The Surge is a Farce
If anyone criticizes the surge in Iraq -- as I have on occasion -- they are accused of not supporting the troops, of questioning the divine wisdom of David Petraeus, of being a weak-kneed defeatist. This is utterly ridiculous. Let's look at the facts:
The drop in violence has nothing to do with the addition of 30,000 U.S. troops. "The dramatic decline in bloodshed in Iraq... is largely due to Muqtada al-Sadr's August 2007 unilateral ceasefire," according to a new International Crisis Group report. Hence, John McCain has Muqtada, not David Petraeus, to thank for his newfound success at the polls. Sadr has promised another six-month ceasefire -- which would inconveniently end right before the U.S. election in November.
The so-called "Sunni Awakening" is also a sham. We are, in effect, arming and bribing Sunnis to kill al-Qaeda in Iraq forces, not us or the Shiites. "The strategy of the surge seems simple: to buy off every Iraqi in sight," writes Nir Rosen in Rolling Stone. In so doing, he adds, "the Americans are now arming both sides in the civil war."
The whole point of the surge was to provide the space for Iraq's leadership to make political progress and reconciliation. Again, that too has failed. The Iraqis have passed just four of the 18 benchmarks put forth by the Bush administration. Even a law calling for provincial elections this October was vetoed by the Presidency Council, a result of factional Shiite infighting.
Now there is talk of a "pause" in troop reductions, even though the point of the surge was to reduce the troop levels from 150,000 back down to about 130,000 by July and about 100,000 by the end of 2008. Not gonna happen. As Michael Kinsley writes in Slate, "The surge will have surged in and surged out, leaving us back where we started."
This blind support for the surge is really galling. Of course, the positive direction of things in Iraq in terms of casualty counts and suicide attacks is a welcome development -- but let's not kid ourselves why there has been this reduction in violence. Keeping more American soldiers in harm's way and arming willing factions in a civil war are not going to bring about political reconciliation in Iraq.
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
"If anyone criticizes the surge in Iraq -- as I have on occasion -- they are accused of not supporting the troops, of questioning the divine wisdom of David Petraeus, of being a weak-kneed defeatist. "
How would we know that from the MSM? I don't recall every hearing or reading anything of any significance that criticized the surge there.
"The whole point of the surge was to provide the space for Iraq's leadership to make political progress and reconciliation. "
Actually, that was merely the rationale for the surge that was provided to the public as justification for sending more troops and for lengthening the tours of troops that were sent. Another key aspect of the surge that is not discussed as often is that it has allowed Bush to prolong the war and at the same time to stall the clash between the major factions in Iraq that was made virtually inevitable by the removal of Saddam Hussein and the failure to replace him with someone having a similar level of power to prevent battles between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and between rival factions in each of those groups.
If McCain is elected, look for him to try to continue to stall that clash by keeping high levels of troops in Iraq. If a Democrat is elected and begins troop withdrawals, with the result that the clash finally occurs, look to the Republicans to blame the President and all Democrats for "losing" the war and "capitulating" to terrorists. That's a pretty good strategy for Republican political success in the future. Unfortunately, it is being paid for by all of us because of the damage to our economy that is the direct result of having to finance the war in Iraq.
100 years War is the VISION that John McCain has for just Iraq. There is no vision when you have "blind support" McCain's Iraq is as visionary as Hillary Clinton's post February 5 Presidential Primary strategy.
These poor marines, who are having their own countries weapons used against them. "arming and bribing Sunnis to kill al-Qaeda in Iraq forces, not us or the Shiites" Who is to say, these weapons haven't already passed into the hands of al-qaeda.
HuffPost's Pick
John McCain has no vision and neither do some of the neocons running this War. McCain thinks its a success, presto. He also thought in 2002 that Iraq would be a walk in the park and no bloodletting would be expended. So much for his VISION.
McCain's Vision is 100 years war in Iraq. and his vision is like Hillary Clinton's vision after February 5. McCain cannot see beyond what is going to happen once we stop arming, bribing and buying off people. In the Middle East - allegiances turn on a dime. That's what confounded the Marines in 2004-5. How supposed friends were turning on them. The aspects of American loyalty don't work over there.
The Surge was working, in that its goal to reduce violence appears to succeed. But it's makeup padded on a festering zit. And what's sad about "If anyone criticizes the surge in Iraq -- as I have on occasion -- they are accused of not supporting the troops, of questioning the divine wisdom of David Petraeus, of being a weak-kneed defeatist" Then nothing is going to get done. Good Point.
The war in Iraq has cost the USA $3 trillion not to mention the horrific backlash in Africa . Please read this article published today - upsetting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan
Apologies - $6 trillion
Thank you, pfc1. That's an excellent article. Or I should say, an extremely important and infuriating article. I continue to be amazed at the mess Bush & Co. has got us into.
