We Owe It All to the Surge

After a couple of days worth of chaotic retreat, the right wing seems to have settled on a fallback position, namely that it's only possible to now contemplate withdrawing from Iraq because things have gotten so much better and all improvements in conditions -- including things that happened before the surge began -- are due to the surge. Thus, despite Obama apparently having shown good judgment on the question of invading Iraq and seeming to have the best policy moving forward, "really" McCain is vindicated.

In addition to the somewhat magical thinking in which things like the "awakening," the Sadrist cease fire, and the natural reduction in violence that comes with a completed process of ethnic cleansing become consequences of the surge, this misses the larger point of the surge debate. Surge opponents said the surge was pointless -- a tactical smokescreen to obscure the fact that hawks have an unworkable strategy. And now, over 18 months after the 2006 midterms showed that the voters want an end to this war, the hawks still can't explain what's been accomplished in exchange for the hundreds of dead and hundreds of billions spent over what, say, following the Baker-Hamilton recommendations would have cost us. The basic shape of the Middle East is the same, our posture in Iraq is still unsustainable, we're still getting nowhere with Iran, and things are worse than ever in Afghanistan. Probably, but not certainly, the surge has helped save some Iraqi lives. But fundamentally, we're still going to have to leave Iraq and it's still the case -- just as it was before the war -- that Iraq might muddle along okay or might turn into a disaster all depending on what choices Iraqi leaders make.

Comments

I think that al Maliki and O'Bama just agreed to end the war. Now if the 60 % of Americans who tell pollsters that they think the war was a stupid mistake will do our part, all is well.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 22, 2008 3:33 PM

Yeah, the big point is the Iraq war was a vastly stupid idea, and McCain thought it was a great idea. And that it remains such a great idea that it should go on forever, no matter what Iraqis or Americans want.

Meanwhile, American interests in the rest of the world will magically fall into place based on very vague handwaving.

Serious!

Posted by riffle | July 22, 2008 3:36 PM

SUUUUURGE!

Posted by Angry Sam | July 22, 2008 3:38 PM

If they get their bases, the objective would have been attained. But they're not gonna get the bases if there is a representative government, which anyone with a lick of sense understood as soon as al Sistani forced the elections to have some element of democracy to them.

Posted by jayackroyd | July 22, 2008 3:43 PM

-- including things that happened before the surge began --

That encapsulates the stupidity of the right-wingnutosphere rather well.

Yeah, the big point is the Iraq war was a vastly stupid idea, and McCain thought it was a great idea.

The other big point is that Obama, the American people, Maliki, and the Iraqi people wants us out. Bush, McCain, and the right-wingnutosphere want us to stay, regardless of how the Iraqis feel, so that we have "control". The fact that we have no right to be exercising control of a sovereign nation doesn't even occur to them.

Posted by LFC | July 22, 2008 3:45 PM

A lot of the reduction in violence has to do with a unilateral "truce" on behalf of al-Sadr. Basically the "success" of the surge is at his sufferance - the level of violence could easily go up again if the guy decided to. So we declare victory because some Islamic bad guy enables us to?

Posted by ethel-to-Till | July 22, 2008 4:00 PM

I think the surge was a success. The situation has quieted down.

Yes there were other factors, like Maliki deciding to go after Sadr, and Sadr backing down.

But the conservatives aren't right to say this reflects poorly on Obama's decision making. Maybe if there hadn't been a surge, violence still would have went down. We don't know and we'll never know.

People rank the economy as more important than Iraq as an election issue, so the Republicans can say what they want, but it's a lie to say pulling out would be a "defeat". Maliki doesn't think it's a defeat. A defeat would be pulling out and having Iraq descending into a failed state and al Qaeda resurfacing. At least for me it would be. I think it's unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility.

Posted by Peter K. | July 22, 2008 4:12 PM

So we declare victory because some Islamic bad guy enables us to?

First, we don't declare "victory". The outcome in Iraq is so far down the ladder from what we were originally told our goals were that the best we can hope for is "not chaos".

