The Surge Doesn't Make Military Sense

Now that John McCain and Dick Cheney have made their surprise visits to Iraq, expect another media-coordinated, officially dispensed round of rosy propaganda about how wonderfully the surge (read: escalation; read: permanent occupation) is going.

Beats me how Cheney can delude himself into believing that he can somehow serve as a rehabilitated voice of worldwide credibility on Iraq. But why aren't respectable pundits and reporters simply scoffing or laughing at him? And what does it say about the dark times in which we live when John McCain isn't being booed, hissed, and heckled off the presidential soapbox as he campaigns for an indefinite continuation of our idiotic presence in Iraq? I'm baffled about why thoughtful observers aren't recognizing and identifying John McCain as the very face, for our epoch, of impaired logic and corrupted vision.

I'm not going to rehearse the common critique about the surge's obvious political failings. We all know that the relative reduction in violence, such that it seems to be as selectively reported to us, hasn't produced anything close to national reconciliation in Iraq -- which was the whole point of the surge. But proponents are clinging to any glimmer of military stability as a sign of impending success somewhere over the rainbow. They lash out at critics as naysayers and defeatists. Their ad hominem attacks and convoluted rationalizations are desperate and divisive, but that overall preemptive strategy seems to be fending off widespread outrage for the time being.

My point is to focus again on the military strategy. What, exactly, is it? President Bush has told us time and again -- and again at the time of proposing the surge -- that we are fighting terrorists "over there" in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them "over here" in the United States. But one of the first things we did in the surge was to seal the borders in Iraq, to prevent foreign insurgents from entering. (With the extra troops we also facilitated neighborhood ethnic separation or cleansing, further segregated Shias from Sunnis, bought off tribal and religious leaders, hired as many other Iraqis as American money could buy, and pored good ol' American tax dollars into reconstruction projects.)

But back to the border issue: We tried to keep Al-Qaeda terrorists out of Iraq. Wasn't that new-found goal of stabilizing the country (for political reconciliation) fundamentally at odds with our greater global strategy of confronting, engaging, and fighting terrorism in Iraq rather than elsewhere? Why are we now trying to keep them out of Iraq -- displacing the violence -- so that they are free to fight us closer to home? Can this glaring military contradiction, a flip-flop in strategy from confrontation back to cold war containment, simply be elided, spun, and finessed?

My own gut feeling is that the neo-cons and hard-core Bushies just don't care. They are clinging to the pretense of eventual success in Iraq surely in order to save face (and/or oil). They want to construe the repression of violence in Iraq as achieving a "victory" over terrorism. But it's not. So what's the point? McCain clearly wants to pander to the Republican base. But the Cheney-ites want vicious vindication. They ultimately want to win a think-tank, talk-show, and op-ed page argument vis-à-vis their domestic adversaries regarding the propriety of being in Iraq at all. They want to say, "We told you so -- we were right all along!" They want to scorn their critics. And they go farther. They want to brand their fellow citizens as anti-troop, un-patriotic and un-American.

The sad conclusion to this analysis: The happy-talk surge proponents are today more concerned with fighting domestic interlocutors at home than they are genuinely concerned about fighting terrorist enemies abroad.

Comments

[Sundialsvc4]

Here is your "strategy." Here is all of it. Listen carefully:

(1) Topple, and execute, Saddam Hussein.
(2) Install a puppet government.
(3) Give that puppet government one piece of "legislation," which gives-away all the undeveloped oil resources of Iraq to foreign companies ... namely, "me." That's a treasure worth about $12 trillion, maybe many times more. No taxes, no royalties. Scot free.
(4) There is no step #4.

Also listen carefully: THAT PLAN HAS NOT CHANGED. All the military resources of America, all her young men and women and maybe her not-so-young men and women, are put at the disposal (literally) of the President who can by force-of-arms and a handful of pocket nuclear weapons ACCOMPLISH this goal.

Nothing ... not a hurricane, not a collapsed bridge, not medical care, not a stock-market meltdown ... absolutely NOTHING ... is as "important" to these psychopaths as THIS ONE THING.

Believe me, I am absolutely calm. I mean the word "psychopath" for its Wikipedia meaning. This is... what they are. This is... what they are doing. Everything that General Eisenhower foresaw, 47 years ago, is coming true. This is not security, it's a metastasizing cancer. This is not sane government; it is bald, unchecked human greed. It is not rational; it will not stop on its own. It's got all three Branches of government heavily involved.

It is the most disasterous enemy that our Republic has ever faced: The Enemy Within.

Be afraid. For God's sake, BE AFRAID.

