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

[deminmo]

The best news isn't the surge working, it's a change
in the War Powers Act! No matter what McCain/Bush
says, the Iraqi Invasion was going after the wrong guy,
not going after the right one, and spending the US into
a profound debt, to still be right where we are with Iraq
10 years from now. Of course, Bush now has a base for
operations into Iran, and fine oil deals for his big oil friends.

[divtune]

I believe the current reduction in violence in Iraq resulted from a temporary truce between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions after their segregation into enclaves, done through violent “ethnic cleansing”. This temporary truce, brokered and sustained by U.S. troops and money (bribes), will end when the U.S. occupation ends, if not sooner.

We're faced with a clear choice in this election.

Obama: Give the military the mission to responsibly withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible.

McCain: "Victory" at all costs ("I will never surrender in Iraq, my friends. I will never surrender.") Victory means Iraq becomes a peaceful, multi-ethnic democracy.

World history since 1900 suggests that multi-ethnic countries are only held together by occupiers or by tyrannical regimes. Ending the occupation or tyranny results in the expulsion or genocide of ethnic minorities, or the creation of multiple new nations along ethnic lines, i.e. as happened with Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, British India, British Palestine, and Turkey (Aremenian Genocide & Greek Expulsion). McCain's imagined "victory" is not attainable.

John McCain’s inflexible, never surrender, policy aimed at creating a multi-ethnic democracy from a tyranny ensures a permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq at close to current troop levels under combat conditions. Iraqis will not continue their truce with U.S. troops if the occupation becomes permanent.

Barack Obama offers us a flexible withdrawal policy, a more cooperative, diplomatic approach, and a calm, analytical and intelligent mind capable of adapting to the inevitable challenges to come.

[lepere]

I'm not so sure that the truce willl break sooner or later. At last count about 75 or 80% of the iraqis felt that we had overstayed our welcome and were thought of as occupiers. Malaki has just stated that there will be no permanent U.S.bases in Iraq and no agreement as to a U.S. military presence in Iraq and when are you leaving , soon, I hope.
That is what a truce costs in these parlous times.
The white house claims that he has been mis-translated.
Let's hope that the Iraqis can wait for a new administration.

[AzRealProgressive]

World history suggests what ? Is the USA a multiple ethnic country? Or Ireland?, or France? or Italy? Poland

Each one of those countries is multi ethnic , and there are many others.

Ireland has Danes, Norwegians, Africans, Scots, French, English, Dutch, Spanish, and the bloodlines of all of the Roman conscripts. Poland has so many you have trouble counting them.

Your examples are out of historical context as to why they happened. And are a poor illustration to the point.

You may be right about Obama. Then again, not. We will soon find out.

Be factual instead of posting blather.

[knighthowl]

To the extent any of your examples of multi-ethnic countries are accurate, they are all multi-ethnic by immigration and by choice. Iraq, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Turkey, etc. were multi-ethnic by force and the various ethnicities occupied specific geographic areas, unlike Ireland, the U.S., and the rest.

To quote a famous poster, "Your examples are out of historical context as to why they happened. And are a poor illustration to the point."

[lvuback1]

While I will never understand why George Bush and his cronies continue to get a pass from America, if there is any explanation at all, it would have to be the bias of the media.
For most of my lifetime the media stood for laying out the truth for all to see. What the hell happened?

[daddysboy]

More importantly, the media has apparently stood for making money more than 'laying out the truth for all to see'. Now that push has come to shove, it's the money they are after, not the truth.

[CHARLESTHETENTH]

Total agreement however the American people for the most part still don't get it. They believe what our home grown news media speaks and that's where most get their news. So it should be no surprise that many will take this to the voting booth in favor of McCain. Although predictions run high that the economy and domestic issues will be the deciding point in this years election....don't rule out the Iraq/Afghanistan card...many will still be swayed and believe we are truly on the path to Victory.

[guntotinganglion]

"Democracy is taking root where a tyrant once ruled."

Yes, but only when fertilized with the life blood of a million innocent Iraqi's (that's 3 times as many as Saddam killed).

[contrariandy]

The surge is not working. Iraq is not, and will not, be safe for Americans to occupy. We're not winning in Iraq.

Al Qaeda is not the issue. Radical Sunni Al Qaeda outsiders are not and were never a threat to take over a Shite country like Iraq or Iran. What happened is that the native Iraqi opposition took a "surge year sabbatical". They live there. They're waiting us out. We don't live there. Eventually, our combat forces will have to leave like those of all the rest of the "coalition of the willing" (those who were "willing" to be paid off, arm-twisted, or threatened by us).