As to when do we "declare victory", we can either leave when asked to or stay until every risk to peace in Iraq is gone. That might take, ooooooh, maybe 100 years?

Posted by LFC | July 22, 2008 4:13 PM

Maybe the solution is to give McCain a medal for 'winning' the Iraq war with 'his' surge strategy. Maybe make him a junior Admiral or something. Seems like he'd be pretty happy with that.

Posted by Rocky | July 22, 2008 4:16 PM

Wasn't the Sadr ceasefire in August 2007 (not 2006, as the link suggests), after the surge began, and at least arguably induced by it?

Posted by Billy Bob | July 22, 2008 4:23 PM

Two of the decisive political factors that the Surge failed to redress are the constiuency of the leadership of the Anbar awakening and the Shiite Islamists who have majority control of the Iraqi parliament.

The leaders of the Anbar Awakening are still Sunni sheiks with Wahabi-ist leanings who hate the Shiites or outright ex-Baathist scum who are being bribed into quiescence.

Meanwhile, the Shiite Islamist are increasingly acting like . . . Shiite Islamist, as even Fred Kagan in beginning to realize:
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/maliki-bets-that-obama-will-prevail/82374/

To me, this looks very bad in the medium term.

Posted by Surge or Flicker | July 22, 2008 4:24 PM

Two of the decisive political factors that the Surge failed to redress are the constiuency of the leadership of the Anbar awakening and the Shiite Islamists who have majority control of the Iraqi parliament.

The leaders of the Anbar Awakening are still Sunni sheiks with Wahabi-ist leanings who hate the Shiites or outright ex-Baathist scum who are being bribed into quiescence.

Meanwhile, the Shiite Islamist are increasingly acting like . . . Shiite Islamist, as even Fred Kagan in beginning to realize:
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/maliki-bets-that-obama-will-prevail/82374/

To me, this looks very bad in the medium term.

Posted by Surge or Flicker | July 22, 2008 4:26 PM

Surge opponents said the surge was pointless -- a tactical smokescreen to obscure the fact that hawks have an unworkable strategy. And now, over 18 months after the 2006 midterms showed that the voters want an end to this war, the hawks still can't explain what's been accomplished in exchange for the hundreds of dead and hundreds of billions spent over what, say, following the Baker-Hamilton recommendations would have cost us.

Well, I wouldn't say the surge was pointless. If you take a map of the provinces of Iraq and color in red the ones we left ('turned over security to Iraqi forces'), and color in the ones where we still present, it's plainly evident that the surge was actually a retreat. Sending in additional troops increased manpower density... in a much smaller land area. That reduced casualties since fewer people were shooting at more troops and improved security in the areas where we remained. So that worked, in exactly the same way a withdrawal would have worked, because it was a withdrawal.

No one can explain why it worked because what it really succeeded at was pretending to be aggressive when we were actually retreating.... or it allowed them to claim we were winning by moving the goalposts. Whichever.

Of course, we aren't actually winning in any meaningful sense, we're just losing more slowly, but neo-cons and the TNR crowd and that lot don't understand war anyways, so just as long as they can pretend they were somehow correct, they can salvage their reputations, (and stay in a position to urge/implement an attack on Iran) and that's what's important to them.

Talk about your boutique vanity wars... this is the All-time Champeen Got-a-Mazzerati-at-50-and- I'll-Never-Admit-It-Didn't-Get-Me-Laid War. So the hawks are never ever going to admit they got it wrong, especially since they have no fucking idea what the hell happened anyways. The TV said they was winnin' and that's good enough.

Unfortunately, Matthew, you can't get anywhere against the romance of Italian horsepower if you can't get over the hurdle of identifying the thing for what it is. We retreated and that worked pretty good! Let's retreat some more!

max
['They are all crypto-Obamaites now.']

Posted by max | July 22, 2008 4:39 PM

I think the war's supporters erred in thinking of withdrawing as losing. Lose what? Of course they also erred in looking to win the war. Win what?