[Stirner]

Is there any acceptable political candidate for the President of the United States? Most of what I read in Huffpost tells me that there is no one. McCain? a crazy Bush clone. Hillary? Another round with Hillbilly? Oh God! Go back to Arkansas!. Obama? Obama? what's he for? Plenty "feel good" here, but the more I know of him the less I want to know about him. Now then, come on, let's face it: there is only ONE candidate still running who (1) wants out of Iran, not in 100 years, not when it is "stable" but NOW. No excuses for staying at the party any longer. (2) wants a money supply based upon a solid commodity, and not on the unsteady promises of that non-elected private collection of bankers called "The Federal Reserve". (3) Wants the government to protect civil rights and privacy -- not the other way around. (4) Is against torture. period. (5) wants our troops out of such places as South Korea, who are there, evidently, to protect Japan (6) wants to put an end to the endless "War on Drugs", which is just about as stupid, and endless, as the "War on Terror". One could go on. But his name seems to be UNMENTIONABLE on Huffpost (and elsewhere). Now, question: who should I vote for? None of the above? or, dare I? -- NO! I won't mention his name. Clue: initials are R.P.

[Sundialsvc4]

Any acceptable candidate? Nope. Take your pick, any one of the three, because I "pwn" them all. Any one of the three equals eight more years of war, because I haven't gotten my $12 trillion treasure yet.

As for "getting out"... dear little-person ... ;-) ... you simply do not understand. As long as we do not "get out," as you say, then I am getting $96,000 a SECOND. So, no, I am not the slightest bit interested in "getting out."

All that money you are spending ... I am pocketing. And when the war is done, I will have virtually conquered the world because I will now control its energy supplies. I am an utterly calm and rational, but utterly insane group of men and women who have been dreaming of this for a generation. I am your nightmare. I am your greatest fear come true. I am the smiling gentleman who shakes your hand as he cuts your throat.

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Afraid enough to stop me. Afraid enough to impeach me and to drive out all of my well-placed compatriots to save your country ... a country that I control but only for my own ambitions, not because I value either it or you.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Afraid enough ... to stop me.

[Sundialsvc4]

"The Greatest Crime on Earth," John. Let's call it that. Write the book. Rip the scab off. Show this damnable thing for exactly what it is.

What you had last week was not a political visit: it was King Richard introducing his successor King John and delivering the riot-act to the puppets who stubbornly refuse to be puppets; refuse to give their oil away under the appointed pretense of normalcy that the Kings demand.

This is what it's all about, John, what it's always been about and, I would suggest, you and I both know it well. We do no one in this world nor in our own country to call it anything other. The Press was not given its sanctified position by the First Amendment that it should be Pravda; reporters, apparachtiks. The greatest and most audacious crime in the history of mankind is being committed in our midst and with our own blood. And the master-criminals are about to sail away.

"One if by land." The Enemy Within. The downfall of Rome, of Troy, of ... America?

[Collusion]

CellarDoor,
I would say that the definition of terrorism you posted offers very little understanding of the real issue, and that is where many of your questions will be resolved with clear definition.
Try
"Unfortunately, terrorism is a vague term, so that Osama Bin Laden would say he is against terrorism. We need a clear definition. I propose that it be defined as "the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political gain." Even for just causes, terrorism is an illegitimate tactic." -Baoz Ganor http://www.meforum.org/article/710>
or

The back of "The Red Sea" Shay discuss the nomadic culture and political propensities¦Walter Laqueur talks about Anarchist their propensity to use terrorism.
A History of Terrorism by Walter ( Jul 31, 2001)
The Red Sea Terror Triangle: Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Islamic Terror by Shaul Shay (Oct 13, 2006)
The Shahids: Islam and Suicide Attacks by Shaul Shay and Aharon Farkash
Some other good reads are:
The Globalization of Terror: The Challenge of Al-Qaida and the Response of the International Community by Yoram Schweitzer and Shaul Shay
Boaz, Ganor. The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle: A Guide for Decision Makers.
Gurr, Ted (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

O"Neil, Bard E (2005). From Revolution to Apocalypse Insurgency and Terrorism. 2nd Edition, Revised. Dullas, Virgina: Potomac Books, Inc. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc.

Taber, Robert (2002). War of the Flea the Classic Study of Guerrilla Warfare.
Washington, D.C: Potomac Books, Inc.

[Rescisco]

As our fearless leaders try to explain our Iraq strategy, all I ever hear is a string of incongruities and absurdities from the mouths of dangerously inept men who seem almost innocently unaware that they are absurdities. Such is the art of American politics that such clever idiocy and dangerous ignorance may be so efficiently uttered aloud without causing either a fit of laughter or a riot in the streets. The deception is so complete that even the truth is ashamed to show itself for fear of being considered unpatriotic.

