Surge Amnesia: The Media's Newest Affliction

John McCain, aided and abetted by his loving protectors in the media, is running a victory lap on Iraq. To hear them tell it, the surge has "worked" -- indeed, it has been a huge success -- and this, like a last second Hail Mary pass, has vindicated the entire disastrous Iraq misadventure.

Buoyed by a reduction in violence in Iraq, war supporters are crawling out from the shadows and beating their chests.

"I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein," Condi Rice told Judy Woodruff last week. This echoed the comments of her boss, who crowed at a GOP awards dinner at the end of June: "The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision at the time, and it is the right decision today." Bush even felt emboldened to dust off blast from the past and claim: "Democracy is taking root where a tyrant once ruled."

And the media -- and even a number of Democrats -- are swallowing this triumphalist nonsense whole, and washing it down with a pitcher of revisionist Kool-Aid. The result: a collective case of political amnesia. Everyone seems more than happy to forget what the president's own stated goal for the surge was: to create "the breathing space [the Iraqi government] needs to make progress in other critical areas."

But here we are, 18 months later, and McCain and the GOP are being allowed to change the goal. And, surprise, surprise, the retroactive goal they've chosen is remarkably similar to the current situation in Iraq: violence is down while the "progress in other critical areas" is sorely lagging.

So, even though Bush originally claimed that "a successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations," the surge is now being judged exclusively on the success of "military operations." And since that's what the surge is all about, the surge is working. And since the surge is working, maybe we need to rethink this whole idea of ending the war, right?

Using Bush-McCain logic, since the surge has succeeded in reducing violence, there is no need for us to leave. Indeed, we can stay forever.

But here's the thing: while McCain and the Republicans may have been able to win the PR war among the American media, there is still that nagging problem of the lack of reconciliation among the warring factions in Iraq.

Last month's GAO report offered chapter and verse on all the ways the Iraqis have failed to reach the benchmarks that were the actual goals of the surge (see HuffPoster Mitchell Bard's comprehensive breakdown of the report).

And a ceremony held in Baghdad this weekend spoke volumes about the actual state of affairs in Iraq. The event, organized by an expert in conflict resolution, was held to announce the signing of a non-binding agreement reached by representatives from a wide range of Iraq's sectarian and ethnic factions, and hammered out during a series of secret meetings in Helsinki over the last year.

Although Iraq's Minister of Reconciliation said the agreement "has the potential to bring Iraqi political parties together in common cause in a way no endeavor has," coverage of the event leaves a distinctly different impression.

According to the New York Times, there were complaints that representatives of the Maliki government "seemed more intent on declaring the talks a success than in continuing to discuss significant disagreements." "When we came here," said a secular Sunni politician quoted in the Times," Maliki refused to talk about anything, just to have a meeting and a celebration."

"They can hug each other, and kiss each other, but they still don't agree," Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group told the Boston Globe.

"You still have a dominant Shiite power structure that doesn't want to cede any power," said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service. "Then you have Sunnis who are committed to overturn their humiliations. The fundamental dynamics have not changed."

The Globe suggested the most important aspect of the agreement was the fact that it was "announced at the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, marking the first time that participants in the effort have felt safe enough to gather inside their own country," then pointed out that the level of security required to attend the ceremony -- "including walls around segregated neighborhoods and eight checkpoints to enter the Green Zone" -- serves as "a grim reminder of how far Iraq has to go."

No surprise then that, according to the Times, experts think real reconciliation in Iraq could take decades.

And this is the good news out of Iraq.

As we continue on the long, hard slog until Election Day, John McCain and his supporters are going to claim again and again that the surge has worked. And it looks like the media are going to let that patently false assertion go unchecked. Which is pretty much how the war got started in the first place. So it is up to Obama, the Democrats, and all of us, to insist on holding the advocates of the surge to its original goal.

And while we are at it, we should also hold them to the original justification for the war itself.

Despite the revisionist re-writes, we didn't go to war because we were committed to demonstrating that America could unleash violence in Iraq and then, five years later, curb it through the use of reinforcements. We went to war because we were told Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to our national security and, secondarily, as a means of fomenting democracy throughout the Middle East.

Of course, the "imminent threat" turned out to be non-existent, and our presence in Iraq has strengthened the hand of every bad actor in the region: al Qaeda is safe and adding recruits, Hamas has come to power in Palestine, Hezbollah has reasserted itself in Lebanon, and Iran has become the strongest player in Iraq. Meanwhile, the reduction in casualties in Iraq is starting to be offset by increased casualties in Afghanistan -- once again showing the fatal ignorance of stealing from Peter to stop-loss Paul and keep him in Iraq.