To me that just means that they like war for the sake of war. And some of them have said as much.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 22, 2008 4:39 PM

As I get tired of pointing out, we "lost" the "war" on the day we invaded, despite the many glorious military victories (and surges!) we continue to have on a semi-annual basis. This whole tragedy is now reduced to Bush sycophants arguing over terminology at the level of children playing GI Joe in a sandbox: "Nuh-uh, I didn't lose, I just stopped playing!" "Uh-huh! You ran away, you big crybaby loser!"

Posted by charles | July 22, 2008 4:41 PM

The horror is that 4,000 Americans have died and 15,000 have been severely injured yet no American can walk unprotected in Iraq. The day the surge works is when an American soldier can take off his or her uniform, go into any Baghdad neighborhood joint (without a Kelvar vest), have a beer, listen to some music and return to his base unharmed.

Until then the idea that the surge worked is a tale told by and believed by fools.

Posted by Llyonnoc | July 22, 2008 4:55 PM

So what is up with McCain and some of his surrogates using this line: "If we had done what Obama said, we would have been out of Iraq in March." (And Obama wouldn't have been able to go there!)

So four months ago, we could have been finished with Iraq, that is $40B saved, enough to cover Fanny & Freddy, five months of gas tax holiday and even McCain's $300M battery sweepstakes.

Posted by tomj | July 22, 2008 4:55 PM

"Hundreds" of dead?

Posted by El Cid | July 22, 2008 4:56 PM

Boy, I sure wish people would stop talking about the amount of deaths in Iraq as though only Americans were being killed there. There aren't "hundreds" of dead since the surge, there are thousands: many, many thousands.

The horror is that 4,000 Americans have died and 15,000 have been severely injured yet no American can walk unprotected in Iraq. The day the surge works is when an American soldier can take off his or her uniform, go into any Baghdad neighborhood joint (without a Kelvar vest), have a beer, listen to some music and return to his base unharmed.

The horror is that no Iraqi can walk unprotected in Iraq. As long as you're a hostile invading/occupying army, you're going to be in dangerous territory if you leave the protection of your fellow troops. If American soldiers could do that, they wouldn't be there, because there wouldn't be a war.

Posted by LittleMac | July 22, 2008 5:09 PM

There aren't "hundreds" of dead since the surge, there are thousands: many, many thousands.

There were 545 reported civilian casualties this past June alone. And every source I've read says that these numbers are from voluntary reporting, and thus extremely understate the actual number.

Posted by LFC | July 22, 2008 5:20 PM

There aren't "hundreds" of dead since the surge, there are thousands: many, many thousands.

Most of whom were killed by our common enemy.

Any "car bomb" that an "freedom fighter" detonates in an Iraqi marketplace cannot be blamed on America-- Unless you also consider Janet Reno directly responsible for Tim McVeigh's criminal actions.

Posted by I am AlGore's hairy manboobs | July 22, 2008 5:35 PM

namely that it's only possible to now contemplate withdrawing from Iraq because things have gotten so much better and all improvements in conditions -- including things that happened before the surge began -- are due to the surge.

Nope. The surge is responsible for these improvements just as all the reduction in crime in NYC during a certain period in the 1990s arose as a result of Giuliani's mayorship (e.g. increases in resources for policing instigated by David Dinkins had nothing to do with it).

( / snark )

Posted by DAS | July 22, 2008 6:06 PM

Here's what President Bush said the surge would accomplish (details here): "To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November." That didn't happen. "To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis." That didn't happen. "To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs." That didn't happen. "To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year." That didn't happen. "And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws..." That happened, kind of, but they aren't enforcing the laws. "...and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution." That didn't happen either.

Posted by kirkaracha | July 22, 2008 6:10 PM

There is no particular reason to believe that the "surge", with its incremental increase in troops and slightly different strategy, directly caused the decrease in casualties - there are many other reasons.

But in the long run this question may be irrelevant - some kind of new strategy was alway being introduced, and whenever hostilities decreased it would have been attributed to the strategy in effect at the time. It may have been a political mistake to oppose the surge on the grounds that it wouldn't work - no matter how many times one is right on these things, the one that is remembered is the last one.

Posted by skeptonomist | July 22, 2008 7:36 PM

kirkroach-

Did you notice the Dems' response to the Republican claims before the "start" of the war?

