Declaring Victory

Spencer Ackerman comments on the surge of overconfidence afflicting hawkish circles:

Over the past several months, surgenik euphoria has gotten out of control. War supporters all but declared victory as soon as 2007 ended. "We are now winning the war," writes new NYT columnist Bill Kristol in the current Weekly Standard. "We at the Weekly Standard thought the chances of success were better than 50-50 -- but that it remained a difficult proposition. Petraeus pulled it off." Leave aside for a moment the question of Kristol's cynicism and presume his sincerity. What this account neglects (as an understatement) is that every single time U.S. forces have shifted their tactics and pushed the insurgencies back -- the capture of Fallujah, the death of Zarqawi, the capture and the execution of Saddam Hussein, Operation Together Forward I, Operation Together Forward II, etc. -- the insurgency and al-Qaeda have watched, adjusted, adapted, and responded.

On thing that I think's important to keep in mind is that over the course of the summer of 2003 as the insurgency broke out in Iraq, public doubts about the war really began to grow. It looked like things maybe weren't going to well. This dude Howard Dean who nobody had heard of was picking up unprecedented levels of money and enthusiasm. And then Saddam Hussein was captured. And then Dean observed that capturing Saddam hadn't made America safer. And then all hell broke loose. Saddam's capture was deemed to have so thoroughly discredited the anti-war movement that people running in a Democratic primary decided it was time to savagely attack from the right. And not just Joe Lieberman. John Kerry this was "more proof that all the advisers in the world can't give Howard Dean the military and foreign-policy experience, leadership skills, or diplomatic temperament necessary to lead this country through dangerous times."

Again, the January 2005 elections were universally believed to have discredited war opponents. Then came a few other events that at least some people believed discredited war opponents.

The weird thing about the surge is that it's failure has been much more unambiguous. The theory behind the surge was clear. Some people said more troops would bring more security to Iraq. Critics of that idea noted that sending more troops would be logistically unsustainable. Surge theorists posited that a temporary increase in force levels would create a temporary increase in security that would open window of opportunity for political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security. So the surge was implemented. As of September, the surge had failed to generate the political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security. Surge supporters told skeptics we had to give it more time. Three months later, the surge has still failed to generate the political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security.

Now we're near the point of de-surging -- the window is closing rapidly and nobody thinks the opportunity will be seized. And yet surge fans are declaring victory. It's doesn't make sense. The surge's architects laid out admirably clear goals for it. Laid them out and unambiguously failed to meet them.

Comments

the Surge© was always nothing more than a bald-faced attempt to remold public opinion about Iraq via the repetition of a Manly WW2-sounding phrase backed up with precious little reality. at this point, I don't know why we expect anything different.

Posted by Anna Granfors | January 3, 2008 1:00 PM

Americans don't give a damn about the political stability of Iraq. The pro-war zealots are leaning on the sole issue of dwindling American casualties in justifying a victory label on this mess. You don't even hear talk of a legitimate, functioning government. It all boils down to less of our soldiers are getting killed ergo we're winning. That's a very easy and deceptively compelling argument to present to the electorate. It's also effective considering U.S. citizenry ranks just above an eggplant on the intelligence scale.

Posted by steve duncan | January 3, 2008 1:03 PM

I like how Kristol says we are "now" winning in Iraq, like there was some point in time when he thought we were losing and expressed as much.

Posted by Joshua | January 3, 2008 1:09 PM

The "surge" operation was aimed primarily at addressing the domestic political situation in the United States, not Iraq, so to that degree it worked with complete success.

If it were necessary, it could be followed by Surge II, or Surge + Spike, or whatever combination of a massive assault on political opposition to Bush Jr's Iraq policy in the guise of accusing the opposition of being traitorous dogs who clearly don't understand the administration's brilliant new strategies and why do you hate the troops anyway.

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 1:10 PM

Well, I personally think that the "surge" much more relevent to our continued occupation of Iraq is the "surge" of mortgage delinquencies and rating downgrades and the other factors behind the plummeting value of all those trillions of dollars of derivative securities.

In some respects, I've thought that our Iraq War was a little like Britain's Boer War, in which enormous resistance by angry local guerrillas unexpectedly strained the power of the Empire at its height.