The surge is and always has been nothing but a propaganda plan for American politics. Think about the fact that, in the long run, no occupier has ever been able to control Afghanistan. Why would we expect Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, to be easy to occupy and control? They want the voters to believe that the surge has been successful and that we're winning, but the fact is that Iraq is not safe for Americans, and it won't be safe for Americans. You can't win in Iraq through a tiny, temporary surge. Don't believe a word of it.

[AzRealProgressive]

This post is what Obama uses as an example for the personal politics of destruction. No facts, just an opinion that is contrary to international news reports, MSM of every stripe, generals, and even the web sites of our enemy in Iraq.

The consensus of the educated informed people is that we are not only winning in Iraq, we may have won.

Why are you so invested in defeat?

I heard Obama is going to Iraq in the near future. What happens to your version if he decides we are indeed winning?

[contrariandy]

Remember in the beginning when the generals said that it can't be won militarily? It's just as true now as it was then. Temporary military occupation of small parts of Iraq isn't the same as "winning" in the long run. I'm all for optimism, but how can you think "we may have won". over who? foreign fighters? They aren't going to decide it any more than we are. The facts on the ground are that Iraq is not safe for Americans and will not be stable unless there is political reconciliation. Haven't you seen any reports indicating that the native Iraqi insurgents are waiting us out on what I call a surge year sabbatical. You're being fooled by short term triumphalist election year propaganda. The long term situation has not changed. Iraq must be settled by Iraqis. The best way to accomplish that is to set a date for withdrawal to force the Iraqis to compromise and work together. The surge hasn't produced political compromise, but the fact that we're going to leave is starting force them to stand up for themselves. In that sense, Obama has already had the impact that the surge failed to have. He may take the opportunity provided by the "we've won" propaganda, to say okay, we've won, let's go home. Then the Iraqis will either work together or settle it for themselves.

[daddysboy]

The FACT that this opinion was based on is that this is the HOME of Iraqis and not Americans. The opinion that was based on this is that eventually they will want their home back and want us to leave. This was VERY clearly stated. Your use of the labels 'progressive' and 'real' and pointing out that you are from the same state as mccain while towing the bush and republican party line all belie an obvious intent to twist neocon rhetoric into something that some actual progressive people might be fooled by. What REAL progressives are invested in is getting OUR country back on it's feet and the return of the middle class and getting our soldiers the hell out of the middle east as much as possible without returning the area to a dangerous chaotic state more than it already is. "The consensus of the educated people..."? are you KIDDING?

[woodguru]

I was thinking about the cost of a military attack in it's short lived initial action. It is nothing, the cost is in the occupation, but more than that this war has been far costlier than necessary because of the inept planning and willingness to throw excessive funding at big corporations and do it without oversight or accountability.

Too much of the floundering around when it first became obvious that there was no plan in mind for an occupation was throwing money around with vague goals, but worse than that was the cluelessness of the "experts" that had no idea of what needed to be done that were hired to organize and set policy. It's the blunders that did the irreparable damage that gets really costly.

Focused competence is so much more cost effective when things are done right and don't create horrile cleanup operations.

Can you imagine the difference had we utilized the 500,000 soldiers that were ready and eager to follow direction and go to work stabilizing their country?

[hosshoss777]

Shias and Sunnis power struggle bull!!! What the Iraqis problem is, and understandably so, is that they want to drill their own oil and sell it without having Global Oil companies taking the lion's share of the royalties(fancy word for profits) As for Afghanistan, I am always dismayed at the lack of questions over the legitamacy concerning our invasion of that entire country just to get one man. One man who may or may not have had anything to do with 911. And even if he did, Afghanistan didn't do 911. It discourages me to hear Barack Obama say he wants to end the Iraq war only to go back and reinvade Afghanistan again.

I live in a country where two factions, the left and the Right, can't seem to agree on the right war to fight but still are in favor of fighting a war somwhere. Doesn't this bother anyone besides me?
(pssssst, both wars are wrong)

[AzRealProgressive]

I think you missed the point on Afghanistan. Bin Laden not only admitted to 9/11 he bragged about it to everyone who would listen, and promised war on Infidels.

Infidel would include you.

The government of Afghanistan at the time, the Taliban (recognized by about two others in the world as legitimate) sponsored bin Laden and his campers. According to you, that is fine. Just make a police report and insist on prosecution, right?

The only way out according to bin Laden was if you converted to Islam.

