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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I do not consider the alleged succes of the Surge a victory for a war that was declared over years ago! And, considering the lost of lives (Americans and other nationalities); the impact on our economy; the suffering that our troops are encountering in hospitals all over the country; and the lasting impact on families (divorces, suicides, etc.) If the Surge is so successful, what timetable have the Repugs come up with for getting out of Iraq and doing what needs to be done in Afgan? Iraq officals have asked for a timetable...!
the surge works when it is spelled k-i-c-k-b-a-c-k. it is just another way to put money in cronies pockets.
Thank god that there is an immergence of a backbone amongst the Iraqi government. They are standing up to Bush's BS.
Given that the only source of information regarding violence and casualties in Iraq is the US Pentagon, I don't trust that the reported reductions are true. It is just too politically convenient for Bush and Bush III/McCain.
It is not the only source. Go to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Be sure to look at the graph. You can see that the reduction is true.
You ahve two choices: you can question what the Obama camp is telling you or you cna question what they are telling you just liek yu question everyone else.
Question Everything!!!
At least since Reagan, I've watched the rightwing redefine everything. The “MX missile,” a 10 cluster, 300-kiloton (20 times Hiroshima WMD) nuclear death machine, morphed into “The Peacekeeper.” “Estate tax” became “death tax.” “Tax” became a 4-letter word. Pro-choice” is “pro-abortion.” We initially invaded to secure WMDs, then to liberate, then to bring democracy to the Middle East, then... So now the “Surge,” originally to be used to give “breathing space” for the political sides to reconcile has become a success at restoring order and security. Of course it has. And if the latest incantation doesn’t work out, then whatever works out is what “the Surge” has become.
Obama is defined as a “flip-flopper” (a.k.a., Gore; a.k.a., Kerry; a.k.a…) when the only position he’s modified is his objection to FISA (look it up). Whereas McCain, who has difficulty finding anything, including marriage, where he hasn’t flipped and flopped time after time is defined as a “Maverick,” so powerful this last definition that even some on the far right have bought the hogwash and won’t support this bizarre little neo-con.
The right defines and the left jumps on with both feet. Every single time. It’s happening again this time; we still appear to have our eyes tightly closed--at least we can’t see the real terrorists.
Arianna, the TRUTH, . . History will prove You Wrong! . . Sorry
Before we go around beating our chest,how about thinking about where we at and why?
For starters could the reason for this so called victory be a shift in strategy by asoma bin laden?
like for instance,changing priorities to afganistan where we got less troops?
Sometimes i do think that our people who has the responsibility of planning this campaign are so dumb,are we being outfoxed by some terrorist or are we winning?
The causalties in afganistan did not escalate by accident,it was a change of strategy,i can bet today if we should shift troops from iraq to afganistan, iraq would again escalate.
seems like we are short on strategies on the battle field and in the white house.
Get a grip.
neocon "truth" is nothing but lie after lie after lie :-)
There have been 5+ years of history already on this war.
What kind of history are you thinking about? The wishful kind where you ignore what's transpired thus far and talk about how you would like to see history written?
History is happening right now..... today..... it's not something that will happen "some day" and "years from now."
Whether you like it or not the history of this war has not been good thus far. The history that's being written today is only marginally better.
The Iraqi government wants us to leave, so anything that happens after we are out is nothing we can take credit for.
So tell me about this HISTORY ...... over 4,000 Americans Dead.... Countless Iraqis dead..... Hundreds of Thousands (possibly millions) displaced..... Infrastructure in ruins .... no closer to a political understanding between the two key factions in Iraq (not even mentioning the Kurds) ... Iraqi "security forces" are woefully unprepared to take care of their own country.... Iraqi government more sympathetic to Iran than the West.
Sorry the news is bad, but the news is the news....
I'm sure the parents and spouses of every brave beyond words troop that gave their life (OR came back maimed and/or mentally broken...let's not forget these souls) will say that W is a great President. And Condi, Rumsfeld, Cheney, & Rove will stand there telling you all how to think. Please....History will certainly prove something ChiMan....
Talk about amnesia and spin
January `10, 2007 President Bush, in justifying the surge said
“...America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad..."
But let's not let the facts get in the way.
