Why John McCain's "Surge" Success Story is a Lie

It really makes the Iraq debate easy for John McCain when he throws around words like "win" and "victory" and "prevail" and "success" without really defining what they mean. A short time ago he was calling for American troops to remain in Iraq forever and that Obama was "naive" for suggesting otherwise. Now that the Iraqi government has indicated its desire for the American troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2010, McCain has gone dovish crediting his own insight for the "surge" that "won" the war. He even hinted today that American troops might be able to come home after all.

But McCain's stance totally contradicts the substance of the "status of force" agreement the Bush administration has been trying to ram down the Iraqi government's throat, which would codify a permanent American military presence in Iraq. General David Petraeus told Barack Obama during his recent trip to Iraq that he opposes a "timetable" for the withdrawal of American troops because he wants to maintain "flexibility." I guess Petraeus didn't get the memo from the George W. Bush-John McCain camp.

The editors of the New York Times opinion page asked McCain to rework his most recent submission. They demanded that he at least define what he means by "winning" in Iraq and what such a "victory" would look like on the ground. It is a welcome, if belated, arrival into the "reality-based community" on the part of the Times. (Of course, they still have David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, and William Kristol).

McCain is going to have some major editing work to do. He must not only declare that the "surge" was a great success, but he has to argue that it was such a magnificent "victory" that an American troop reduction might be in order (this comes after McCain denounced Obama repeatedly for making this same argument).

When McCain isn't talking about non-existent countries like "Czechoslovakia," or non-existent frontiers, like the "Iraq-Pakistan border," he's smugly dressing down Obama on foreign relations. The right-wing is whining about the positive press coverage Obama is getting on his trip, but if Obama referred to "Czechoslovakia" or to the "Iraq-Pakistan border" the media would have plunged his campaign into deep doo-doo.

It is disingenuous and self-serving for McCain to begin all of his discussions about Iraq with the January 2007 "surge." In doing so, he is airbrushing out the inconvenient history of the war.

Let's review.

In January 2007, when George W. Bush decided to pour more American soldiers into Iraq and escalate the U.S. troop commitment there he was responding to domestic politics. The Democrats were about to take over both houses of Congress and the Baker-Hamilton Commission Report had issued an indictment of the administration's lack of a diplomatic track in ending the conflict. Defiant, petulant, and immature as ever, Bush launched what his handlers called a "surge" to lock in the policy as the Democrats took their places on Capitol Hill and to show his Uncle Jim and his Daddy that he didn't need or want their advice.

By January 2007, the occupation in Iraq had long been a strategic and humanitarian disaster. There was already widespread "low intensity" ethnic cleansing, and with the February 22, 2006 destruction of the Shia Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra there was unleashed a sectarian bloodbath that transformed the country. The Shia government, which controlled the Interior Ministry and much of the security apparatus, went on a rampage and shielded freelance death squads and militias that reaped their revenge on Sunni communities throughout the country. In a short period, the ancient city of Baghdad went from being mostly Sunni to being mostly Shia. There were 2 million people who fled the country and another 2 million internally displaced people. It wasn't very long ago Iraqis were torturing each other with Black & Decker power drills. I doubt if the underlying current of hate and the cycle of revenge have dissipated. But after the dust settled there was relative calm. It had nothing to do with the "surge."

Any "success" that McCain or Bush or Kenneth Pollack or Michael O'Hanlon or Michael Gordon or David Petraeus and all the rest of the war-hawks talk about is delusional because it is proclaimed by willfully ignoring the humanitarian costs; the price in blood and treasure the Iraqis have paid, and to a far lesser extent, the Americans too. McCain is celebrating a Pyrrhic victory. The United States destroyed Iraq in order to save it. Just take a look at Falluja, or Baghdad with its hideous blast walls and check points. That place will never be the same. In a just world the United States would pay reparations to Iraq for a hundred years. (Don't take my word for it, read Patrick Cockburn's "Muqtada," and Jonathan Steele's "Defeat.")

Let's review some more.

First, the Senate Intelligence Committee's "Phase II" investigation of the lead-up to the war confirms that the Bush Administration used deception, lies, and misleading statements to hoodwink the public and the Congress into buying the idea that attacking Iraq served American national security interests. The Bush Administration lied this nation into war. Its principal mouthpieces and behind-the-scenes operators should be held accountable for their crimes, which include perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. (In addition to the international war crimes of aggressive war and torture.) It was a disgrace that will forever besmirch the reputation of this nation. I don't see any "victory" there.