[Tankan]

Terrorism is a name used by the worlds bully boy nations when rag tag militias don't fight fair by refusing to engage in the type of conflict that suits the enemy!
The bully boy nations in combating terrorism engage in limited terrorism themselves in a vain attempt to discourage the rag tag armies attacking them, but they fail to recognise that the enemy is willing and unafraid to die. This is because they fight to relaim their very own, and although this would be denied by western nations, it is willingness and determination that will ultimately defeat them.
Foreign soldiers in Iraq know in their hearts they are part of an illegal war, and while they carry out their orders, they lack the same determination and willingness to die because they are fighting for oil and profit and not fighting to defend their very own.
If the political leaders were required to fight in the front line, war would be a very rare event. Political leaders today callously send young men and women to fight and die on their behalf, for no other reason than making the rich richer and the poor laying on the battle field or burying the dead.
Those who support the war should, instead of being the fireside soldiers they are, ship out to Iraq and let the troops come home, but we all know that won't ever happen!

[jrb35]

"Terrorism is a name used by the worlds bully boy nations when rag tag militias don't fight fair by refusing to engage in the type of conflict that suits the enemy!"

No, it's called asymmetrical warfare. Terrorism is when you strap explosives to yourself or your ca and blow up a marketplace with the intention o killing as many civilians as possible.

"Foreign soldiers in Iraq know in their hearts they are part of an illegal war, and while they carry out their orders, they lack the same determination and willingness to die because they are fighting for oil and profit and not fighting to defend their very own."

Really? Have you interviewed any American soldiers there? Surely there are many who disagree with the policy and think the US should get out. But if you think they aren't fighting for each other then you just don't understand what it means to be a soldier in combat. Of course they're unwilling to die... They're not stupid. Only a worthless idiot would choose to blow himself up.

[LeftRight]

That you think that the terrorists are idiots shows why bush and his ilk have been able to control everything for the last 7+. Whatever else you call them, they are not idiots. They are certainly different from us, but so are the buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam war.

Furthermore, when you look at wars fought throughout history between truly unequal forces, you often find suiciders on the lesser force, because you need to kill more of the enemy per person on your own force.

I'm not saying that the terrorists are right, I don't think that they are. But they are not stupid, or idiots, and calling them such is no way to begin to understand them so that we can deal with them.

[dadw5boys]

Probem is anyone who does not automatically obey in Iraq is considered a terrorist and treated like one.

Even here at home the war supporters call fellow Americans terrorist if they do not support Bush and the War.

[mengwise36]

Reading your BIO, I failed to see reference to West Point, or War College or even any Military Academy. So while you are free to argue the war's morality, its legality, its political correctness, or its economical impact, I do not see your qualification to critique the "surge" militarily.

[LeftRight]

Alrighty, even though I didn't go to any military academy, I did serve in the military, so here's your answer:

The purpose of the surge was to give breathing space to the Maliki gov't in Iraq to pass many rules required by the US gov't. NONE of the major rules have been implemented, and only a couple of the minor rules. The surge has, therefore, failed, since it was a military action with a political purpose.

As regards the reduction of violence in Iraq during the time of the surge, it's still at levels higher than any year before 2006. Furthermore, the only reduction in violence that exists is due more to the fact that the people in Iraq are now living in homogenous neighborhoods, rather than the mixed neighborhoods that they were living in under Saddam.

[CellarDoor]

HuffPost's Pick

Can we, once and for all, finally come clean intellectually about "fighting terrorism"? No red herring...no ad hominem...nothing but the truth. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as " the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". Ok, we got the (hopefully) generally agreed upon definition of what terrorism means. Now, pray tell, how do we win the war against terrorism? If terrorism is not a philosophy, not a political ideal, not a system of government in any respect...what is it in relation to the war? It is what it has always been: a tactic. Tactics are not won or lost...they either succeed or fail and then (hopefully) lend themselves to the overall strategy. Terrorism also isn't a people, a country, a religion, a non-secular practice, nor intrinsically related to any group or people, religious or otherwise. It is a tactic practiced by those who have no means to wage war/combat in a equivalent fashion to their enemy. Meaning that a categorically weaker opponent will use terrorism or guerrilla tactics to overthrow or cause dissent in a more powerful enemy (usually in every manner but primarily in resources) as they don't have the means to confront them in any conventional manner. Thus, you cannot win a war against 'terrorism' in the traditional sense and more importantly, in the civil sense. Let's say you kill everybody on the planet who identifies as a terrorist as well as those who have committed acts of terror. Would the "war on terror" then be won? Now let's say that one of those terrorist had a child...who then grows up and resents what you did to his/her parent. Guess what....another terrorist. So then what? War on Terrorism, the sequel? This is a horrible conflict and I don't mean to make light....I would just like to know how you wage war against a tactic...and then how you can win a war against a tactic. And why the hell we're all still talking about this as if it's not absurd?