But then again, this comment will be blocked by those who still believe that the vast right wing conspiracy put Monica up to it.
Glad your post got through but not sure what your point is.
America changed strategy but Iraq has not stepped up and can not (by it's own admission) defend itself without American support.
So..... to what lengths are we prepared to go to "help?" And.... what's the timetable for the Iraqi's standing up and defending their own country (from within, by the way)
What percentage of our national treasure are we prepared to spend to achieve this purpose and how many American "helpers" are going to die in the process?
How long after Iraq asks us to leave are we going to acquiesce and actually leave?
Nice bringing up the whole Monica angle.....it's a great way to attempt to redirect the conversation away from an argument you are going to lose based on facts.
January 28, 2003
John McCain stated that "I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."
February 7, 2003
Donald Rumsfeld said that "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
March 16, 2003
Dick Cheney stated that "we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
May 1, 2003
George W. Bush declared that "major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
But let's not let the facts get in the way :-)
Posters here praise or condemn news pundits and sources if they disagree with the content or message. For me personally it is difficult to guage the success of the surge or the direction of the war accurately due to highly personalized agendas. The truth is more important than rhetoric..
One of the most unbiased, objective sources for the state in Iraq is the reports done by the International Monetary Fund. The reports cover the Iraq government, security and financial progress. They are informative and offer a much clearer picture than the MSM provides.Those reports are meant for international consumption.
Before castigating news sources for the positive comments on the surge, read the IMF reports on Iraq. They are interesting.
You really think the IMF is an unbiased institution with no agenda?
Alright, I'll leave you to your comforting delusions.
"Democracy is taking root where a tyrant once ruled."
Shouldn't the definition of democracy include the feeling of being safe outside one's own house? And what about the freedom to, paraphrasing here, pursue happiness? As in economic freedom, educational freedom...
I thought that the only reason violence, while still sadly heavily present, was down a little was because various groups declared a truce. What happens when these groups don't see any advantage in being non-violent anymore, such as when the US army refuses to leave?
Did we feel safe when Japan attacked us and Germany declared ware?
Diid that automatically make us something other than a democracy?
The GOP, the McCain Campaign, and the McCain Media have many sacred cows that cannot be violated, many sacred myths and mantras that cannot be examined. But, none, not even the suggestions that John McCain isn't qualified to be President and CinC, or that a former POW may have some issues best kept from the Oval Office, is as unviolated and unexamined as the myth of the surge.
To those who remember the years of useless troop escalations in Vietnam, and the inability of even half a million Americans to occupy that country, the myth of the small, temporary Iraq surge should be patently ridiculous. Yet, no one dares to examine the other reasons leading up to and concurrent with the surge that may have far more to do with the current reduction in violence from horribly unacceptable to grossly unacceptable.
We know that the Iraqi opposition forces are simply laying back and waiting us out, but, it would apparently be "unpatriotic" of the media to recognize this fact and take any degree of credit from our military. And, it's almost unimaginable that anyone in the media would state that it was the very real possibility that a Democratic President would begin a gradual end to the occupation that spurred the Iraqi government, military and police to finally act in their own interests as they never would for ours.
Adrianna, Thanks for the fact check. It is very discouraging when the media goes with their sensationalizing and not getting the facts out there. No wonder we have this problem with low information voters. I look forward to the day when the media and pundits gives us the facts and they stop insulting our intelligence. Possibly with the facts we can elect an effective president this year.
What is a "low information voter". ? Is that someone who disagrees with your point of view?
It is someone who doesn't read books or newspapers or watch anything but Fox News or listen to anything but Rush Limbaugh.
My friend has satellite TV with worldwide international channels, if you want the truth about Iraq and Afghanistan , disaster capitalism , I suggest , all thinking Americans demand a media that is not in the pocket of corporate interests.
The U.S. news is propaganda , and the sad part is very few Americans realize (read) George Orwell 1984 was spot on!
Any international news source, online or newscast, will
give more information than we get from the networks and
most cable.
And speaking of bad actors - what of Israel? It not only encouraged the US to attack Iraq, but now promises to attack Iran if it cannot get Bush to do so. And in between it has attacked Lebanon and is ethnically cleansing Palestine. For the sake of the Middle East and the world, either pull out of Iraq, sit on Israel - or both.
