31 AM

Posted by Reality Man | September 12, 2007 4:57 AM

Well, I see from comments that the toxins of our Iraq dilemma are working into the body politic apace.... To Fred, we're all fifth columnists. Pathetic. Why waste your time here, Fred? And Mr. Hack rambles about a vaguely plausible paranoid scenario with the certain zeal of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse, Now.

See what this war is doing to us, people?

Anyway--Matt, again, since there is a six-month window until operational imperatives force an un-surge, the Dems aren't going to give Fred the pleasure of putting a death embrace on the stab-in-the-back theory by trying to force the issue a couple of months earlier. Ain't gonna happen.

But Fred, why aren't your assholes cranking up a restart-the-draft movement, since that's the only thing that will save your maximalist Long War? And Mr. Hack, why aren't your Mr. Evils cranking up a restart-the-draft movement, since that's the only way to make their scenario play out grandly?

I fear that there is less here than meets the eye. We're stumbling around in a quagmire, and no one has a magic potion to move us anywhere meaningfully different any time soon.

Posted by elle loco | September 12, 2007 9:31 AM

Try flipping this around in your head: Are there any conditions on the ground that would have convinced Dem leaders to stop agitating to cut the surge short?

Sure, absolutely. If there was evidence of a political reconciliation, Democrats would have no choice but to let that play out. In reality, there's zero evidence of a political conciliation, and Republicans don't think that counsels for even the mildest hesitation in staying the course.

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2007 1:24 PM

"Try flipping this around in your head: Are there any conditions on the ground that would have convinced Dem leaders to stop agitating to cut the surge short?"

Cooperation across sectarian lines by Iraqi groups who stated that increased security allowed them room to negotiate in good faith with their rivals would do it. It would not need to be an end-state "success". It would only need to be progress. Instead, what little cooperation existed is vanishing. Instead of a coalescing around state institutions, we are actually empowering non-state military actors.

Fred, your accusation that Democrats just want to score political points is disgusting. There are other reasons to oppose the surge.

Fewer American soldiers killed.
Fewer Iraqis killed.
Fewer Americans seperated from their families.
Less strain on an overextended American military.
Less American money spent.
Easier eventual extrication of our forces.

The reason there are not more vigorous measures to end the occupation is that there is only one possible method to do so. Congress must refrain from funding it. That, however, is no guarantee that Bush will withdraw the troops. It is much more likely that he would leave them there without funding for operations or supplies so that he could blame their plight on the Democratic congress.

Posted by Njorl | September 12, 2007 2:01 PM

Fred is starting to prove he shouldn't be taken seriously. He's a propagandist for his party and nothing more. The GOP is all he cares about, not America. He just assumes the rest of the country thinks like him. It's like when pervs cannot understand that sometimes other men actually like the women they sleep with.

Posted by Reality Man | September 12, 2007 7:08 PM

"But why, exactly, would we disperse our invasion force across the urban areas of a hostile territory heavily influenced by iran?"

I didn't say the intent was NOT to take Iraq's oil, too. In fact, that was likely the primary motivation IF you include the fact that they expected to take Iraq EASILY and THEN move on to Iran.

Only of course it didn't work out that way.

"Or, you know, it just might be that the government is already overwhelmed and doesn't have any designs to invade iran."

Pay attention. Dick Cheney and the neocons absolutely intend to attack Iran. There can be ZERO doubt of that, if you keep up with the news. The only question is if the Pentagon can be bullied to do this - and I'd say Petaeus's testimony the other day about Iran clearly shows the answer is yes.

The US Army is now building a base four miles from the Iranian border. Some 300 or more UK troops are also being sent to the Iran border.

Soon there will be shootouts with "Iranian guards", then cross-border incursions, etc., etc., until we start doing air strikes into Iran - at which point the whole thing will be a full-fledged war.

The Iranian "nuclear weapons program" is no longer the issue. Bush has shifted course to justifying the war on Iran with the bullshit about "Iran is killing US soldiers." That should also be clear if you've been paying attention to the news reports (read: propaganda) coming out of Washington lately.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 12, 2007 9:31 PM

"And Mr. Hack, why aren't your Mr. Evils cranking up a restart-the-draft movement, since that's the only way to make their scenario play out grandly?"

That should be obvious. Would YOU register for the draft if the likelihood of being sent to Iraq or Iran was known in advance?

They'll GET their draft - AFTER the war with Iran is started.

Too late to complain then, wouldn't you say?

I'd start telling anybody of draft age you know what their future is going to look like a year or two from now - namely, running patrols against Iraqi Shia in Basra and getting their butts blown off by IEDs or running patrols into Iran and ditto...

If you think this is "conspiracy theory", you simply aren't paying attention to what's going on. Or did you miss Senator Lieberman the other day explicitly asking General Petraeus if the time had come to expand the war into Iran?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 12, 2007 9:36 PM

The surge was a delaying tactic. Announced just when the people calling for a withdrawal were being listened to, it let the Bush administration say 'slow down.'

After months of waiting, they now say that in a few months, we can begin withdrawals, meaning that Bush is compromising. But the compromise leaves the administration exactly where it wants to be.

It is a classic case of asking for the world and settling for less, which is what they started out wanting: the status quo.

Posted by an aussie student | September 12, 2007 10:24 PM