Britain did ultimately "win" the Boer War, but only at tremendous cost and under a gigantically negative cost-benefit ratio, and also because its own territories were right next door.

And Britain's financial system didn't collapse in the middle of that war, or it would have been "out," just like we'll probably soon be...

Posted by RKU | January 3, 2008 1:11 PM

How can you be talking about anything other than Iowa right now?

Posted by VasyaDC | January 3, 2008 1:19 PM

How can you be talking/thinking about anything other than Iowa right now?

Posted by VasyaDC | January 3, 2008 1:19 PM

Good grief, "putting aside" the question of Kristol's cynicism is like putting aside that water is wet. Cynicism is his most essential trait and he cannot be engaged without dealing with it. Do you remember when he and his allies declared Bush's 2004 election victory a "mandate"? This is the same thing. Say it loud, say it proud, never deviate. The declaration of victory is, like everything else from the likes of Kristol, nothing more than old-fashioned perception management.

Posted by KC45s | January 3, 2008 1:20 PM

I don't think "moving the goalposts" is an appropriate metaphor to apply to neocon behavior anymore. This isn't football or soccer anymore, it's Calvinball. It's a sport played completely, entirely, blissfully in the present, with no goals, no score kept, no end in sight. Every day we win the war on terror anew, but every day is more dangerous than every day before it and more war is always required.

Posted by Jake H. | January 3, 2008 1:20 PM

You might say Kristol is the mirror image of the we’re absolutely doomed to defeat no matter what we do point of view. The two are equally stupid.

Posted by ostap | January 3, 2008 1:23 PM

You have to realize that success for Kristol and the neocons is simply convincing everyone that we have to give the war "another 6 to 12 months". Capturing Baghdad did that, capturing Saddam did that, having elections did that, changing the strategy by surging did that and now the surge itself has done it again.
These are all fantastic successes in their eyes.

It has nothing to do with progress in Iraq.

Posted by Jinchi | January 3, 2008 1:38 PM

Its fair to say that the surge has failed in terms of meeting the stated goal of political reconciliation.

Its also fair to say that violence in Iraq has declined dramatically and unexpectedly. The surge may have been a significant factor in this decline (I'm not sure).

My question is this: is the stated goal of the surge the correct goal? Does there really need to be a centralized political reconciliation in Iraq? Isn't it enough for the intermediate future (the next five years or so) to keep the country stabilized, so that economic progress can be made, with political reconciliation coming last? This seems to be the most realistic path toward a stable, peaceful Iraq.

Posted by Jim W | January 3, 2008 1:47 PM

Look: the Iraq war has already been a colossal human catastrophe, a carnival of needless butchery and a massive failure of state policy - and nothing will ever change that. It doesn't matter what happens from here on out. Whether the surge, the Anbar Awakening etc. ultimately "work" are irrelevant. The past is irrevocable, and future contingencies cannot eliminate the indelible stain in the American chapter of the historical annals.

With tens of thousands of American dead and injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, even greater numbers maimed and injured on both sides, millions of refugees on the fly, millions of lives and careers disrupted or ruined, invaluable cultural artifacts destroyed and a landscape poisoned it is virtually impossible to imagine any likely future eventuality that could redeem this barbaric devastation.

For the troglodytic neconservative mind, "winning the war" seems to mean nothing beyond the fact that the war will not last forever and Iraq will eventually stabilize in some fashion. Well of course it will! But calling this expectable end of the war a "victory" is like calling the Great Depression a triumph of economic policy simply because we ultimately managed to bring it to an end.

Nothing that happens can ever undo the misery that has been visited upon Iraq. The dead people will remain dead - forever.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 3, 2008 1:50 PM

RKU: "In some respects, I've thought that our Iraq War was a little like Britain's Boer War, in which enormous resistance by angry local guerrillas unexpectedly strained the power of the Empire at its height.

Britain did ultimately "win" the Boer War, but only at tremendous cost and under a gigantically..."

I would add, what were the consequences of the British victory? Boer became Afrikaners and several years later they were effectively ruling the entire South Africa rather then just Transvaal and Oranje.