Second, this war has cost our nation at least $750 billion (and counting) and the entire financial burden has been thrown on to the national debt. We'll be paying this thing back, with interest, to the same Wall Street elites that we are currently bailing out as part of a "remedy" for the mortgage meltdown. The 30,000 maimed American soldiers must be taken care of, and their health costs will soar with the cost of everything else. The PTSD cases alone will cost this country dearly in ways that we cannot even anticipate at this time. No "victory" there.

Third, all this talk of "success" in Iraq masks what the original aim of the war was supposed to be: Disarming the regime of Saddam Hussein of its "weapons of mass destruction." There was nothing to "disarm" because the Iraqi government had no weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations weapons inspectors only cost about $50 million per annum and they should have been allowed to do their jobs. Even if they were still in Iraq hunting for WMD right now it would have cost only about $300 million and the U.S. would have partners sharing the financial burden. The things we could have done with all that money we've wasted in Iraq. Bush then changed the objective of the war to an elaborate nation building exercise, an endeavor we still have not accomplished and probably never will. Democracy does not come out of a barrel of a gun. I see nothing "victorious" here.

Fourth, about 1,200 private corporations have been shamelessly profiteering off the Iraq war from day one. Halliburton's graft crimes are legion, and we won't find out the extent of the shoddy services KBR provided our soldiers, or how many Iraqi civilians Blackwater killed, until a new Attorney General is sworn in, and maybe not even then. "Win?" I guess you could say the profiteers "won."

With tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed and maimed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere; and with commentators like John Bolton, Benny Morris, and Charles Krauthammer demanding the United States or Israel attack Iran, thereby expanding the killing fields; and with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) working hand-in-glove with resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda elements in the northwestern border region and in Kashmir; and with the Bush Administration's failed saber rattling, warmongering, and unilateralist bluster -- Can we now safely conclude, at this late date, that Bush's foreign policy has been a catastrophe for the world and the single biggest recruiting tool for international terrorists?

None of the above smells like "victory" to me.

Comments

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

McCain talks about the Iraq War as if it began with the "surge" in January 2007. That's like talking about the Vietnam War in 1970 as if it all started in 1969. LBJ unleashed it big time in 1965 and by 1968 there were 500,000 American troops there -- if McCain is going to talk up the war, he needs to begin in March 2003 -- and if he insists he was a "critic" of how the war was handled, just go to Youtube and look at all of the videos in 2002, 03,04,05,06 where McCain is lauding Bush for his wonderful leadership in Iraq.

[NURREDIN]

Once again, as someone with relatives in Iraq, I'm extremely upset that the most heinous part of the surge isn't disussed. All the surge did was to wall up neighborhoods into Sunni,Shiite,Jewish and Christian enclaves. There are no churches or synagogues left. Every Christian and Jewish male over 15 has either been murdered or run out of the country. The only people safe there are Shiites. The Sunnis took our money and stopped fighting, and now half of them are dead or in exile. The American casualties went down becuse the neighborhoods are now patrolled by the Shiite army, who routinely search and destroy in Christian and Jewish neighborhoods. Let McCain and Lieberman visit Iraq and see if they can find a church or synagogue to pray in.I thought we were a Christian country? Do we care so much about the oil that we throw Iraqi Christians to the Shiite lions? Why doesn't anyone confront McCain or Bush with this part of their 'successful' surge? The success of the surge is a lie,just like WMD. This mini holocaust has occurred under George Bush's watch, and they say nothing about it. What happened to CBS,NBC,ABC,FOX, or CNN reporting this aspect of the surge? How can the evangelical right in this country support the surge and not lament the murder of Christians?

[LollieDotCom]

It's gonna be a lot like Rwanda. Someday we'll make a movie about the truth of what's happening over there. It will win an oscar. I used to be a real news hound. I trust it so little anymore that the only tv news I watch is on comedy central. It's a damn shame. Until we all spend more money with the sponsors of The Daily Show and the Colbert report, we're not gonna see real news on any of the other networks.

I still want to know, when you illegally occupy a country and kill their citizens, how the hell do win and lose enter the conversation?

[repearwo]

"Sunnis took our money and stopped fighting, and now half of them are dead or in exile"

One of the untold stories. If you want to know the story of Iraq, follow the money. The Surge is a hoax that was designed to provide political cover for the Election. Now McCain is trying to turn a stalemate into a win.

Obama had it right and has it right now. The solution in Iraq is political and economic not Military.

