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.
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
July 22, 2008
SCHOOL OPENS
At least some good news (from the official web site of operation Iraqi Freedom):
"BAGHDAD – Local officials in the 9 Nissan district of eastern Baghdad opened the new Al Ferdous elementary school during a ribbon-cutting ceremony July 22.
The new school will provide elementary education to approximately 2,000 children, according to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers document. Included in the school’s contract is a generator, playground equipment, air conditioners and all the furniture required to provide a fully functional school.
Students, parents, district council members, and leaders from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 418th Civil Affairs Battalion and 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light) came together for the grand opening.
Hato Abdul Hassan, 9 Nissan district council chairman, cut the ribbon officially opening the school....."
- That's good news folks, and if there is anything else worth doing in Iraq it is exactly this !
Best Regards,
G&M
Thank you!
Well written ... I've copied this down to my PC to have on hand when I'm in less informed blogs ... it can be ugly out there.
One of the things that is starting to concern me is McCains idea of causality ... to what extent is one event caused by another.
To date McCain has suggested "the surge caused reduced violence in Iraq" and "oil prices have dropped because Bush announced he would sign a bill to permit oil drilling".
I'm trying not to be cruel ... but because a bumble bee breaks wind in Idaho it does not mean its going to rain in Mississippi.
Mr. Palermo,
The way to end the occupation(s) is to let them "declare victory". So please let them do that! Lives will be saved. So let them spin the "surge" any old way they want. If you let them declare "victory" then Obama can concentrate on his "other" differences with McCain, and I think he'll win on them all. I want a new direction in this country, and an end to the ruinous conflicts, and so, to hell with history, let them "win", and then get back to a normal, sane life, HERE, and now, or soon.
I watched Olbermann play and analyze the -actual- question and answer, including the REAL timeline of the surge. Then he showed how CBS instead chose a DIFFERENT answer for McCain--the one where he accused Obama of being willing to lose a war just to further his political career. the CBS edit (What a disgrace that MISREPRESENTATION of the truth, is to the network of Murrow, Paley, and Cronkite).
Later I saw Campbell Brown on CNN. She showed McCain's "correction" then laughed merrily that maybe he didn't quite get it all right, but "Senator Obama was also confused today...Watch this!"
So MUCH bad MSM, that the good journalists are more appreciated than ever.
And fyi, Senator McCain. "The surge" meant "escalation in troops". It did NOT mean "an anti-insurgency campaign". Because, "anti-insurgency efforts" are what we've been struggling with over there for....YEARS.
How a majority of Americans still perceive this guy as Commander-in-Chief material defies reason.
If anyone is interested in a very comprehensive analysis of the "Surge", I recommend going to The Moderate Voice . com . (one word, [for some reason, my link does not pass muster]). Once at the site choose "Category Listing", then "Surge". Elrod's post comes up and there's a link to "yesterday", where the original analysis begins.
I do not know why my direct link did not go through. I thought we were trying to get informed here. This guy, Elrod is a historian who has taught courses on guerilla warfare, etc. I'm not trying to boost the Moderate Voice. I simply found it trying find some truth.
Thank you for the link ...
A quote "Still, the surge did not lead to the Anbar Awakening. That is getting the chronology completely backwards.
It would be like saying that the 9/11 was a retaliation for the removal of Saddam Hussein. It would be as if the US Civil War was caused by the Great Depression of the 1930. It is completely wrong."
Causality ... we were thinking along the same lines.
In January 2007, shortly after the Republicans took a thumping in the "END THE WAR" mid-term elections of 2006, Bush tossed out Rummy and proposed the Surge -- which gave barely a hat tip to the recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group (daddy's boys) in December 2006.
Both Rummy's scalp and the ISG report were withheld past November 2006 so as not to "politicize" their impact on the elections.
The surge was to last six months, WITHIN WHICH TIME, some magical political reconciliation was to spring forth.
By July 2007, the GAO reported the Surge had FAILED on 11 of 18 measures, with but mixed results on 3 others. Kudos on 4 of 18.
On 9/11, 2007, of all dates, General Petraeus spun Congress a Whiteout House-vetted bed-time story. Congress then went back to sleep for another year. (Hillary to Petraeus: progress report required a "willing suspension of disbelief".)
It is now one year LATER than the first six months, and while it is true that more troops have quelled more violence than fewer troops would have, not much else has changed.
*** Except for Osama is still ensconced in Pakistan and Afghanistan is blowing up. ***
I would suggest that the Surgescalation was contrived simply to buy the administration two years to run out the clock until the end of the Bush monarchy. As such, it has been a dismal, abysmal, success.
My impression about Iraq was this:
Our military topples Sunni supported Saddam Hussein.
Chaos ensues because there weren't enough troops to enforce order, and because stability in that country was previously tied down with an extreme iron fist (eg: Saddam), and because (unlike Germany & Japan) social constructs like nationalistic identity were never that strong because of the much stronger tribal/religious affiliations
The Shia then take revenge on the Sunnis -- after years of gripes and inequities.
