Has the 'Surge' Brought Us Any Closer to 'Victory'?

Peter Galbraith's new book, Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America's Enemies has a chapter on the "surge", in which he calls it the "Potemkin Surge."

This may sound surprising -- if not heretical -- to many people in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have bought into the gospel that the surge has worked.

But if the surge has worked, that must mean victory is just around the corner, right? That's certainly the impression that the Bush White House is trying to give -- without exactly coming out and saying so.

The surge has undisputedly been accompanied by a dramatic and welcome reduction in violence. But Galbraith argues that it wasn't the surge as much as other factors that led to the reduction in violence; that the main factor was the Sunni Awakening; and that the U.S.'s de facto creation of a Sunni army -- led in some cases by the same Baathists the U.S. invaded Iraq to overthrow -- has in fact contributed to Iraq's breakup and set the stage for an intensified civil war between Sunnis and Shiites once the U.S gets out of the way. Whenever that is.

"It's not a stability that can last," Galbraith said in an interview last week. "People are coming to the conclusion that we're winning merely because we've reduced the violence, as if that were an end unto itself."

Reporters should be pushing back more aggressively when administration officials talk about how, thanks to the surge, we're now winning in Iraq, he says.

"What do they mean by victory?" Galbraith asks. President Bush and Republican presidential nominee John McCain generally describe victory as leaving behind a peaceful, secular, democratic country that is an American ally. But where are the signs that Iraq is headed in that direction?

Rather than a country on its way to normalcy, Galbraith sees a country where rival factions are consolidating their power and readying for an epic battle once the coast is clear. Another reason often cited for the reduction in violence is that Moqtada al Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army to observe a cease-fire. But rather than a sign of political reconciliation, Galbraith says, this is a sign of strategic thinking. Why fight the Americans when his real enemies are the Sunnis? Sadr "has every strategic reason to keep his powder dry," Galbraith says.

Why is the Shiite-led government suddenly so eager for us to leave? It's not because the violence is down. It's because we got the violence down by turning people who were shooting at us into a Sunni army. "The Shiite government sees the Sunni military as a threat--which it is," Galbraith says. "It isn't that 'things are going so well we can manage on our own,' - it's that 'you are no longer serving our purposes'."

Galbraith thinks journalists are under-reporting certain key aspects of the current Iraqi political situation. Among them:

* The character of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government, which Galbraith says is profoundly anti-Sunni and not likely to make accommodations, regardless of the occasional PR blitz to the contrary. Reporters should also talk to Sunnis and Kurds in the government and ask them how much influence they feel they have. Reporters in Washington should be asking their sources: Do you really see Maliki as someone who is committed to secular democracy?

* The character of the Sunni Awakening. A hundred thousand Sunni fighters - used to getting paid $300 a month by the United States - are in fact not going to be easily accommodated by the Shiite government. And who knows what they'll do when the U.S. stops paying them?

Galbraith praises the quality of reporting from Iraq, "especially given the difficulties of operating in Iraq." But in Washington, he said, journalists "too often take what people say at face value."

If people continue to think the surge is a success, the result could well be Bush leaving office with a widespread public perception that we're winning in Iraq.

But then what happens? What happens is that when things start to get ugly again, when there's a civil war, or a partitioning, or an anti-American strongman comes to power - i.e. when we inevitably start to "lose" - Bush could avoid the blame.

"We need to settle the issue of 'Who lost Iraq' now," Galbraith says. "Because the last thing we need in our politics is another corrosive debate like 'Who lost Vietnam' and 'Who lost China'," Galbraith says.

Well, then, who exactly did lose Iraq?

"George W. Bush."

This post originally appeared on NiemanWatchdog.org.

Follow Dan Froomkin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/whitehousewatch

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

Has the 'Surge' Brought Us Any Closer to 'Victory'?
Yes.