So, tell me again: how is the surge working?

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[JJeff88]

Arriana - The debate over the Surge is being waged under the wrong rules on the wrong playing field.

The underlying reason for any improvement in Iraq has had more to do with more modern (some would say,"sociological") military tactics than an increase in troop strength (i.e. "the Surge.")

Outposts have been extablished in the neighborhood, with more focus on outreach to the citizens, rebuilding of infrastructure and delivery of social services (In other words, "winning hearts and minds")

We're fighting a smarter war now - and less of a "dumb war." The Surge has been little more than a side-show.

The strategy for getting out can now begin to take shape: Gradually build credibility among the people, turn over more and more security responsibility to the Iraqis, broker the necessary deals (for example; splitting up oil revenues) among their fragmented constituencies and withdraw as quickly as possible in synch with continued progress on the ground.

I realize this sounds somewhat "Bush-like", but the difference is: We can trust a Democratic administration to implement these strategies to achieve a decent outcome; whereas the Bush & Cheney people have proved they can't be trusted.

[Godfearing]

George Bush, John McCain and Charlie Black's decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 will give you the reason we are facing Phil Gramm's "Mental Recession," today. When you borrow a billion dollars a day from Japan and China to wage war for five years, without raising taxes on the Larry Kudlow/James Kramer Wall Street rich, you are going to be in trouble. With thousands of home forclosures, increasing gasoline, and food prices, plus 90 some banks and thrifts about ready to fail, that is the results of this stupid war. Add to that the senseless killing, wounding and the post traumatic stress disorder cases of our brave military men and women. Where is the money going?

For the answers Google - "John McCain and Military waste, fraud and abuse", and visit "progressi­vemediausa­.org." for some unsurprising answers. We went to war in order to enrich politicians, lobbyists and defense contractors at the expense of all us "Whiners!"

[RoseMerry]

Molly Ivins called the media, "Ahistorical". Eric Idle talked about the micropaleo­anthropolo­gist - people who studies the vast culture significance of the last 15 minutes. I wonder, are they propaganda artists or just stupid and lazy?

Ms. Huffingon, you are so very the exception. Thank you for the light you shine on the lies and laziness.

[thirteen13]

The surge is working and John McCain is a genius. So why is my standard of living deteriorating?

I want to know about the al Qaeda surge in Afganastan and safe haven Pakistan. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran will put the icing on the cake, just in time for the heating season.

Republicans are supporting and enabling al Qaeda's victory by plundering our resources through the Military Complex. There is no military solution. We are being baited by al Qaeda's stratagy to bankrupt our economy. Remember al Qaeda are a group of criminals that thrive on violence and chaos.

Our Nation is on the verge of financial colapse. The worst is yet to come. And all we can talk about is the surge is working in Iraq.

Bull shit!

[brighterside]

Hasn't occurred to most Americans that by taking out Saddam Hussein we did Iran a favor? Iraq and Iran has long been at war with each other and that hate still lingers between both countries.

The administration used the media to make excuses for a war against Iraq. Now they are making the same excuses for Iran.

I don't trust their intentions. We all know that their lying with all this terrorist nonsense. This is why we can't allow for another McBush 3rd term. We will be fighting a war with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan while Osama Bin Laden will be quietly sipping a margarita in Pakistan.

[SimonNZ]

I'm so glad the surge has been such a success! Now that Iraq is just like a Middle East Club Med, it may finally put an end to liberal whinging about the 4000+ dead US soldiers and untold thousands of dead Iraqi civilians and other minor inconveniences.

Hell, it's so calm and peaceful it's getting boring - I can't wait till we start a brand new war with Iran. Then we can relive the excitement of being stuck in a disastrous quagmire all over again!

[afgail]

The dirty little secret is NOT that we have achieved a democratic government in Iraq, but an exact duplicate of the Iranian government. An elected civil authority is overseen by the mullahs who have veto power over any of it's actions. The mullahs are not elected and have absolute veto power over any legislation. As in Iran, the radical Shiites out number the more moderate, better educated Sunni. Just wait until the Iraqi version of the Iranian prime minister surfaces, probably be Al Sadar. Hussein was a tyrant but not a Shiite extremist. The Iraqi government will prove to be an Iranian clone on steroids. Great job Bush.

