Over There

53 killed in Baghdad bombings. I should say that no matter how badly U.S. tactics in Iraq fail, I don't think you'll ever see violence levels return to where they were at the late-06/early-07 peak when you had a lot of sectarian massacres. At this point, given the number of people who are already either dead or else displaced to somewhere safer than where they were before, things aren't going to get that bad again.

But that's essentially irrelevant to the main question we spent 2003, 2004, and 2005 debating -- namely whether or not it's in the capacity of 100,000+ U.S. Army and Marine Corps members to effectively bring an end to Iraqi political conflicts. The answer continues to appear to be no. Similarly, there's really nothing we can do to stop sporadic bombing attacks. It's not, after all, that you look at Italy and say "man, there's a country where they have great tactics to prevent suicide bombings -- Iraq should really implement those." Rather, you don't see suicide bombing where you don't see would-be suicide bombers and that's not the kind of outcome a foreign military force can produce in Iraq. So things will probably get worse again, but not as bad as they were at the very worst times.

Comments

How's that surge working for you, McCain?

Posted by CParis | March 6, 2008 5:16 PM

Sounds like the perfect time to declare victory and come home! Or to pivot to Afghanistan!

Seriously, give Petraeus a victory parade, the Medal of Freedom, etc. and then get the hell out. Honestly, his counter insurgency tactics are more appropriate to Afghanistan anyway, given that what we face there is actually an insurgency.

Posted by DCreader | March 6, 2008 5:16 PM

If you kill enough people the number of killings is going to fall. That's just simple logic. In fact, it's the same logic that gave us the Laffer Curve.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 6, 2008 5:28 PM

I agree so long as Sadr doesn't feel the need to revoke his cease fire. Otherwise, all best are off. At best, the U.S.'s ability to influence the future of Iraq (for the better, at any rate) is tenuous at best.

Posted by justawriter | March 6, 2008 5:35 PM

"I should say that no matter how badly U.S. tactics in Iraq fail, I don't think you'll ever see violence levels return to where they were at the late-06/early-07 peak when you had a lot of sectarian massacres."

Maybe. Or it could get even worse. We've created a Sunni army to fight foreign fighters in Iraq. But do you think that they won't fight back, more fiercely than before, if Muqtada al-Sadr's militia attacks again?

There is plenty, plenty of fuel for major fires over there.

Posted by MattD | March 6, 2008 5:36 PM

Another overhanging factor is the stupefying number of refugees, -- from 1.5 million to 2.5 million -- in the surrounding countries. People who fled during the ethnic cleansing unleashed by and even encouraged by the surge. The current lull seems to be the result of three components, none of which can be permanent: ethnic cleansing, Muqtada al-Sadr's cease fire, and bribing the Sunni tribesman a/k/a Awakening Councils a/k/a Concerned Citizens Councils in al-Anbar Province at the rate of $24 million per month. As these factors become unstuck, look for a steady upsurge in the violence.

Posted by gordonminor | March 6, 2008 5:54 PM

Matt Y: Not at all sure how you missed all the very salient factors that gordonminor lists. The most rudimentary understanding of the current situation in Iraq gives one strong reason to think that it could blow up in any number of ways.

But here's hoping you're right.

There, Limbaugh, a liberal said that he wants "the Surge" to work.

Posted by MattD | March 6, 2008 5:58 PM

"At this point, given the number of people who are already either dead or else displaced to somewhere safer than where they were before, things aren't going to get that bad again."

This like one of your predictions about the campaign?

Posted by Helter | March 6, 2008 6:52 PM

The current lull seems to be the result of three components, none of which can be permanent: ethnic cleansing, Muqtada al-Sadr's cease fire, and bribing the Sunni tribesman a/k/a Awakening Councils a/k/a Concerned Citizens Councils in al-Anbar Province at the rate of $24 million per month.

If I may add a fourth component --one that also cannot be permanent: the troop surge.

Posted by I told everybody so | March 6, 2008 7:01 PM

Yeah Matt, what about the refugees?! Nobody seems to give a flying f@ck about the refugees - what are we going to do with them?

And let's keep in mind that the refugees in neighbouring countries, as squalid as their circumstances are, are the lucky ones, followed by the internally displaced and then those who are simply stuck while the sectarian fighting is going out around them.

I'll cut you a deal Matt: if the US ships all those people over to Ohio or wherever, sets them up in a nice house and gives them $20.000 each seed money - then, and only then can the US go home and declare victory, else you're stuck with a humanitarian problem and it won't go away, as much as you'd like to ignore it.

Posted by novakant | March 6, 2008 7:33 PM

"And let's keep in mind that the refugees in neighbouring countries, as squalid as their circumstances are, are the lucky ones, followed by the internally displaced and then those who are simply stuck while the sectarian fighting is going out around them."

Most depressing thing I've read all day.

It's amazing how a small town in Norway has taken in more Iraqi refugees than the entire US.

Posted by Reality Man | March 7, 2008 12:49 AM

A little perspective is in order. Last February, when folks like Matt were decrying the surge as hopeless and pointless, 2,864 Iraqi civilians were killed by terrorists and sectarian violence. Last month, 564 were killed. It's a little disingenuous to blame the most recent suicide bombing in Iraq on U.S. tactics while ignoring the effect of those tactics on dramatic reduction in violence over all.

"Honestly, his counter insurgency tactics are more appropriate to Afghanistan anyway, given that what we face there is actually an insurgency."

His counterinsurgency tactics are already being used in Afghanistan, though arguably the situation in Afghanistan is less an insurgency than a war against the most popular ideological movement in that country's largest ethnic group -- an ethnic group which, inconveniently enough, straddles the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Posted by Juan | March 7, 2008 2:39 AM

Matt: "things aren't going to get that bad again."

Actually, they probably will, unless an Iraqi nationalist coalition can be created based on al-Sadr, and some of the Sunni factions.

Otherwise, the "Awakening" crowd is going to go back on the offensive against the Shia, forcing al-Sadr to drop his truce. The only reason things quieted down is because the Sunni were losing fairly badly against the Shia, until the US decided to offer them money - and a chance at joining the government - not to shoot at the US forces. The latter was more important than the former, and the Sahwa crowd is now agitating for that promise to be made good - which there is no evidence it will be.

Either this year or next, it's going to heat up again.

And even if the Sunni-Shia conflict doesn't heat up, sooner or later - undoubtedly sooner - the Iraqis are going to kick the US out anyway. And despite all the campaign promises - which are as realistic as "Read my lips: no new taxes" - the US isn't going to leave on the schedule the Iraqis will demand.

And that means the US is going to lose - big time.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 8, 2008 2:41 AM