As the stage is being set for an “AfPak Surge,” it might be time to take a look at Surge 1.0, in the now-forgotten war (the one we barged into when we forgot the Afghan War, which we’re now remembering), the one in Iraq. What we’ve been told incessantly, especially by Republicans, is that “the surge worked.” What exactly does that mean?
Let’s look at it for a moment with a cynical eye, the one possessed by politicians and satirists alike. The surge encompassed a rapid infusion of American troops, simultaneously accompanied by a short-term program of paying off Sunni insurgents to switch sides. What was supposed to happen was that the job of paying off the Sunnis would eventually transfer to the Shiite government, which would enroll the former insurgents in the national army and police. Meanwhile, peace would ensue, and we could withdraw.
What we’ve known for some time is that the Iraqi government wasn’t keeping up its end of the deal, that is, it was refusing to integrate the Sunnis into national forces. Now comes a report from the Sunday Times of London (owned by Rupert Murdoch) that says the southern city of Basra, famously cleaned up by a government surge last year, is now experiencing the return of militia members, who spent the intervening months chilling in Iran. The result: targeted killings of people, like translators, who worked with the British (who centered their operations in Basra).
So what was the real purpose of the surge, the real success? To act as a convenient fig leaf to cover our withdrawal of troops, perhaps? And leaving the following administration to reap the political splashback if renewed chaos ensues?
Would that be the real nature of the plan President Obama is announcing this week, Surgeleaf 2.0?
Follow Harry Shearer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/letwits
Arianna Huffington: Why Joe Biden Should Resign
The vice president has long opposed escalating in Afghanistan. So if the president decides to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on his "deep reservations" and resign.
Obama and Afghanistan: One speech, many agendas
Afghan officials fear talk of exit strategy
Extra 500 troops for Afghanistan is a political call as much as a military one
That's the sucker game for Americans.
Wake up anytime, people.
But the neo-fascist Hussein regime is gone and the foreign and domestic Jihadists were defeated by Iraqis with American assist.
Now Iraqis can try to build their future. I am hopeful. Iraqi (surprisingly) turned out to be mature enough to oust the baathists and Jihadists (foreign and domestic) out of their communities. The road ahead is difficult but there's hope based on present situation. Iraqis now need support, not gloating and immature sniping over setbacks. U.S should leave now, but ONLY after securing some political deal between competing interests ( Sunni, Kurds,Shia).
When all three of those objectives failed, and even worse things (looting, a budget fiasco for the US, a guerilla warfare/jihadi recruitment boost, the US reputation loss after Abu Graib /the "fixing of facts" were exposed, the wholesale killing of innocents, etc) took place, Bush then moved to goalposts to "spreading democracy" and "the surge will contain the insurgents" and "fight them there not here".. (Nevermind one real motive: give ignorant Americans a newsfeed that says "we're winning, and now we can leave" and then dump it on O.).
So did the surge "work"? It may have slightly decreased insurgency action. (For a few months) But killings and bombs are still happening, our soliders are still getting killed, there is massive corruption, Bin Laden is still around, the Iraqi government is not really in control or a functioning democracy, and the region is still unstable (in a way it wasn't before).
So let's be honest: the US did not win the Iraqi war. I say this not to denigrate the troops or to weaken our current resolve; hopefully admitting the truth may lead us to better choices in the future.
The fact is that a significant victory was won with the surge.
Was surge the cause or coincidence can be debated. But those who discount it just because it happened on the Cheney's watch indulge in political naivete.And forfeit the entitlement to the
proud term of a progressive.
I am very happy that the surge, U,.S. policies and Sunni allinace worked to bring some semblance of peace to Iraqis.
Furthermore. it is is logically inconsistent to assume that people who are supportive of surge and other successes in Iraq are automatically supporters of the war and/or Bush/Cheney cabal.
Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. But it very, very wrong to leave Iraq in 2005. I am glad Americans had enough wisdom not to do it. Now the conditions for exiting Iraq are seem much, much better;. time to leave and focus on Afpak. ]
Sorry if this is too complex.
Case confirmed.
(George Carlin (he's sorely missed), on noting the epithet, 'freedom-fighters' , to describe American military personnel out to save the world from itself - and thereby free it to donate itself to American interests, wondered if freedom-fighters had any connection to fire-fighters or crime-fighters. If so, he concluded, all nations of the world were potentially in grave danger.)
play stonehenge!
Clinton beat herself by running a bad campaign. To the dismay of many Obama is a centrist not a progressive. It's interesting how people choose to rewrite history.
When all three of those objectives failed, and even worse things (looting, a budget fiasco for the US, a guerilla warfare/jihadi recruitment boost, the US reputation loss after Abu Graib /the "fixing of facts" were exposed, the wholesale killing of innocents, etc) took place, Bush then moved to goalposts to "spreading democracy" and "the surge will contain the insurgents" and "fight them there not here".. (Nevermind one real motive: give ignorant Americans a newsfeed that says "we're winning, and now we can leave" and then dump it on O.).
So did the surge "work"? It may have slightly decreased insurgency action. (For a few months) But killings and bombs are still happening, our soliders are still getting killed, there is massive corruption, Bin Laden is still around, the Iraqi government is not really in control or a functioning democracy, and the region is still unstable (in a way it wasn't before).
So let's be honest: the US did not win the Iraqi war. I say this not to denigrate the troops or to weaken our current resolve; hopefully admitting the truth may lead us to better choices in the future.
As much as I was against everything the Bush administration stood for, especially the Iraq war, the surge (and whatever went on behind the scenes) was incredibly successful in its primary goal of reducing violence.
I don't know if it's a sustainable peace, and I don't know if it can be duplicated in Afghanistan. I would prefer that we end our involvement in both places. But if we're going to be there, the success of 1.0 does seem to justify the investment in 2.0. I support a graduated war surtax to pay for the escalation and will be disappointed if Obama is against that surtax.
I have lost all confidence in this president. We are STILL in Iraq and now he doesn't even mention it. We are adding forces in Afghanistan (for WHAT????) He needs to get the guts to tell these war-mongers the American people have had more than enough. We want OUT , of both Cheney/Bush wars, and we want out NOW. Not in 2 years, or three, or four, NOW!!!!!!!!!!
Try sticking with that thought.
And the bottom line is it didn't either win or end our invasion and occupation in Iraq.
There is no reason in the world that it will have any positive effect in Afganistan either.
A couple of hundred thousand more into each of our three might help but it won't win. We won't win as long as there is any native population.