[AzRealProgressive]

You really have got to be kidding. The Iraq government has no mullahs to oversee it. Sadr was the closest to one, he now is busy somewhere studying to be one. Sunni more moderate? The educated Sunni class, (See Saudi Arabia) back the radical form of Islam Wahabbi (ism). That particularily educated Sunni bunch has sent thousands of terrorists out into the world.

Great job by all.

[Pyott]

I agree whole-heartedly. The White House seems deaf to any consideration of the costs and opportunity costs of the war, as part of the overall evaluation of its merits. It is as if they think, or would like us to believe, the cost issue has absolutely no bearing on the larger argument.

It's absolutely phenomenal -- not to mention EXCEEDINGLY ironic. Conservatives and traditionalists consistently and vociferously warn against the unintended consequences and associated costs of large-scale government interference in human affairs. And yet they're oblivious to the well-documented propensity of war itself to exhibit those very same properties (often on a horrific scale). In fact, war is probably the pre-eminent progenitor of unintended consequences; we've seen this played out in excruciating detail in Iraq.

The White House tries to counter any discussion of cost as merely secondary to the overthrow of a brutal dictator. And yet Saddam's last large-scale act of violence was in 1991, to crush the Shiite and Kurdish revolts -- a full 12 years before the U.S. invasion. Saddam is certainly guilty of having tortured and murdered a certain number of people in the years after 1991 -- but this numbered in the hundreds per year. There is no denying Saddam's past acts of brutality. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest we would have been preventing other such acts with the invasion -- its only remaining possible justification, at this point.

The White House has no leg to stand on.

[antiprop1]

If an occupying force pumps in 40,000 more troops and sets up checkpoints in strategic areas, of course violence will be reduced. But have the political forces of Iraq reached agreements on how to divide oil revenue ect.? No! So now the Bush administration is using this fake peace as a chance to do a victory lap. What great humanitarians they are. What makes me sick is how the the naive American public wants so badly to eat it up. All the while the opponents of America's illegal occupation are just biding their time- waiting for us to leave. If McCain gets elected on a platform of this blatant propaganda, what little respect for the intelligence of the American public will be forever lost.

[AzRealProgressive]

The entire world, even the Arab world pegs Hussein's tragic murders in the thousands every year after 1991. The Kurds are specific evidence.

The law of unintended consequences was invoked by the Iraq invasion. That law is the very first to be brought out in any conflict of man. That law has shown itself in every conflict. The best laid plans go out the door when the shooting starts.

[jackjava]

You need to keep drilling that home Arianna. Keep showing up on talk shows and making this point. The Republicans have trained the citizens of this country to hear what they want them to hear, and teh media, just like before the Iraq invasion, are too chickenshit to call a spade a spade. I just can not get a grip on how the MSM can blow off the mcCain gaffes and misstatements as not newsworthy.

Rememeber when the media was 'outraged" by the Katrina response? Where is the outrage about this war. People talk about beating a dead horse about the fiasco in Iraq. Isay you can NOT beat this horse enough. Victory, what does that mean?

The Iraq gov't wants us out of tehre and they see how the election in USA will go this fall, and they are SICK of the Bushies telling them what they can and can't do.

[benzden]

Us Americans is as dumb as a fence post, no?!

We still think Sadaam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.

We forget that, BEFORE THE SURGE, we were demanding that our troops be removed AFTER BEING TOLD THEY WOULD BE by the end 2006, then 2007, ...

So, now that we believe that the surge has worked, we are no longer demanding that our troops leave Iraq?! (If it really has worked, then we should no longer have to maintain such a high profile in Iraq, eh?!)

- - - - -

Let's face it, they only reason Republicans want to keep our troops in Iraq is because it was a Republican who sent them there - it has nothing to do with reason, intelligence, threat or anything else having to do with reality. Had they been sent there by a Democrat, the Republicans would be making the exact opposite arguments they are making now.

[WilliamGossett]

Arianna -

It is working because the mainstream media says it's working.

The world has been through this type of logic over and over again and always winds up on the wrong side.

Also, any bets on NOT going to war with Iran within the next few months?

Whoever takes it will be a loser...

[BobOnThis]

Ah yes, the ridiculous circular arguements espoused by the purveyors of this illegal invasion never ceases to amaze!

But what, in all honesty, did you expect from the theocon neocons and the 'ends justifies the means' mentality that infects their critical thinking?