In the same way, either we will maintain a stalemate, or we will win, and pro-Iranian Shia parties will dominate a government that will be in overt alliance with Iran and Syria. I also think that at some point the stalemate will end and the war will flare up again, as nothing gets resolved.

Posted by piotr | January 3, 2008 1:55 PM

During previous periods of political progress in Iraq -- the election of a provisional government, the writing of the constitution, the vote to ratify the constitution, the election of a constitutional legislature, and the formation of a government out of that legislature -- critics minimized these achievements since they didn't reduce the violence in Iraq. Now the violence in Iraq has been drastically reduced and there are numerous examples of de facto political reconciliation in Iraq -- oil revenues are being distributed by the central government to all provinces, including the Sunni ones; Sunnis are being hired into government security forces; former Baathists are being hired for government positions -- and all is hopeless? It's true that Iraqis haven't formally resolved all their political differences at the national level, but it was probably unrealistic to expect them to resolve in matter of months sectarian differences that have festered for decades.

RKU,

The Boer War, mortgage delinquencies, and the Iraq War? Quite a melange of disparate events. I would be tempted to mock you for writing this sort of nonsense, but -- judging from Niall Ferguson's latest column in the FT ("An Ottoman warning for indebted America") -- there is a market for it. So keep working on it. After some practice and a Harvard professorship, you might be able to snag a job as an op/ed columnist somewhere.

Posted by Fred | January 3, 2008 1:56 PM

The truth is that the surge hasn't succeeded because of increase in military forces.

To the extent that it has succeeded is because of smarter political tactics and local alliances on Petraeus part, as well as on account of Al Qaeda' overplaying her hand and leading to a local backlash.

All of these moves look more sustainable than the military surge and do point to a less bloody future. Admittedly, the big problem of political reconciliation remains.

What the invasion has accomplished is the Lebanization of Iraq, an unstable state entity divided along confessional lines with foreign parties intervening and playing -and more than occasionally- having a pivotal role; like Syria did in Lebanon.

In this situation, clear situations like "victory!" or "withdrawal now!" are neither useful analytical tools, nor correct policy solutions. This situation is managed on a day to day, month to month basis, not only because of a moral responsibility to not let things spin further out of control, but because American withdrawal will give the space to other regional powers to play a decisive role which would help them expand their influence in the Middle East.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 3, 2008 1:59 PM

The Surge was designed with the end of keeping troops in Iraq. There's never been a definition of "victory" or even of "ends". That someone would crow that The Surge is working is idiotic since, if it hadn't, the war's supporters would have simply deemed it time to try something else. Continuing the war "in saecula saeculorum" is their definition of victory. Discontinuing the war is their definition of failure. They are the most cynical bastards in American history.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 3, 2008 2:02 PM

And let's not forget that Teh Surge hasn't just been an unambiguous failure on it's own terms, it's also been predicated on the physical division of Baghdad into ethnically-cleansed, concrete-walled enclaves, and the payment of Danegeld (in the form of money, arms and political recognition) to forward-thinking factions of the formerly evil Sunni Insurgency, who are just waiting for El Residente to jump off the cliff marked 'Iran' so they can become Washington's new bezfrenzafreedumb.

The only way in that it's 'brought Iraqis together', other than the opinion of a majority of Iraqis that killing Americans is a patriotic act, is in the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to declare the Occupation illegal under Iraqi - and thus international - law. Not that you'd hear too much about that from the MSM, nut you wouldn't expect to.

So the US is left 'allied' only with Maliki's illegitimate rump-regime in the Green Zone and the Kurdish leaders who are scared shitless about being attacked by America's NATO partner Turkey. So much for Iraq being a 'sovereign democracy' and a 'beacon for change'. It's now set up to make the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s look like a lighthearted falling-out on an episode of Friends.

Happy New Year.

Posted by Tony J | January 3, 2008 2:04 PM

Well, there's no doubt that Bill Kristol is a thuggish moron who has complete contempt for anyone who disagrees with him. And there's also no doubt that he has waved the flag of victory before and been proven -- yet again -- not just wrong but incredibly stupid. (Why the Times decided to give this hack a column is beyond me.)

And there's no doubt that the war in Iraq has been a horrible mistake -- which cost tens of thousands (or more) of lives -- no matter what the outcome is now.