[texastrixie]

Obama is not wrong - the "surge" has not worked. If by "the surge," you mean that a huge presence of American soldiers in Bagdhad imposing a polite version of Marshall Law will make the disgruntled elements of the population go underground - well, yes, that was accomplished. But was that ever in doubt? If we are willing to spend enough money, and sacrifice enough brave American lives, this country could probably "win" or assist in winning almost anything - say, a world war. But some prices are too high.
"If by "surge" you mean the concept that our soldiers would quiet things down enough for all the Iraq fations to feel safe enough to meet and finally form a substantial, encompassing government, divide up their oil revenues and form a long-lasting semi-democratic government - well, no, that hasn't worked. So, "the surge" as sold to us by the Administration and McCain has worked in part and failed in part.
Obama has to stop getting flummoxed over the surge question. No, it hasn't worked. Not if you mean did we get what we were promised as an outcome from the action. But of course, none of what we were promised as an outcome from this war has ever come through. - lower cost oil, WMD destroyed (unless you consider Bush and the Republican party a WMD).

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't accept the idea that Obama was on the "wrong side" with the surge -- the status quo in Iraq would be more or less the same without it and why should Obama endorse Bush's tactical band-aid slapped on a strategic disaster?

[FullChat]

The Awakening occurred before September 2006.
In October 2006, al Sadr took his militia of of the battlefield, where they have mostly remained since. They were the most effective of the militias - and this occurred before the Surge was announced.
The Surge was announced in January 2007 and the first troops arrived in February, with the full compliment arriving in the Summer of 2007.
The Brits moved out of Basra in September 2007, lowering casualties.
A great deal of ethnic cleansing had taken place by the Summer of 2007, given that they have had five years to do it.

However,
The period of highest casualties (>100/mo) was April - June 2007. Beginning in October to the present, the worst month was 52 casualties, and there were 11 last month.

Yes, capture and hold works better than search and destroy, so the Surge Worked - but it isn't the whole answer.

BTW, McCain describes the Awakening as part of capture and hold. It isn't - it's we pay and you go get al Qaeda for us (and stop shootinh as us). Capture and hold is what the surge did - enabling troops to take up neighborhood stations and "live" in the community.

[rovezaleeker]

I'm shocked...and awed.

[emcd]

This Iraq thing is easy. Just win like we won in Vietnam. Declare "victory" and come home! Maybe that's what John's got in mind now that he's saying we've won.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I didn't intend to imply that the introduction of 30,000 more troops in some of the areas of Baghdad had no effect in tapping down the violence, I'm sure it did. But it was just a tactical move and it came at a time when the Iraqis had already exhausted themselves in ethnic cleansing. It doesn't matter if violence goes up or goes down in Iraq; it doesn't matter if fewer Americans come home in body bags; the occupation itself is a total failure and can never accomplish anything because people don't like to be occupied. I don't think we would like foreign troops on our soil. I meant that there is no such thing as "victory" in Iraq -- we already lost, we lost $750 billion, 4,150 American lives, 30,000 wounded, the respect of the world, aggressive war and preemption, torture, all of it has been a net loss for the United States. Bush's adventure in late imperialism in Iraq has only hastened the decline of the US as a major power. We are weaker and more rivaled today than ever. I will take an Obama Administration years to improve the situation, if it can, and getting out of Iraq is only step one. Thanks for the great comments, really thought-provoking!

[MagisterLudi]

The statements below are NOT mutually exclusive.

1. I do NOT support, or ever supporter Iraq invasion
2. Bush admin. has been a astounding disaster for the world.
3. Surge was a success.
4. The surge made semi-dignified withdrawal possible.
5. Obama was wrong on the surge.
6. A-stani invasion was a just and measured response to Jihadist threat.

I bit more ( alot) of a strategic and subtle thinking is required from all, if U.S. is going to prosper as a nation.
The dogmatic political attack on everything done by Repubes is highly counter productive way to benefit society.
It's just as counter productive as Bush admin. knee jerk rejection of some very good Clinton policies.

[Bushwillresign]

The only way the surge worked is that it prolonged the war and it seems that the only ones that would want to prolong the war are the ones making a profit from the war that do not seem to care how many innocent Americans and innocent Iraqis have to die so that billions can be made from bogus contracts. We (Americans) thought that when the surge works, the troops come home. Silly Americans.

[kentuck]

Excellent ! I love the smell of victory in the morning! But remember, the neo-cons create their own "reality". Now, they just have to sell it. Unfortunately, John McCain is a terrible salesman. The people no longer like his product. Is it really raining or are they urinating on our shoes? It doesn't get any better than this...