[GrainOSand]

"The moral code of the end of the millennium condemns not injustice but failure. Robert McNamara, one of those responsible for the war in Vietnam, wrote a book in which he admitted it was a mistake. That war, which killed more than three million Vietnamese and fifty-eight thousand Americans, was a mistake not because it was unjust but because the United States carried on in full knowledge that it could not win. By 1965, according to McNamara, there was already overwhelming evidence that the invading force could not prevail; nonetheless, the U.S. government continued as if victory were possible. The fact that the United States spent fifteen years visiting international terrorism on Vietnam in order to impose a government the Vietnamese did not want does not even enter into the discussion. That the world's premier military power dropped more bombs on a small country than all the bombs dropped during the Second World War is utterly irrelevant­."
--Eduardo Galeano from his book Upside Down -- a primer for the looking glass world

Do not get fooled again. The surge is the distraction. The bouncing ball is individual quality and possibility of life and economic future.

[laocoon]

You buyu a car from a dealer who tells you that with the financing it will end up costing you $10,000, it will get 75 miles per gallon and go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. You drive the car for a few months and find that with the financing it will cost $50,000 it gets 5 miles per gallon and goes from 0-60 in one hour. the dealer fixes it later so it gets 15 miles per gallon. Is it now a success?

[research]

"The surge has undisputedly been accompanied by a dramatic and welcome reduction in violence."

I dispute it.

Iraqi deaths, which the USA does not even count, are UP since before the surge and soared during the surge, but I guess Iraqi deaths just don't count.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/01/iraq.main/index.html http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

The way the military claims violence is down is that the number of large attacks are down.

[johnh1019]

Now if only Bush and McCain would leave behind a peaceful, secular, democratic United States.

[CactusTom]

It is possible to win wars, but there is nothing that is winnable about an occupation. The occupied will eventually do whatever it is that they are going to do, unless, of course, as the occupier you are willing to kill off whatever number of the occupied it takes to have your way with them. I hope we do not have the stomach for mass murder.

[hawkeye58]

As soon as we stop paying the enemy to be our friends, they will again be our enemies.

[pennsykid2000]

If a reduction in casualties was the objective, removing the troops completely would have produced the biggest success. No troops there, no casualties. The surge was supposed to lead to Iraqis "standing up" and the govt getting its act together, neither of which has happened. However, the biggest and most overlooked travesty is this: George Bush repeatedly calls the “surge” of U.S. troops sent to Iraq a success because of the decrease in casualties. By implication, then, that means the chaotic violence that reigned in Iraq over the prior four years was a direct consequence of BUSH's failure to provide enough troops during that time. He was counseled by many, most notably Gen. Eric Shinseki, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to plan to send many more troops to oversee post-war Iraq. For four bloody long years Bush refused, deferring to the judgment of former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. While Bush stubbornly stayed the course, inadequate control over Iraq needlessly cost the lives of several thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. If Bush wants to claim to have finally gotten it right in Iraq, he also has to accept blame for having gotten Iraq so wrong for so long.

[djarvis]

Winning or losing in Iraq is irrelevant. We should never have attacked Iraq in the first place! We should never have taken sides in the Sunni-Shia rivalry. Since we decided to prop up a Shia government, it has only caused the Sunnis to hate the Shia more. When we eventually leave Iraq, one can only expect the Sunnis to go after the Shia government. It is not our place to decide who runs the country or what kind of government they have.

[SamThornton]

Strictly speaking, "the surge" -- an increase of U.S. troops on the ground -- has little to do with lowered levels of violence in Iraq. What has led to the lull is Moktada al-Sadr's decision to rein in his Mahdi army, and the willingness of Sunni war lords to accept cash and weapons in return for not shooting at us. Those in Washington who believe otherwise are living in a fool's paradise, an all too familiar address for them.

[undueattention]

I have seen similar comments in the past few days... I'd very much love to get a first-hand source for these events (the reining in of the Mahdi army and the warlords agreeing to stop attacking us in exchange for cash and weapons). Were they in the news somewhere when i wasn't looking?

[SamThornton]

Yes.

[lisakaz2]

And they got 527s trying to convince voters that this is "true." I'm in TN and an ad urged ppl to call O's office to tell him the surge is working.