1)Bring more bodybags (BTW, Please name a war with a lower "death rate"- other than Grenada). Everything I see says we're killing "insurgents" at about a 60-1 ratio.

2)Further, this war was merely an "imperial reaction" to our declining world-wide power pre-9/11 simply because we desired a continuous source of $15/bbl/oil, while the purpose of this same "War" at the same time was to cause $140/bbl oil and bolster the profits of all those Bush-affiliated oil companies who are responsible for the war because they wanted $15/bbl oil-(when they didn't want $140/bbl oil.)

Posted by fletch | July 22, 2008 8:13 PM

kirkroach-

Did you notice the Dems' response to the Republican claims before the "start" of the war?

1)Bring more bodybags (BTW, Please name a war with a lower "death rate"- other than Grenada). Everything I see says we're killing "insurgents" at about a 60-1 ratio.

2)Further, this war was merely an "imperial reaction" to our declining world-wide power pre-9/11 simply because we desired a continuous source of $15/bbl/oil, while the purpose of this same "War" at the same time was to cause $140/bbl oil and bolster the profits of all those Bush-affiliated oil companies who are responsible for the war because they wanted $15/bbl oil-(when they didn't want $140/bbl oil.)

Posted by fletch | July 22, 2008 8:22 PM

kirkroach-

Did you notice the Dems' response to the Republican claims before the "start" of the war?

1)Bring more bodybags (BTW, Please name a war with a lower "death rate"- other than Grenada). Everything I see says we're killing "insurgents" at about a 60-1 ratio.

2)Further, this war was merely an "imperial reaction" to our declining world-wide power pre-9/11 simply because we desired a continuous source of $15/bbl/oil, while the purpose of this same "War" at the same time was to cause $140/bbl oil and bolster the profits of all those Bush-affiliated oil companies who are responsible for the war because they wanted $15/bbl oil-(when they didn't want $140/bbl oil.)

Posted by fletch | July 22, 2008 8:26 PM

Surge - no surge?? Who cares?

We are now 5 plus years into a "quick" change of regime, 4,000 plus US deaths, 100,000 plus Iraqi deaths, 2 million plus internal Iraqi refugees, 1.5 million plus external Iraqi refugees, and spending enough money to build infrastructure from NY to the moon. Not to mention an over stressed military, veterans who are suffering a host of post-combat ailments and a world that believes the US has lost all sense of morality and leadership.

I don't care who is right about the surge! I don't think in black-white terms about a situation as complex as the Iraq conflict, the Middle East or regional stability there. They are both right and both wrong. The question is, as Sen. McCain used to insist, where do we go from here forward. McCain wants to win, fine, what is a "win"? When will we know we've won if he won't tell us? Meanwhile, what do we do about all of our other international military commitments, our national economy and our veterans?

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS POLITICAL GOTCHA B.S.! I care about the troops! I care about the threat! I care about the economy! I care about common sense!

I do not believe anyone who says that the other guy wants his country to lose! period!

What ever happened to the "respectful" campaign we were promised?

Posted by plainbrown1 | July 22, 2008 10:09 PM

Did you notice the Dems' response to the Republican claims before the "start" of the war?

1)Bring more bodybags...

I like that to prove this was the case you link to a column written by an Australian journalist.

Posted by El Cid | July 22, 2008 10:16 PM

Please name a war with a lower "death rate"

You fucking sick bastard. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

As for the bullshit 60:1 ratio - pretty easy when you define everyone at the wedding party as terrorists.

Jesus fucking Christ conservatives are as stupid as they are evil.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 22, 2008 10:30 PM

BTW, Please name a war with a lower "death rate"- other than Grenada). Everything I see says we're killing "insurgents" at about a 60-1 ratio.

One of them was my first cousin who got blown to hell outside of Haswa. He had a pair of daughters. My Uncle had an "accident" with his shotgun about a week later.

How about you die of intestinal cancer in some mudhole somewhere where they've never heard of morphine.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 22, 2008 10:38 PM

Thanks to the Surge, the Continental Army was able to defeat the British at Yorktown.