But having stated those absolutes, I'm not sure I agree with you, Matt, about the absoluteness of the surge's failure.

Yes, the political goals have not been achieved. And, it's definitely true that no one has thought to ask the most obvious question (which you ask): What happens next?

But casualties are dramatically down and while that's not the only issue out there, it's a serious one. (At least it would be if you lived in Baghdad.) I think Jim W has it right: Maybe stability is the most important goal at this point. It's OK if the goals change, isn't it?

I didn't think the surge would work -- and I agree to a large extent it hasn't -- but it is doing some good. Is it possible that the surge was both the right thing and the wrong thing to do at the same time?

Posted by Max Gross | January 3, 2008 2:05 PM

"Well, there's no doubt that Bill Kristol is a thuggish moron..."

Certainly if you re-define "thuggish moron" as "nerdy Harvard Ph.D." then there is no doubt.

Posted by Fred | January 3, 2008 2:11 PM

As has been pointed out above, political reconciliation HAS in fact been occurring. Matthew may be ignoring it, but the fact that Matthew ignores it doesn't mean it hasn't been occurring.

Matthew does, of course, point out one thing that is inevitably true - we will be (indeed, alrady have begun, in case Matthew hasn't notices) drawing down the surge. The question is whether the political reconciliation that has occurred will keep intact the security advances that our surge troops have created. But that was a question regardless of the degree and kind of political reconciliation that occurred during the existence of the surge.

Posted by Al | January 3, 2008 2:12 PM

hmmm...why are we there in the first place? American Idols, Cops, etc,, I live in Missouri the center of America...I think everyone here forgot why went because they aren't that bright here . The War is a way of life now. All we care about is getting a good deal on our Digital TV internet connections. Good luck in 2008 no one cares anymore

Posted by Charles Reed | January 3, 2008 2:15 PM

This hinges on whether or not the term "surge" is correct. If the surge is only supposed to be temporary, then you're absolutely right- as soon as the levels are reduced, the various insurgents that are laying low right now will return to their old levels.

If it's escalation, however, then you can presume that the current status-quo will continue, whether or not the politicians get their act together. Since I've always suspected that it is an escalation we're seeing, I'm not terribly surprised by any of this.

What's odd is that their economic views haven't really carried over to their strategic views. Kristol 'n co. are well known for advocating rational expectations in economics. They believe that investors are generally rational, and will adjust their current behavior with an eye to the future. Why on earth do they think that that would that work for something like interest rates, and not for insurgency?

I guess they really believe their own hype about the irrationality of Muslims.

Posted by Demosthenes | January 3, 2008 2:16 PM

But casualties are dramatically down and while that's not the only issue out there, it's a serious one.

No, casualties are up as a total number (after all, those people who were dead and wounded aren't suddenly not dead and not wounded). It's the rate of increase of casualties that is down.

Think of it this way -- imagine my business is losing $10,000 a month. After I put in some cost cutting measures, I'm only losing $5,000 a month. That doesn't mean that I'm suddenly winning -- it just means I'm not losing as badly as I was before. Is that success?

Posted by Stefan | January 3, 2008 2:20 PM

I stand by "thuggish moron." Thuggish, because he has a thug-like fondness for tarring anybody who disagrees with him about anything as either a) unpatriotic, b) unintelligent or c) defeatist.

I don't give a damn about Kristol's Harvard pedigree. I've known plenty of morons who went to Harvard and Yale.

Kristol's stupidity is on display for anyone who cares to take a look. Just google some of his old articles and you'll find jaw-dropping hubris about what a cakewalk Iraq was going to be. You'll find unhinged hysteria about Saddam's capabilities and the threat he posed.

Has Kristol -- unlike any serious person -- ever reexamined any of his positions? Has he ever thought that he was wrong? Kristol (to his limited credit) was pushing for a surge long before it was instituted, and was rightly critical of Donald Rumsfeld in 06; but he refused to abandon the Republican Party in the election. That, to me, is the mark of a hack. Nerdy Harvard Ph.D.? OK. He's still a thug as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Max Gross | January 3, 2008 2:32 PM

Max,

The sole justification behind the escalation in troop strength that we call The Surge was that, since violence was making it impossible for the various factions in Iraq to make any kind of political settlement, the US should make one last-gasp attempt to dampen down the violence, because then the Iraqi factions would be able to hold their noses and make some sort of peace with their each other without the pressure daily massacres driving apart.