McCain, being a political nut, rather than a religious nut, has fallen into the same circular argument trap. Circular arguments being the only arguments the purveyors of gods & gov't can come up with.

McCain believes that because bush and cheney dove head first into 'the shit' that we as nation, and our armed forces in particular, should cover ourselves with this 'shit' and call it war paint.

The invasion is a clear violation of international & us constututional law, yet, McCains' primary concern is departing with honor... which presumably can only be done through victory... whatever that means today?

[AzRealProgressive]

Your arguement is that religion, the religion here in America, is responsible for the Iraq war?

Since the majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq war, and their vote and that of the Republicans authorized the president to defend the USA, I still can not follow how this conflict is unconstitutional?

I hate to say it, but circular reasoning is defined by starting out with a conclusion ,and working backwards to find the facts to fit your conclusion.

Many would say the same about this post.

[gopindrag]

America you are so like the abused child of an abusive father. The narrative is everything, everything else sacrificed to sustain the narrative. All sins are forgiven because they were committed out of an overabundance of 'love.' All crimes go unreported because we don't want to the baby out with the bathwater.
And we can recycle all of this when the day comes, as it mercilessly will, when another Nixon, another Bush, seizes an opportunity to abuse us.
America is like the abused victim who wants to welcome McCain as rescuer until he says, 'little lady, this is just not going to be your day.'

[Kashathree]

Seriously, no one believes this propaganda, do they?

Seriously, no one recognizes this as media hype under the title "McCain"?

Seriously, we are to believe that the war is ending in Iraq? Seriously? But....but­....but...­..McCain has indicated he wants the war to go on and on during his (God forbid) term as President.

I'm so confused. Whom to believe? What to believe? When to believe?

Seriously!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!

[thirteen13]

You can believe what you pay at the gas pump and heating oil prices. Higher prices at the food market. Our Nation is on the verge of financial colapse. Vote Republican to keep the status quo.

[lllllllllllllll]

Surge/Smurge! We already LOST this war! The fact that it cost over 4,000 American lives, hundreds of thousands innocent Iraq lives, and trillions of dollars just to accomplish so little means the war was LOST!!!! And of COURSE ADDING more troops could have a positive impact! Duh???? The fact that we started with such a small army already tells you how STUPID the Bush Admin. is.

This is too little, too late! The cost of this war wasn't worth it! If you're going to send our troops to fight a war, you'd better let them FIGHT!!!! The fact that our troops had to fight with one hand tied behind their back shows how WEAK this Admin. is! We LOST so much to have accomplished so little. The entire war is a complete FAILURE, and NOTHING can UNdo that!

[Pyott]

I agree whole-heartedly. The Bush White House seems deaf to the consideration of costs and opportunity costs of the war, as part of the evaluation of its merits. It is as if they think, or would like us to believe, the issue of cost has absolutely no bearing on the larger argument.

It's absolutely phenomenal -- and EXCEEDINGLY ironic. Conservatives and traditionalists consistently and vociferously warn against the unintended consequences and associated costs of large-scale government interference in human affairs. Yet they're oblivious to the well-documented propensity of war itself to exhibit those same properties (often on a horrific scale). In fact, war is probably the pre-eminent progenitor of unintended consequences; we've seen this played out in excruciating detail over the past 5 years.

The White House tries to counter discussion of cost as merely secondary to the overthrow of a brutal dictator who had murdered numerous people. And yet Saddam's last large-scale violent or genocidal act was in 1991 (crushing the Shiite and Kurdish revolts) -- a full 12 years before the U.S. invasion. Saddam is certainly guilty of having tortured and murdered a certain number of people in the years after 1991 -- but this numbered in the hundreds per year. There is certainly no denying Saddam's past acts of brutality. But there's absolutely no evidence to suggest we'd have been preventing other such acts with the invasion -- the only possible remaining justification for the invasion.

The White House has no leg to stand on.