[priorato]

I recall vividly the origins of the surge. It was designed to give the fledgling Iraqi Government some "breathing room" so they could pass the necessary legislation to organize their country. They needed to establish a viable Parliament and government agencies; divide up oil revenue, etc.

There used to be "benchmarks" that we followed, kind of like a scorecard, to see how the Iraqi Government was progressing towards being self-sufficient. Well, that didn't last long because no one could decide if benchmarks were being met.

The surge, in and of itself did stem the tide in violence, but as Froomkin pointed out [via Galbraith] is that we are paying off Sunnis and al-Sadr declared a cease-fire [for his own sinister purposes]. I'd like to think as a U.S. Army Veteran that introducing 10's of thousands of troops will always have a positive affect on the battlefield, BUT WHY WOULD BUSH OR MCCAIN BE TAKING CREDIT FOR THE SKILL AND FORTITUDE OF OUR SOLDIERS?

I suppose the bottom line is this: Iraq will always be a mess because of the deep rooted religious differences of the population. Biden suggested a tri-partitioning of Iraq so each group could have their own federation. That is a start -- we need to think of new ways to promote peace and stop using our soldiers as referees in a civil war that we created based upon the lies and deception of the Bush Administration.

[Opsimath44]

All anyone needs to know: Petreaus refuses to call the Surge a success.

[lucite]

He knows the truth. Where is Colin Powell in all this? Why won't he speak out? He is a man that knows the truth.....­.SPEAK UP POWELL..

[KoolBreez]

Colin Powell knows the truth but he lies.

[lisakaz2]

I wish someone would put this on TV rather than that 527 group telling ppl in my state to call Obama and tell him the "surge worked" (because Petraus said so, apparently -- forgetting the missed benchmarks, his own qualifications, its thinness in translating to anything political). To me it's bs propaganda that the sclubs buy because they want to be reassured that America "won" -- like it's a Olympic race.

[billwetzel]

Petraeus is no fool. He still says the gains are tenuous and fragile. I doubt he even really has an good idea what the endgame will be. Militarily, he knows they've done what they can do, but politically, that's another matter in itself. Political reconciliation has always been the big question.

[lisakaz2]

I know he tries to straddle a fence but in the sound bite the small qualification shown is simply ignored. The headline is "success" so that's what you're supposed to believe. Still, he says things that the boss wants to hear. I mean wasn't it only 3 of 18 benchmarks that were actually said to be met and a few others "partially" (whatever that is).

[FirstShirt]

Victory in the middle east is homeostasis. We are close enough that the Iraq government wants a timetable to withdraw. Given that their heads will be cut off if the surge hasn't been working, I would assume the surge is working.

[CyrusBeaucephus]

hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths later

How many heads got cut off before the invasion? Zero

Do you guys have any other great ideas? Just curious

ps the masterminds of 911 are all still free

[lisakaz2]

Close enough is an assumption. You forget that consent of the governed can't come via military force. Al-Maliki likely recognizes that violence is caused by the presence of the foreign troops and he'd look good if he could get 'em to leave.

[Shabba]

37,000+ American troops have been permanently stationed on the Korean border since 1953, and North Korea is still as big a threat as it has ever been. This is what we have to look forward to in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[jmpurser]

Except the South Koreans aren't demanding we leave. The South Koreans aren't demanding the right to imprison our troops. We aren't arming and funding an army of South Koreans inherently hostile to the South Korean Government. The South Koreans are setting up a government hostile to the West. And there's no "North Korea" we need to defend Iraq from.

Iraq and Afghanistan are unmitigated disasters for the United States. Korea is a minor nuisance that is occasionally useful.

[Opsimath44]

Actually, the South Koreans have been paying us to stay there, just like the Germans did for most of the '60s, '70s, and '80s.

Totally different situations, although there are some parallels.

German and Korea were us vs. them situations, with a clear line drawn between the two sides. If you're going to draw a line between us and them in Iraq, what would it look like?