That simply hasn't happened.

Violence has only been reduced to the levels that were described as unsustainable back in 2006. The Surge as a concept has failed miserably. It hasn't provided 'stability', it's just coincided with:

a) The end result you get when you ethnically-cleanse whole districts and put walls around them.

b) A recognition amongst the majority of the Sunni Insurgents that the Bush Administration is itching to get a war on with Shia Iran before November 2009.

c) A recognition amongst the leadership of the Kurdish minority that Washington won't protect them from a determined Turkish campaign to stop them declaring independence unless they do exactly what Washington wants.

d) A recognition by the Malaki regime that the only thing protecting them from being hung, drawn and quartered by the elected Iraqi Parliament is the US military presence.

and e) The Primary Elections in the US, where discussion about anything 'foreign' has to be couched in terms easily understood by voters mostly concerned with domestic issues, as reflected through an MSM desperate to make it a horserace by painting any Democrat brave enough to diss Petraeus as being'weak on National Security'.

There is no 'good' that The Surge can take credit for, given the catatstophe it was born out of. It was always the wrong thing to do, and it failed because of it. Except that it succeeded in giving the White House another few Friedman-units in which to plan for the next illegal war, which was always the definition of success for the bastards holed-up there.

In short, no.

Posted by Tony J | January 3, 2008 2:47 PM

Re: In regards to political reconciliation, there's an interesting post on Sunni-Shia relations by the Iraqi blogger, 24 Steps to Liberty. The discussion is also very interesting.

It's clear that there's a lot of bitterness among Sunnis (who feel disenfranchised by the post-Saddam governments) & Shia (who are furious with Sunnis for trying to undermine the government and allying with jihadis). A dramatic reduction if violence is probably necessary, but definitely not sufficient, to achieve political reconcilation. You also have millions of Iraqi refugees who've been forced from their homes fior sectarian reasons , and that's going to be a lasting source of anger.

Posted by Peter H | January 3, 2008 2:47 PM

And obviously that should be -

"...the Iraqi factions would be able to hold their noses and make some sort of lasting peace with each other without the pressure of daily massacres driving them apart."

Velly solly.

Posted by Tony J | January 3, 2008 3:00 PM

"I stand by "thuggish moron." Thuggish, because he has a thug-like fondness for tarring anybody who disagrees with him about anything as either a) unpatriotic, b) unintelligent or c) defeatist."

I see Kristol on TV about twice a week (Special Report w/ Brit Hume and Fox News Sunday) and I've never seen him do any of that. He's usually smiling, laughing, and mild-mannered, even when he disagrees with his co-panelists. Are you sure you are describing Bill Kristol? Is it possible you are describing a DailyKos caricature of him instead? I confess I don't read his essays regularly, so maybe you have a link from one where he called his political opponents unpatriotic or unintelligent. If so, please share.

Posted by Fred | January 3, 2008 3:34 PM

The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as an Iraq that's "peaceful, united, stable, and secure." We're 0-4.

Posted by croatoan | January 3, 2008 4:10 PM

Re: A recognition amongst the majority of the Sunni Insurgents that the Bush Administration is itching to get a war on with Shia Iran before November 2009.

I've said this before: If Bush goes to war with Iran it will be after the election. Doing it before risks political catastrophe, and it would be opposed by the GOP establishment for that reason. But when he no longer has anything to lose, that's when the risk will be greatest.

Posted by Jonf | January 3, 2008 9:08 PM

Fred:

Kristol isn't a mouth breather, I'll grant you that. But he never met a war he didn't like, and is without a doubt the most partisan apparatchik out there. People call him a thug because he just smirks and grins and dismisses arguments, I've seen him laugh of Juan Williams.

I saw an interview once where Kristol actually spoke at length, and I liked him. But on TV, he's a straight partisan who never gives an inch.