[jds0000]

You're right that fighting terrorism is impossible. But the fact that War on Terror is a misnomer doesn't negate the conflict itself. Whenever you hear the phrase "War on Terror," just mentally replace it with "War on Islamist Extremism." No doubt the Bush Administration believed (probably correctly) that the latter phrase would be twisted into a "War on Islam." Hence, the neutral, but meaningless, "War on Terror."

Regardless, in response to Seery's original post:
You argue that providing stability in Iraq, in part by keeping foreign terrorists out, is contrary to the greater strategy of defeating Islamism by confronting it in Iraq rather than elsewhere. The problem is that you misunderstand the strategy. The point of defeating radical islamism in Iraq is not to kill as many terrorists as possible, but to defeat the ideology of extremism itself by demonstrating its fundamental weakness. The current goal in Iraq is to show that, given a choice, people will choose freedom over terror and tyrrany, and that American power is not just the "paper tiger" that Bin Laden predicted. If we give up in Iraq, we will give Islamist extremists another sign that America has little power and no will, and that the "strong horse" is not America (and American ideals) but the ideology of hatred espoused by the jihadists.

[JXB]

While we are being intellectually honest, perhaps we should also acknowledge that the "War on Terrorism" is a slogan and nothing more, a clever advertising/marketing device intended to provide cover for the administration's pursuit of various policies and to be used as a tool of intimidation to fend off political opposition to those policies.

[hopeless277]

I like the way our Leader happy-dances for reporters at the White House. I like the way they laugh and clap at his antics. Our Leader's sunny optimism is just to hard to resist. Happy days are here again, the sky above is clear again.........

[Aaror]

I'm torn,
On one hand, I agree with all the points you made.
On the other, the surge is a tiny fragment of the strategy we needed from the beginning if we were going to "win," in Iraq. We needed 200-300 thousand troops, and 130 is better than 100 at that point.
Still, you are right that it is not like we can really win at this point anyway, and we bought time for something to happen politically that doesn't seem to be happening.
I guess what I am objecting to is the headline. The surge doesn't make sense, and the military can't be a solution at this time, but the surge does make sense from a purely military perspective. But headlines are what you make them, sorry to quibble.

[JimR]

Except that there's more to the surge's "success," than the number of troops:

"The U.S. has not only added 30,000 more troops in Iraq " it has essentially bribed the opposition, arming the very Sunni militants who only months ago were waging deadly assaults on American forces. To engineer a fragile peace, the U.S. military has created and backed dozens of new Sunni militias, which now operate beyond the control of Iraq's central government. The Americans call the units by a variety of euphemisms: Iraqi Security Volunteers (ISVs), ..... At least 80,000 men across Iraq are now employed by the Americans as ISVs. Nearly all are Sunnis, with the exception of a few thousand Shiites."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge

[LeftRight]

There is no such thing as "win" in Iraq! The only way to "win" there is by killing everybody that lives there! Iraq is not a country such as we are used to, and this is the reason that we cannot "win" since the country will fall apart without one of two things:
1) we stay there forever
2) we give the country over to some strongman, such as Saddam Hussein

[JGatsby]

Just how are we going to "win" with 200-300 thousand troops? If we completely obliterate anyone that resists us and install a puppet government that ignores the will of the Iraqi people and does what we want is that winning? From a moral perspective I would consider that intolerable. However, even if we are completely Machiavellian such a "win" does not benefit the majority of the American people. It gives multinational oil companies control of oil. It means even more money (from a budget that is already hopelessly in debt) for defense contractors like Halliburton. How does that benefit the average American? In the long term even such a "win" means that we are creating more (justified) hatred for America through out the middle east which means more terrorism and more wars. It also means that we are delaying the inevitable transformation we must eventually make (both because of global warming and peak oil) to alternative fuels. Delaying that transformation ensures that America will be a powerless, bankrupt paper tiger in the future.

[BassMonk]

Gatsby, you are indeed correct. Interfering in other nations' internal affairs is what got us in this mess to begin with. We can only make things worse by doing it again and again.

[bmora]

Brilliant! I completely missed that. It is hard to catch is all with the rapid fire succession of BS.