So, hoss, the mosque thing working out?

[daddysboy]

America and Americans have been hated by many people and countries just about from day one of our foundation. Many religious extremists of all backgrounds have stated openly that they think America is evil. Many revolutionists with little resources have blathered on over the years about blowing up every industrialized nation. Terrorism is a tactic of those with little to use and little to lose. Up until recently, we weren't even the primary target. Had we worked more genuinely on restoring some sense of dignity to those that have been displaced throughout the middle east over the last one hundred years, these extremists would look more like pat robertson and less like sadaam hussein. Afghanistan is now infested with heroin drug lords because the only thing that will still grow quickly and reap a decent enough profit to survive with no resources in the bombed out fields is poppies. Then bush decides to get on a moral high-horse and bomb the crap out of that. Is anyone surprised that with no serious diplomatic efforts in place that these people are inflamed at us? And to top it off, bin laden is STILL at large. The one single stated goal and reason for thousands upon thousands of Afghanistanis, Iraqis, and American soldiers to die has not yet been accomplished during almost the entire presidency of bush.

[idest]

You know who else thought the Taliban was legitimate? Dana Rohrbacher (R).

[realiybased2]

Is anyone out AWAKE? Does anyone but me see this "surge working" as the terriorists are now put their efforts elsewhere, like Pakistan, Iran and Afganistan.......the violence is getting in worse in all three areas. Is the SURGE REALLY WORKING, OR HAVE THE TERRIORISTS "MOVED" THEIR "HEADQUARTERS"..

[Pollitrix]

If the "surge" worked why did it take Malki to ask us to leave. It would have looked better if we would have told him we were going to leave, so get it together. Now the USA truly, looks as if they're occupiers.

[mergina]

But i do not think voters are buying it. I hope not. One can never be sure in a country that actually elected Bush TWICE.

[JanP]

I don't understand this demand that we be defeated in Iraq.

The Sunnis and Shia are getting together and defeating the Jihadists. The government is fucnitoning better than it was. oil is flwoing and contracts ahve been let to companies that know how to work oil fields.

You ahve sunnis fighting Sunni Jihadists and Shia fighting shia Jihadists (Mahdi army of Sadr).

The Iraqis are resurrecting their airline with new, American made, airplanes (Of course, you might prefer that Boeing, which builds combat aircrat go out of business. that way, the business will go to Airbus. Of course, Airbus is part of EADS which builds combat aircraft.)

The Democratic defeatism goes to energy, also. Liebral friends had no idea how much oil we ahve in the U.S. Just the bakken Oil Shale in South Dakota has between 175 billion and 500 billion barrels compared to Saudi Arabia's 100 billion barrels. Obama and friends think we can just stop using oil tomorrow and it is only evil oil and car corporations who prevent us from having alternate energy.

My son lives in Oakland. The bay area is at 96 degrees today. It is near electrical brownout toady. Can any of you guys hazard a guess where the electricity will come from to power electric cars?

[NinerTener]

So, are you saying that 4000 Americans lost their precious lives so that "companies that know how to work oil fields" have access to Iraqi oil fields and so that Boeing can sell airplanes to Iraq? What a noble thought!

And what about Afghanistan? Do you think our neglect of this place, where it all began and where Bin Laden still runs free, is another success story?

Get your head out of the sand, literally. Bush and McCain had it all wrong and the contine to have it the same way!

[benalbanach]

There you have it...If the US can bludgeon enough of the oil supplying nations into compliance the fellow in Oakland will be able to operate his air-conditioner. Then the good Christian folk of this God-fearing country can return to their cooled churches and thank the good lord for his kindness.
Democracy will be hailed triumphant and Condi can go on beating her chest and being proud of her accomplishments.......

[daddysboy]

THANK you.

[divtune]

It is the McCain's demand for "victory", a stable, multi-ethnic democratic Iraq, that is the problem (see my post above). History shows this is unattainable. Iraq will either partition itself along ethnic lines, or return to tyranny after the occupation ends.

Oil shale conversion has huge environmental problems. "In 2002, about 97% of air pollution, 86% of total waste and 23% of water pollution in Estonia came from the power industry, which uses oil shale as the main resource for its power production" (Wikipedia). Conversion requires huge amounts of water as well.

Power plant generating capacity sits mostly unused during the night, and can be used to charge electric cars, or generate hydrogen for fuel cell cars. Current U.S. power plants use hydro, coal, gas, and nuclear energy, all produced domestically. Converting cars to run on natural gas is a viable option as well.