[Nomccain]

I'm sure t hat the so called "surge" did have some impact on the situation in Iraq, but much of the situation has been due to the evolution of the war and the Iraqi's being sick and tired of all the killing and violence associated with Al Quadi and their Iraqi sympathizers. Many have realized that the violence will never stop until they turn these terrorists in and resist Al Quadi. What justification would these terrorists have to continue to kill Iraqi's if the U.S. left? None! As the Iraqi goverment grows stronger Al Quadi will realize that they can't win in Iraq. The time will come soon for us to leave or be thrown out by the Maliki government despite what MCBUSH continues to say. Then, we will have to turn our attention to Afghanistan where the real threat exists. One thing that troubles me is all the saber rattling going on in Iran and their potential to disrupt the entire middle east again.

[NotMcCain]

True, that. Plus, let's not forget McCain's complete inaccuracy about what the "surge" means.

It is NOT a euphemism for "anti-inSURGEnt" as McCain said repeatedly today. The fight against so-called "insurgents" goes back to the beginning.

"The Surge" was Bush's euphemism for "Escalation", escalating the war in 2007 by sending a large number of ADDITIONAL troops to more aggressively fight insurgents, mainly in Baghdad.

The "surge" was "escalation" and it happened in 2007.

I guess McCain thinks he can just keep lying and lying and getting away with it.

[lincheryl]

Don't we also need to point to the payments we are making to the Sunni insurgents to decrease the violence against us? That is not victory and not lasting. When the money stops.....

[silverball]

i can't understand why mcsame always gets away with stating that Al Qaeda will or is ready to take over the country if we leave in defeat....huh?...and a big DUH!!! as usual, he's either knowingly lying...or just doesn't really understand what is going on....i sorta think a lot of both.....

[TheRationalLeft]

For all of McCain's implicit and explicit bragging about his alleged foreign relations experience, he never served in the Foreign Relations Committee in the US Senate through 2 decades! That is astounding given his military record, experience and his constant patronizing talk about his deep knowledge and understanding.

While some of his foreign policy gaffes are pure mistakes, like borders and countries that don't exist, his gaffes about Al Queda, Iran, Sunni and Shiite are more dangerous. While I certainly don't subscribe for a minute to the notion that McCain doesn't really know about these issues, I do believe it's even more dangerous to do what he does - brainwashing the American population single-handedly simply because he knows that American voters are persuaded by his arguments and "facts" since they perceive him to be a man of experience and knowledge.

Barack Obama is backed by Joe Biden, presumably Chuck Hagel and even Colin Powell - men I would trust much more on foreign policy than John McCain.
http://rationalleft.com/

[egal]

The honest reason McCain hasn't served on the Foreign Relations Committee is that he has always lacked the understanding. THAT's the type of stuff he failed at when he came in, oh, something like dead last in his military officer education/training. Basic evidence of good leadership skills has been absent, and even countermanded, during his time in the military and in the government.

But, of course, none of that will come to light during his campaign because the MSM worships at his feet and he can do no wrong, retroactively, even while he's doing it.

[bhenry112]

The trouble is, to paraphrase someone more clever than I, NOT that he doesn't know anything, but that he knows so much that isn't so!

[farseer]

Remember the surge "benchmarks" that were to be reached by 6 months, if the surge was to be a success? And then the the time of reckoning the benchmarks were pushed back to September of 2007? And then it depended on Petraeus' report rather than the benchmarks? And then the benchmarks were forgotten?
Here'a one web page that said 2 or 3 out of 18 surge benchmark had been achieved by Jan. 2008:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/benchmark.html

[shamanbart]

If memory serves correctly, March 2007 through August 2007 were some of the deadliest months of the war. I'm not sure if the families of the people who died or who were maimed or displaced during that time would agree about the effectiveness of the Surge.

One can probably argue the "what-ifs" all day. Who is to say that a simple announcement that the US was pulling out of Iraq, followed by troop reductions, wouldn't have had the same effect. Part of the reason for the ongoing violence was to combat American troop presence. Another part was inter-tribal warfare, which Iraqis are attempting to resolve themselves. Who knows if Al-Qaida-in-Iraq's force would have subsided or been driven out?

So, i don't put a lot of stock in the "success of the Surge" story, especially McCain's taking credit for it, since it wasn't even his idea. The Surge happened, along with a lot of other things, and now violence is down and some political progress has been made -- let's leave it at that and move on.

Time to withdraw the troops and let Iraqis fix the rest.