[Passenger57]

The invasion only seems like a "failure" to those who thought that the Bush administration actually intended to do what it said it was going to do.To the neocons, it was (is) a rousing success.
Invade with too few troops: Check. Less troops = longer occupation. Sound advice from those "out of the loop" (Shinseki) is to be ignored.
Welcome/encourage anticipated looting : Check. More mess for the too few troops to clean up = longer occupation.
Disband Iraqi Army : Check. Violence anticipated ; more mess = longer occupation.Longer occupation allows Americans to grow accustomed to US forces in Iraq for long time.US forces never leaving Iraq completely.
Remove Saddam Hussein : Check. Might start accepting oil money in Euros only ; will kill dollar.Might also start talking about embarrassing deals.
Plant flag in Iraq : Check. Build massive US Embassy to show importance of Iraq to US. (who did they ask permission to build Embassy?)
US troops and Iraqi civilians : EXPENDABLE, as always.Being "expended" : Check. Use restrictive methods to count dead, to confuse Americans.
Construct military bases in Iraq: Check. Establishes military foothold in region.Israel will be allowed to use bases to attack Iran, if necessary.
Open Iraq to Western businesses : Check.
Secure oil deals : PENDING.
So, as you can see, they're almost done. Just one more thing to do with at least four months to do it in!

[Jules36]

Bottom line: The Iraqi government has asked the U.S. to GET OUT of its country. And i'll bet it's not Iraqi's leaders believe "the surge worked;" they simply want to be able to deal with their own problems THEIR way -- what a concept!

[JerryinATL]

It took the US to remove Sadam, and train their forces to handle their own security, 'so they could do it their own way', Without the US, they would still be getting murdered by Sadam and his cronies.

Bloodshed is inevitable when you turn a country around, that is so murderous in the first place. This is a regretable war, be it is needed just as WW1 and WW2 were needed. Our entire country and way of life depends on our ability to (over time) settle the region down and get democracy to take hold. Freedom is infectious, and that is why people long for the American dream.

You can blame America first, but the results (over time) will write history in our favor. Cooler heads will write history

[lllllllllllllll]

So now Iraqi's are being murdered by Bush and his cronies.

[coach777b]

If this was such a "needed war", so vital to the interests of all Americans, why haven't the recruiting stations been overwhelmed with new recruits. Why haven't you and yours signed up to fight this "needed war"? Why are the people who love this war and support it whole heartedly not the ones fighting it? No, as long as poor whites, minorities and the disadvantaged sign up, hoping to get an education or a jumpstart on life, the supporters know they don't have to go! But they can cheer. I am a Viet-nam era veteran, a former drill sergeant and a paratrooper. I've been there. Where were you then? Where are you now?

[okayigive]

Get real, do you really think that the government cared about the bloodshed imposed by Saddam? What transpired in Iraq is no different than what is or has happened in other parts of the world by dictators, military juntas, etc., yet their plight is ignored? Why? Could it be that the government hasn't found a financial reason to invade or that some ally or other power has already taken claim to resources? Stop being blinded by the propaganda that is being delivered by the government and MSM. Start thinking for yourself and asking questions. Seemingly, you like many others are like the poor rats in Pavlov's experiments that have to be shocked hundreds of time before they find the right path to change their behavior and thinking.

[MaryanneAZ]

What the government cared about was that Saddam had nationalized Iraq's oil industry. We wanted and need their oil. Somehow our oil companies needed access. Hence, the war. We now have access to the oil. Our oil companies have once again pulled up to the spigot. Now we need to keep our troops there to maintain our oil companies' ability to pull oil out of the Middle East. This is really not rocket science. The surge was a hail mary move to allow our oil companies an opportunity to enter into agreements with Iraq for their oil. We Americans were too stupid to see this obvious behind the scenes maneuver or to understand what has occurred even now. Straight talk my a$$.

[biwee]

Khazar???

[NoFactsJustTruth]

I'm expecting that very shortly, Arianna, that the 'democracy that's taken root' in Iraq is going to get crushed but good by a prenutz and administration that destroyed it's sovereignty once already, and has seemingly done EVERYTHING in their power to prevent it from recurring. That Iraq first recently told OUR Government they'd auction THEIR OIL contracts to the highest bidder, including Russia and China, and then asked for a withdrawal time-table with NO permanent U.S. bases - likely now makes Iraq a bigger threat again than even Iran (which really wasn't).

It's NOT another shoe that's going to drop, but more likely a BIG damn boot full of laser-guided bombs and covert civil war instigation. It's quite possible the neoCONmen shot their denationalization plans in the foot with 'the surge is working and the violence is down' crap, that was really made possible ONLY by 'don't shoot' bribes to Sunni tribal leaders. OUR taxpayers have been buying yesterday's insurgents all these 'pimped-out rides' they now race the streets in, but surprise - they STILL don't want us there.

It would seem the only way to stop the Iraq independence now happening would be another escalation in violence that somehow keeps us there, and I'm guessing it may not take long to start happening.