[idest]

Get it through your head, conservative. Withdrawal does not equal defeat. I'll repeat it. Withdrawal does not equal defeat.

In fact, here's a concept: Withdrawal equals victory! After all, if we've succeeded in our mission (whatever today's definition of that is) in Iraq, then why do we still need soldiers in country?

[realistic2008]

How will anyone reconcile two diametrically opposed views of societies, their culture and religion is as naive as when Rumsfeld believe he/we will be welcomed with open arms, kisses and flowers and to claim victory is as moronic as the Bushe´s domestic and foregin policies.

[LaColombe]

When the US spends 54 percent of its money on the military industrial complex, there is something wrong! When the US accounts for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending, even though the U.S.’s share of the world's GDP is about 21 percent, there is something wrong! When the US cost of the Iraq war is estimated to be 3 trillion dollars, there is something wrong! The price in blood of the Iraq war is being paid by the voluntary military. The price in treasure is being financed entirely in borrowing and will long be a burden to future generations. It's time that The American people need to know in name (corporations and citizens) who the profiteers of this war are! The surge in corruption and avarice has been going on since the inception of the War on Iraq! President Eisenhower envisaged this problem when he said:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

[ofbbg]

Where in the name of the god of accuracy did you get your ridiculous figures re: expenditure percentages? Pravda - Tass - Wapo - LATimes - Al Jazeera? Have you looked at the percentage of our money that we spend on dysfunctional entitlement programs? Have you examined the money we just throw away providing services to illegal aliens? Good Grief!!

[daddysboy]

yah, like an unbelievably ridiculously low amount. And for the record, saving people's lives from abject poverty isn't throwing money away (despite any structural problems with the system), it is doing your duty as a civilized person and a member of our society and a citizen of the planet.

[idest]

Those numbers are actually pretty accurate, and might even be the low-end of the scale considering all the secret Pentagon projects not factored into the defense budget. What's wrong with the Washington Post? Still bitter they exposed Nixon? So sorry.

Illegal aliens actually represent a net gain to our public spending. They pay their taxes (to avoid deportation) and they don't seek public services at the rate of others (for fear of deportation).

Are the entitlement programs dysfunctional because you don't like them, or because they help poor people? Maybe you don't think the government should help poor people. If so, that's fine, we just have entirely different moralities.

[RobBob]

The big problem I have with the statement that "the surge has worked" is that there's no compelling evidence connecting the reduction of violence to the increase in coalition forces/operations. There were several factors involved, to include:

1) The Sunni Awakening, in which Sunni leaders got tired of Al Qaida Mesopotamia running amok in Iraq, killing indiscriminately
2) The Sadr movement's unilateral cease fire, allowing the coalition to focus on beating up the Sunnis so that they could consolidate power
3) Overall war weariness
4) The arming and financing of Sunni "Sons of Iraq" forces, many of them former insurgents who now depend on American tax dollars for their livelihood
5) The "Surge"

No one of these factors is solely responsible for the reduction of violence; in fact no one of these factors can even accurately claim to be the driving force behind the calming. Add to that the fact that nobody is prepared to suggest that if any of these factors changed (e.g. if Sadr calls of the cease fire, or if funding of the SOI stops) that the violence won't return.

The US was fortunate to have these various factors coincide with the start of the surge in early 2007. It doesn't surprise me that the Administration and their apologists claim that it was all due to the surge; it's just depressing that others allow the claim to go unchallenged.

[Mike O.]

The ability of liberals to twist the facts defies all odds.

Simply amazing.

And sick...

[benalbanach]

You telling me Bush is a Liberal ?

[smags72]

So what facts have been twisted, and how? Specifically? Do you have any substance to back up your accusations, or are you just trolling about calling liberals names?

[ktodack]

Yeah RobBob you've got it right, I was going to comment but you have said essentially what my analysis is. The Surge helped reduce casualties but had probably the least effect. Essentially until mid 2007 there was a civil war and the Shia's won-- tens of thousands of Sunni's were murdered and run out of there homes and are now living out of the country or in protected walled enclaves. When the surviving Sunni's saw that they were in a terrible situation they started cooperating with US forces for protection and got tough with Al Qaida. Iraq people are just plain tired of this many year nightmare and many of the fighters are worn out. Sadr is content for the time being in pressuring the government to set a time schedule for the removal of US forces. How is it that just a few of us can see what's really happening when everyone has access to the same news services. When a lie or an exaggerated spin is put on a situation (the surge is working) and repeated enough people start believing it's a fact.