Marketing a Myth: How John McCain Actually Got The Surge Wrong

To hear John McCain tell it, you'd think the fall-off in American casualties in Iraq is due solely to his foresight and foreign policy experience. It's amazing to me just how many people have bought the McCain line, even those who should know better. "As we now know nearly four years later," a Newsweek commentator recently noted, "McCain was dead on in his analysis of what went wrong in Iraq ... McCain was so right that, among military experts today, the emerging conventional wisdom about Bush's current 'surge' is that if had occurred back then -- when McCain wanted it and the political will existed in this country to support it for the necessary number of years -- it might well have succeeded."

What a bunch of bunk.

Since the beginning of this year, military experts that I've talked to argue that the fall-off in violence in Iraq had almost nothing to do with the increase in American troop levels -- and everything to do with actually talking with and supporting the previous insurgents. Recent published reports confirm that talks with the insurgents began all the way back in December of 2003, when military officers met with Sunni insurgent leaders in Amman, Jordan. Not only that, but when those talks were actually opposed by the administration, the military went ahead with the talks anyway.

But don't take my word for it, go back and read what General David Petraeus told the Congress in April of 2007, before the surge was actually in place. Back then, Petraeus told the Congress that the levels of violence in Iraq were down significantly and that "the tribes" were the key to that transformation. Let me repeat that: recruiting the Sunni tribes (and not the surge) has been the key to success in Iraq, along with the stand-down of the Mahdi Army. Petraeus is not alone in his thinking. The tribes of Anbar joined U.S. forces, according to U.S. Captain Jay McGee -- an intelligence officer with the 69th Armored Regiment -- because "everyone is convinced Coalition forces are going to leave and they are saying, 'We do not want Al Qaeda to take control of the area when that happens."

This isn't exactly new information. Dozens of American newspapers and magazines have documented how the military recruited Iraq's Sunni tribes as our allies -- the same tribes that had once been fighting us. And all of this began before the U.S. increased the number of troops in the country. So let's stop taking John McCain's claim, his myth, at face value. The increase in American troops in Iraq had nothing to do with defeating the Iraqi insurgency and everything to do with actually talking with them. To claim otherwise is to market a myth and it's time for John McCain to acknowledge it -- to give credit where credit is due: to those fine officers of our military who decided to talk, even as the administration continued to beat the war drums.

Lt. General Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) is the steering committee chairman of Vets for Obama. Visit their official site or join them on Facebook.

Comments

[DaOne]

This story should be all over the MSM. Someone send it to Olbermann.

[Diogenis]

This is a time where "Silence is golden!" This article says it all.

[joebhed]

We could have more explanation of why the Sunni tribes wanted our alliance, and we theirs.

For one, their fear of a Shiite offensive against them by both Iranian-allied Dawa and SCIRI militias, and, two, for their recognition that the AQI were indiscriminately killing both Sunni and Shiite nationalists as a means of fomenting their civil war.

But, more important to me is the issue of what wasted potential there has been in not allying ourselves with the Shiite nationalist insurgents, as well as the Sunni, in our very real fight against the emerging AQI.

Were it not for our real goal of controlling Iraq's oil, we certainly would have been more engaging with the Shia nationalists, like Muqtada al Sadr.

Both the Sunni and Shia true insurgencies have only one real objective, and that is to rid their countries of the illegal invaders who continue to occupy it to this day.

Thousands of American lives could have been saved if early on we had recognized the legitimacy of the Iraqi-loving patriots of the Sunni and Shiite nationalists.

By joining with them to rid the country of AQI early on, that task would have been long ago accomplished, leaving the US to stand and ponder:
"what are we doing here"?

But, alas, our mission was neither peace nor democracy, but rather BILLIONS of barrels of Iraqi oil to keep the American hegemony alive throughout the world.
Or at least til we moved on to the Iranian fields.

[beaupritchard]

"The increase in American troops in Iraq had nothing to do with defeating the Iraqi insurgency and everything to do with actually talking with them. To claim otherwise is to market a myth and it's time for John McCain to acknowledge it -- to give credit where credit is due: to those fine officers of our military who decided to talk, even as the administration continued to beat the war drums"

I've never heard this so succinctly said ... good to know buried beneath rivers of ink writers ... critical thinkers ... like yourself are still doing good work.

[timm0]

Hopefully Obama will take those words and bring them to the stump!

Wouldn't hurt to add the date and a quote from Petraeus referenced by the Lt. General.

Nor would it hurt if there were any firings or reassignments of the personnel who met in Syria against orders to add that they risked being tried for insubordination (or whatever the violation is called when one disobeys an order) and saved lives by defying the bush administration.

[demfriend]

The talking could have started long ago when the first part of catching the saddam clan was done and if the army had not been totally destroyed by Bremmer. The amount of mney that has flowed into Iraq has done little until someone figured out to pay the tribal lords and it would keep them from killing the troops. This war was built on lies and sustained by lies so of the lies had stopped when saddam was captured and reality had reined the war might have been over by now. The former army would not have had to turn againest us and a new leader/government with elections and all would maybe have done well. After all Vietnam was left in a hurry and look at them today. Lot could be learned by history being paid attention to. Instead we have the Taliban in Afghanistan and now Pakistan wants nothing to do with us and our getting Bin Laden. Funny thing there until Bush made noises about hunting Bin Laden dwn finally in the few months he had Pakistan was ok.

[Relax08]

You can add the fact that by last summer most of the neighborhoods and cities had become completely segregated by either death squads or emigration. And don't forget that sometimes people just get tired of killing one another over religion.
The concept that the Surge stopped Al Qaeda- the only theorectically possible reason to remain in Iraq at all- is absurd. McCain is a liar or an idiot. Perhaps both, but the American people have to know that what is bringing this civil war to a slow down has little if anything to do with the surge. Had we started leaving seriously last year, there would be less violence and more American's alive today.

[Dave Johnson and James Boyce - Huffpost Blogger]

thanks for writing this

[Maxual]

This is R. Kelly style Real Talk, which has way more cred than John McCain straight talk. Thanks for having the guts to say what no one else will - that the surge is not the reason for improvements in Iraq.

[SMP]

and dont forget to add the LARGE amout of our dollars we paid them not to kill us. But, you are right, as is Obama, diplomacy ( talking) is the key to a successful stragedy. We must deploy from iraq.with no oil rights or air space rights or permanent bases, period. It is time for the Iraqs to rebuild their own nation and to incorporate shite and sunnis in the government as equals. This will not only keep the insurgents at bay, but also Iran.