Do you think I have time to move to New Zealand before the US goes bankrupt?
in military terms there's such a thing as covering fire.covering fire is when you shoot at the enemy,not with any intention of hitting them or inflicting serious damage,but simply to keep them pinned down so they can't shoot back.this strategy is employed to effect a rescue or retreat.the worst thing you could do is use covering fire for its own sake but that's exactly what we've done with The Surge.All we've accomplished is to keep the enemy from shooting back at us.meanwhile our forces are at the breaking point.sooner or later our various enemies will attack and all our efforts will have been in vain.
One of the major complaints about Brenner when he was in charge in Iraq was he fired Saddam's army. Which means if he had kept them on the payroll (a bribe really) the early occupation might have been much easier. But the arming both sides by the U.S. is not new if we remember Reagan armed Saddam to fight Iran and then secretly armed Iran to, as Kissinger is alleged to have said "Hopefully to kill each other. We armed the Taliban and taught them how to down Soviet civilian planes with the Stinger Missiles we supplied to them. They proved to be good learners as the victims we send over there have experienced.
Thanks Mr. Beehner for disclosing the fact that we're paying for peace, this fact is rarely mentioned by the mainstream press. The mainstream media, John McCain and the Bush Administration are perpetuating a myth that the "Surge" is the reason for the so-called reduction in violence in Iraq.
I've yet to hear or read of any of the mainstream media or of the national political scene mention this fact as expressed by Mr. Beehner. Another fact also not mentioned is that among the 18 Benchmarks is the Hydrocarbon Law which, if approved, will give U.S. oil companies control of 80% of present and future Iraqi oil fields. One must inevitably conclude that there is collusion between corporations, Democrats and Republicans in consciously and knowingly hiding these facts from Americans.
this war is a pathetic farce and we had better get out soon....
1000's of lies and you expected something different?
We Can't Win a War Crime!
Impeach!
Agreed and agreed. But is this the end of Firefox? The beginning of Microsoft takeover of Huffpost?
On the other hand, perhaps the Iraqi calculation on all sides is to conserve their resources while US forces remain at their peak, knowing that there is no way the peak can be maintained, either politically or militarily.
.... in the meantime collecting as many USDollars as their little briefcases and hideyholes can hold to make nice to each other. If they come back at us when we are gone it will be with OUR MONEY that they do it. In the meanwhile, keeping Iraqi oil off the market and the ME in tension keeps oil at least 35 bucks a barrel more than it would be otherwise. Think man. Who is making money in this?
We are paying Clerics and war lords to keep them from killing, that is no joke. They are being armed by us also and they are loving it. We need to step out of this hole and get to the point of stopping terrorist not occupation of countries.
Not even to mention, another reason for the (slight) reduction in violence is that all the neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed! Millions of Iraqis have either fled or already been killed! If you take most of the fish out of the barrel, of COURSE you're gonna catch less of them. What kind of morons are running this war, anyway? Why is it I seem to have a better grasp of foreign affairs than all these experts and military people!?
The Iraq war was begun with lies and it continues with lies. America went to war over oil and it will fade into the sunset over oil. Had money been put into solar, geothermal, the whole country would be running on wind, sun, and geothermal by now and the need to buy gasoline would have ended. America would be leading instead of following. The way it is now the whole world despises America and Americans are no longer examples of democracy since they have lost so many rights. Not only that while they fund foreign aid they have left their own people to die for want of the basics of medicine.
Food is soaring in prices because farmers are now selling corn for ethanol which is stupid. It is actually better for the environment to pump oil than a biofuel based on corn.
The Book of Revelation predicted 2000 years ago a 200,000,000 man army would come from the east and invade the middle east. There on the plains of Meggido the Battle of Armegeddon would be fought. What do you think they will be fighting over. A few Jews. I think not. Oil baby. Black gold, the devil's excrement.
'The so-called "Sunni Awakening" is also a sham. We are, in effect, arming and bribing Sunnis to kill al-Qaeda in Iraq forces, not us or the Shiites. "The strategy of the surge seems simple: to buy off every Iraqi in sight," writes Nir Rosen in Rolling Stone. In so doing, he adds, "the Americans are now arming both sides in the civil war."'
Well, it's not exactly a civil war (now anyway) when the Sunni & the Shia are fighting Al Qaida.
Pretty damn ingenious, you must admit. Hopefully we are arming them with high quality American weaponry, not some cheap 'eastern european' junk. Only problem will be when they run out of Al Qaida targets, but how soon could that happen?
Al Qaida is a relative minority in Iraq. Yet everyone is trying to kill them, us, Sunni, Shiite. So how does this handful of guys hold us all at bay?They all have their own agenda, and are really the problem more than Al Qaida. There willingness to serve our "present" objectives does not guarantee where they will stand in the future. Unfortunately the drop in casualties serves the purposes of all, and may and probably will when it no longer serves such purposes. That may happen before or after we leave.
Remember, pumping arms into Afghanistan to cause the Soviet's pain didn't work out all that well for us in the long run.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