Please tell us where Israel told America to attack Iraq - both times.
The journalist most guilty of propagating this claptrap has to be David Gregory. I swear watching his show is just like reading the McCain campaigns talking points. I'm not sure why he doesn't just throw in the towel at MSBNC and head on over to FOX where his incredibly biased moderating style would be more in-sync with the rest of the network. I watched his show last night and was completely disgusted at the way he bent the truth and defended McCain while pretending to be the nuetral moderator. David Gregory needs to be let go immediately.
I agree. Gregory has always been a Bush kiss @ss. It's no wonder he's kissing McCane's butt now.
Send him over to Fox. Better still, he could fill in as Anderson Cooper's double on CNN.
It would be easier to forget Gregory shaking a leg with Karl Rove at the press club dinner, if he would just ask one of his right wing friends why, since the surge is called a success because it is restoring security, we didn't just leave Iraq alone; Saddam was good at maintaining order.
Please do a google video search on saddam torture. Then, explain to us how good it is that he tortured, maimed and killed people. Did you ever see some Saddam thug cutting out the tongue of a person? It isn't pretty.
Justify the gassing of halabja with his non-existent gas WMD's. Tell us why you think saughtering the Marsh Arabs and drianing the marshes was jsutified, particularly in view of the money we are spending to preserve the everglades.
I’m a Jim Webb democrat more than a knee-jerk liberal, but Arianna, you are right on again. And consider that under no circumstances can any foreign military force decide or even influence the Sunnis’ and Shi`a’s place in modern society. Only Sunni and Shi`a can, as their very history demonstrates. When is the West going to realize how deep and long run the blood-red tribal sands of time?
Educated leaders like Maliki don’t care that Iraq will be left behind in the dust of 7th century ghosts, doomed to a Fourth World economy. He’ll be fine in his offshore villa and Swiss bank account. I doubt whether the Prophet Mohammed had this in mind for his faithful followers.
A brave soul of great inner strength, John McCain is of a proud naval warrior bloodline. And, like many well meaning failed military commanders-in-chief before him, foreign and American, McCain believes in his heart he's right about Iraq. But to keep American forces in Iraq, to keep rubbing salt in the ever-festering wound of the Middle East while hatred of Americans deepens and the U.S. economy slides further into debt is suicide.
The ancient land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers has known countless invaders like us. Old Mesopotamia has sucked in the blood of zillions, and holds beneath it one of the largest oil reserves on earth. How many American sons and daughters is that oil worth John McCain, how many barrels of blood?
Very poignant. As we look at the intentions of many people who ostensibly feel we are in Iraq for the "right reasons," we have to ask those questions.
1. What does History Tell us about Iraq? You are right-on. History tells us that it's fraught with peril to try to occupy that country.... Just ask the British who have so clearly not learned from their most recent adventure in Colonial Occupation of Iraq.
2. What does History tell us about Occupation in general? Ask...... The Romans, Alexander, Ancient Greece, the Ottomans, the Turks, Genghis Khan, The Vikings, the Spaniards, The British, the Portugese, the Germans, the Soviets, and so on, and so on, and so on.......
3. What is it worth to the American people to carry on as we have been doing? What are we getting out of this? Oil? Please... we have spent more $$ than the value of the oil in Iraq on this misadventure already. Security in the Middle East? All evidence is that our occupation of Iraq is having the reverse effect.
If we are being asked to make this "investment" in Iraq the simple question is this: "What's the Return on Investment?" "How long are we prepared to invest before realizing that return?"
Thought these republicans were supposed to be Capitalists - that seems like the fundamental question.
Why of course we won the war with easy in the first few weeks. It’s the nutty occupation that we are trying to force down the throat of the Iraqi people that’s the thing that’s never going to work.
Haven't you heard? The surge is so successful that the Iraqi government thinks it's time for the Americans to leave. It's now demanding that the US set a timetable for troop withdrawal. Apparently, the Iraqi government is closer to Obama's position than to McCain and Bush, who seems to want to ignore the wishes of the democratically-elected Iraqi government because he needs to bomb a little more democracy into them before the US withdraws. That will probably happen in a hundred years according to McCain's plan for "victory" or whenever the last drop of oil is drained out of Iraq by Bush's cronies.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