Oily, slick, I would say. I understand the intent behind 'thug' because he seems to crave war, violence - but he's not crass about it.

r

Posted by r | January 3, 2008 9:40 PM

Poor Matt, clueless again: "And yet surge fans are declaring victory. It's doesn't make sense. The surge's architects laid out admirably clear goals for it. Laid them out and unambiguously failed to meet them."

Matt, get a grip.

1) Nothing the right wing says makes sense. It's not supposed to. It's bullshit to cover the real agenda - which is war, war profiteering and US hegemony (throw in support for Israel by the neocons.) As long as the agenda hasn't been realized, they'll keep pushing it, no matter how many disasters happen in the process or how many lies they have to produce to cover for it.

2) Chimpanzees never admit they're wrong. It's unthinkable. It means they'll DIE! That's simply not acceptable!

Look on the bright side - when the Sunnis resume their war against the Shia, and al-Sadr resumes his war against the US occupation, and Iran tells the Badr Brigade to resume attacking the US occupation, just think how stupid Kristol - and Fred, Al, Powell, Ford and the rest of the nitwits here - are going to look AGAIN.

Will it matter that they look stupid? No. They'll still push the same bullshit in a slightly different form. It will probably be something along the lines of, "Well Petraeus won it, then the Lefties stabbed us in the back by convincing our enemies that we were pulling out too soon."

Of course, when we continue to stay there, and things go to hell in a hand basket, they'll be coming up with something else that basically is the same shit with a new frosting on it.

When Bush and Cheney get the war in Iran going, they'll all be blaming Iran for what happened. Even as US troops are being evacuated under fire from Iraq, they'll be saying it was "Lefties" who stabbed our boys in the back by having the CIA release a report that stopped an air attack on Iran by claiming Iran didn't have a WMD program.

Or something equally bizarre.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 9:46 PM

Max: "But casualties are dramatically down and while that's not the only issue out there, it's a serious one."

The problem quite simply is that it's not sustainable.

It's a temporary lull in the violence, nothing more.

Keep in mind that every Sunni insurgent interviewed has said that they still intend to take the war to the Shia - and vice versa. And al-Sadr is still devoted to driving out the US occupation - which means ALL US troops.

Absolutely nothing has changed except a temporary lull in the violence. I expect upticks in the violence within a few months if not weeks.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 9:53 PM

Al: "political reconciliation HAS in fact been occurring."

Bullshit.

Cite one example - with direct links, please.

The only one even remotely worth considering that I'm aware of is the alleged reconciliation between al-Sade and one of the main Shia party clerics, which I'm not sure is ongoing. And that was Shia to Shia, not Shia to Sunni. And that was probably tactical.

I would agree with Scott Ritter - he suggests that the only even remotely feasible reconciliation might be an al-Sadr/Sunni coalition, since al-Sadr is both nationalist and has in the past tried to get along with the Sunni opposition. Others have suggested such a possible coalition government. It's remote, but supposedly not impossible.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 3, 2008 9:58 PM

We used to call this a credibility gap

The warhawks keep putting forward these mad schemes that have zero relationship to the real world, therefore zero chance of success, but which at least pacify the media drones for a while. Then the scheme obviously fails, as it was always clear it would to anyone paying attention, and the public just gets more fed up and unwilling to believe the next set of lies, and even the media drones start to worry about being too firmly moored to a ship that just might not be unsinkable after all.

The surge mad scheme was obviously timed wrong from the start, as they left themselves too long an interval until Election Day 2008. Of course it was going to be long past the honeymoon period, and the failure was going to be obvious by then. I thought, a year ago when they launched this thing, that the timiong was so obviously bad that it had to be merely prep work for their real election blockbuster, war with Iran, as in, they would use the surge to segue out of fighting the Sunni and into fighting the Badr brigades, and thus into fighting Iran. But they seem to be coming to terms with SCIRI and Iran, and moving against non-Iran-backed Sadr, so I cede my prophet's turban for now. Maybe they are just stupid. Or maybe the Army threw a flag on the war with Iran thing. Or perhaps the Army made a deal to block the Iran project, and got them to accept the surge as an interim alternative to war with Iran, which means, as the surge honeymoon falls into that credibility gap, they will bring back the war with Iran as the next mad scheme. October 2008 would be the traditional timing for this sort of thing.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | January 3, 2008 11:49 PM