Posted by George Washington | July 22, 2008 10:59 PM

Since the war was to presented to the public to prevent Saddam from being able to use WMDs, victory was arguably achieved before we even arrived as he didn't have any. Alternatively, it was achieved once the government toppled. But Bush's victory now seems to involve permanent bases and lucrative oil contracts for US countries. I get the feeling McCain's definition of victory is 'when I, as President, tell the troops to leave', which technically could be considered 'conditions on the ground'.

Posted by Martin | July 23, 2008 12:54 AM

Ed-

How about you die of intestinal cancer in some mudhole somewhere where they've never heard of morphine.

I was 17 when my father died from "Pancreatic cancer"- and he specifically told me that morphine was "inadequate"...

I'll bet you got a "chubby" when you read that.

Posted by fletch | July 23, 2008 1:00 AM

Martin-

Since the war was to presented to the public to prevent Saddam from being able to use WMDs

Saddam never managed to use any WMDs- Thus, Bush wins!

Posted by Miles Dyson | July 23, 2008 1:46 AM

No, he just had the misforture of squirting you out of his pecker.

I know you are a sheltered, little shit, but try and grok this: Even if I for wanting to be the Ugly Something wanted to shrug off cancer victims, I can't make them get cancer and then chortle about how rare a disease it is.

You actually helped kill a portion of my family with your bullshit politics.

I've got a friend, signed up right before 9/11, and he went through Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq until he went nuts. He came home and stuck his girlfriend, who was another friend of mine. Nice D&D geek and came home screaming at shadows. Because it was like Grenada?

There is a seat in hell waiting for you, believe that.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 23, 2008 1:52 AM

Ed Marshall-

I know you are a sheltered, little shit.

Talk to me!

I've already mentioned my father's death when I was 17.

Do you want the details on my "cocaine/barbituate" addictions that led to a 3 month period of living in my car, while "bathing" at a 'fountain' in a city park at 19? How about my 13 months in jail? Or, 'rolling' my car while drunk and incurring $60k in medical bills(paid in full!- cash!)?

Of course, I also paid $147K "cash" when I bought my condo in 2005...

He came home and stuck his girlfriend, who was another friend of mine.

Yet your pussy-ass never stepped up?

C'Mon, Ed! Bring your best!

Posted by leftist asshat | July 23, 2008 2:48 AM

Oh, my.

Ed Marshall is my real name. I live in Rockford, IL. I'm hoping to move to Chicago soon. If you feel like tracking it down and find an older guy with a fu-manchu mustache, it won't be be me it will be my Vietnam-era marine father. Tell him all about Greneda and all that shit. Tell him about your little war stories with drugs. Make damn sure and tell him about Darren Lunsford and the pussyish war he died in.

Or you'll find me and I won't be real impressed either. If you move quick you'll still find me at the Rockford Boxing Club. Anytime you feel like it, I'll beat you stupid.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 23, 2008 3:01 AM

Hey, big pocket asshole.

You can go wherever, right?

Let's fight. Octagon rules, boxing, whatever. I guess you have the stack, let's rock. What do you think?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 23, 2008 3:31 AM

As I noted before, while opting for the argument that the Iraqis wanting us to get out of their country proves the surge worked may be a face-saving gesture for the GOP, it won't win them any elections. Their best case scenario is: "Wrong on starting the war, wrong on ending the war, but right on the surge!" And that isn't going to cut it politically.

Posted by DTM | July 23, 2008 8:30 AM

"hundreds of dead"?

WTF? Your post was otherwise good but, holy shit, Matthew there are 4000 Americans dead and up to a million dead Iraqis.

That 1,000,000 is not ridiculous by the way. It may be off somewhat but two different reputable pollsters arrived at similar numbers using the same techniques that were never considered controversial in the past. Many neocons reflexively reacted against those numbers but that's because psychologically they have to or face the fact that they have committed a horrible crime based on a hoax.

For you to lowball that number in this extreme way is unconscionable.

Posted by The Fool | July 23, 2008 5:10 PM