Many Sunnis, fearing a loss of nearly everything (combined with de-Baathification), & seeing the US & the Shia as enemies, side with die-hard Baath insurgents & Al Qaeda as they infiltrate Iraq. And Al Qaeda, hating "infidels" more than liking Iraqis, ruthlessly exploit and worsen rifts in Iraqi society.
More violence ensues, as it enters a phase of ethnic civil war & a battle for tribal/ethnic territory.
Shiite "death squads" roam areas like Basra, often in the guise of police officers.
Faced with intolerable prospects, some Sunni tribal leaders and astute US officers come together to help realign the power structure -- probably hoping that the US will become a more fair adjudicator of power in Iraq, by aiding Sunnis who ally with the US, against Al Qaeda. They are also aided by encouraging the Sunnis to protect themselves through participation in police, or militias-- reducing stark power imbalances along sectarian lines. It also helps restore order & discipline by taking advantage of existing chains of command within tribes.
--At least that's my
continued..
(250 word limit)
... --At least that's my limited take on that situation.
The contribution of the troops is always valuable, but the _responsibility_ for success in post-invasion Iraq, lay with political & diplomatic strategies.
Troops without a strategy by the POTUS is what made a mistake into a mess. Even now Bush Jr & McCain still don't have a clue.
The MSM and the GOP are chanting "The Surge! The Surge!" over and over again -- without explaining it, nor explaining the reasoning. If the honorable Sen. McCain wants to take credit for the "The Surge" (tm), then he should explain the reasoning behind his decisions.
I heard someone make an interesting observation on when we get out of Iraq. If Barack gets elected he will want to get out as soon as he can to satisfy his supporters. He won't however want to go down as the President that lost in Iraq so he will wait for a certain level of stability where Iraq won't go into chaos. He has stated so today. If McCain is elected he will want to get out of Iraq as soon as it is warranted so he can get credit for winning in Iraq. He won't withdraw though until there is a level of stability where Iraq won't go into chaos. That seems consistant with what he is saying.
The timetables for either scenario for withdrawal are the same. Only the explanation of what happened changes and who gets credit for what changes. I can't be sure that we will see any difference in the end of Iraq under either President with just different reasoning given for why they are pulling troops out.
Would that it were true! While McCain has mouthed intermittently that he would withdraw troops from Iraq, it is a departure from his previous position, in which he agreed with the Bush plan to maintain troops in Iraq indefinitely. This continuing occupation is no doubt an effort to put Iraq under US control and to keep American companies involved in their oil production (see recent no-bid contracts for Iraqi oil contracts).
McCain's just playing fast and loose with his position for political purposes. If he were in power, he would do what the neocons advocated as long as it could be politically sold as a military necessity (i.e, if we accept the neocon lies).
Obama's position has been very consistent over several years -- end the Iraq war, get America out of Iraq, address the situation in Afghanistan. He is therefore more believable than McCain on exiting Iraq.
This reminds me of Nixon's promise to end the Vietnam war -- however, Nixon first escalated troop involvement and bombing. McCain would follow this mold based on his past rhetoric and voting.
Exactly. Plus the fact that the people behind McCain still have the delusion that there will be a New American Century if we can just control the oil. China and India might have something to say about that.
What next? McCain adamantly alleging we triumphed at the Alamo?
Not to mention the fact that there still hasn't been a political reconciliation in Iraq. They still haven't settled on a plan for the oil profit sharing they were supposed to do, as part of those benchmarks for meeting "success" in the surge. The whole purpose of the surge was supposed to be providing the security needed to enable Iraq to form a stable democratic government. By gunpoint, they have reduced the violence - at the cost of many lives and refugees who've fled the country. Barack Obama and other Democrats realized that the Iraqi government needed a signal to let them know that we wouldn't stay around in their country forever and that they would need to stand up and take over their own country. That's why Obama wanted a timetable for withdrawal. Now, President Bush is showing an interest in a timetable. He just calls it a time "horizon".
Thank you for the post summarizing the awful truth about the unnecessary and destructive Iraqi war which was started my own country I am sorry to say.
When will someone call McBooo$hie on his lies here? I luv how Katie wants to play off his view of the "surge is working" propaganda. Sheesh. When did I move to the Soviet Union?
McCain and his like-thinkers in the Repub party are unable to, unwilling to, or blind to the fact that any country or peoples on the planet have a right to or the smarts to run their own countries.
Specifically, Iraqis are incapable of ridding their neighborhoods of Al Qaeda, incapable of policing their neighborhoods, incapable of rebuilding what we've laid in ruin, incapable of managing their economy, incapable of drilling and distributing their own oil...in other words without America to feed, nurse, educate and watch over them, they're lost.
Not to mention that Rice said not long ago that the whole world adheres to American values. Hubris? Maybe. Flat-out ignorance is closer to the truth.
What is difficult to understand is how you can have a "surge" of troops when you were below the required amount of troops needed to begin with. Wouldn't a surge constitute an excess of the required amount?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
