The Obvious Confirmed: Sectarian Cleansing Major Reason for Drop in Violence in Iraq

It was for some reason a debatable point whether the sectarian cleansing of mixed neighborhoods contributed to the decline in violence. Reuters now confirms - and has visual evidence - to prove that the decline in violence in Iraq, specifically in Baghdad, was caused in no small measure by the massive sectarian cleansing that preceded the surge. The sectarian violence essentially cleansed neighborhoods of their minority populations, reducing opportunities for violence. Maggie Fox from Reuters explains:

Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday. The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed..."By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement. "Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.

This really is not surprising (Petraeus even admitted this to be the case in his testimony in April).The violence in Iraq in 2005-06 was massive and as a result unsustainable. The reason is simple, if you are living in a neighborhood in which you are a minority and the majority in that neighborhood is actively killing minority residents - what do you do? You leave. You go to neighborhoods in which you are secure and which you are in the majority, where you have more protection. As a result of this flight, the intensity of violence often dissipates because there are less targets of opportunity. This is a common trend in ethnic conflicts and as I wrote about in December, was apparent in Northern Ireland in the early 70s. Violence peaked, neighborhoods homogenize, walls were built to separate, and violence went down. But the important point is that less violence did not mean peace. Instead, Northern Ireland remained fractured and its politics remained broken until very recently. Less violence is definitely a good thing, but the challenge of reconciling ethnically divided and fractured societies is extremely difficult. 

So when John McCain declares "victory" in Iraq and states that the increase of just 30,000 troops was the fundamental reason for the decline in violence, he once again proves that he has no idea what he is talking about.

Comments

[soithoni]

There's something going on here with this surge liem and all the hype. Maybe this posted article isn't the whole story either. We're sure not getting the whole story, that's for certain.
According to the BBC, the most important thing that actually happened is that Iraq's government under Maliki made a peace agreement with the militias, which was ratified officially and religiously through the government of IRAN.
President Mahmoud Admadinegjad came to Baghdad for 2 days in the Green Zone March 2-3 2008, held hands with al-Maliki, met with Talabani (the president of Iraq), and then signed agreements on just about everything, and the Shi'a militias then got in line behind the al-Maliki regime. Top people from the Sunnis also participated in these agreements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7273431.stm

[khiva]

I said this exact thing here about ten days ago. The whole MSM and Congress, even Obama, drank the Kool Aid on the escalation (aka "surge" in Doublespeak). I said, just because I had a cup of coffee at 8 and it rained at 9, doesn't mean me drinking coffee made it rain. The drop in violence had everything to do with paying billions in taxpayer dollars to the Sunni Shieks to stop their tribes from blowing up our guys and the giant wall we built in Baghdad like the Berlin Wall, and nothing to do with 10% more boots on the ground (30K new troops in relation to 150K military and 150K contractors).

[Montanus]

Rumsfeld denied the professional military the size of force they told the Bush administration would be necessary to invade and secure Iraq. They forced the general who told them he needed 200,000(?) troops to retire. Shock and Awe didn't include securing munition dumps on the rush to Baghdad. Stockpiles of weapons with which to fight an insurgency were left unguarded while the Iraqi army was disbanded and sent into the streets and the countryside. Incredible amounts of money have "disappeared." Who claims credit for enabling all that "success?"

[Articulator]

As far as the "surge" goes, it was Democrats like Mr Murtha who forced the Bush administration to stop incompetently running the war like it was a political campaign. The surge would not have happened without Murtha calling it like it was and the Dems getting some stones to back him up.

[mostlybluedot]

I could never imagine McCain or Palin knew what they were talking about because - - whatever they say- - it will change in a little bit. But the surge probably helped, if only marginally. In any case the violence is way down and Americans are not dying as they once were. In the end the Iraqis have to fix this thing. I only want to know, when for goodness sake, will we get the hell out of there? This neverending war is not something I want to go on- - well, neverending. Did I mention this thing is also costly, you know in terms of dollars?? Truth is we never had a plan to help the Iraqis reconcile and still do not. Under Bush we never will. Witness Bremer and his boneheaded rule there. Time to go.

[RumiSouth]

Imagine a forest fire.

The fire chief is in denial. He says it's just a few small blazes lit by some malcontent campers -- nothing to worry about.

When the fire reaches populated areas, it has become a firestorm. Whole neighborhoods burst into flame.

Now the fire chief sends in extra firefighters.

Then, amid smoking ruins of a former subdivision, he declares "victory."

In a reality-based world, we would put this man in jail and make sure he never, ever had charge of so much as a dog-catcher truck again.

In BushWorld, the fire chief retires -- and his pal on the city council promises to follow in his footsteps.

[Yvie]

McCain is out of touch, not only with the average American, but also with reality. When Bin Laden sent planes into buildings on 9/11 one of his targets was our economy. Instead of focussing on finding Bin Laden, war mongers like Bush, Cheney and McCain seized the opportunity to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Arguably we had good cause in Afghanistan. However, we had no cause to go to war in Iraq. The cost of the Iraq war in miltary personnel and money has kept us from suceeding in Afghanistan. But most relevant to the discussion today, is that the cost of the Iraq war and THE SURGE have contributed tremendously to the meltdown of our Economy, probably more than the greed of Wall Street. Instead of facing the reality that the we cannot afford the Iraq war, McCain argued for an unneeded Surge and an indefinite American presence in Iraq. Today we see a viral ad on YouTube for McCain featuring a wounded Iraq veteran saying that the cost of freedom is never too great. Yea it is, especially when you have no justifiable reason for paying a price! People like Bush, Cheney and McCain have aided BinLaden in his goal to destoy our economy. We are on the verge of financial collapse trying to pay for all this war mongering. We should leave Iraq now and use the money which will be needed to stay there right here at home, where it needed more than ever.

[oldfart1]

You're right:
Re "The Post-Lehman World" (NY Times, Op-Ed, Sept 19): David Brooks (what happened?) is bewildered and needs help. Here it is:

Bush's endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan have been fought on borrowed money (and the borrowing goes on). Paul O'Neill, former US Treasury secretary, has said that in 2002 he tried to warn Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits posed a threat to the US economy. Mr Cheney cut him off: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said. With Greenspan's support, subprime mortgages were launched in 2003 to stimulate the housing boom and help re-elect Bush.

The cost of the bailout is estimated at $1 trillion, or more, closely matching the cost of the war. Bush has done things his way - we haven't had to pay for his war while he was President, but in the future we will pay for it over and over and over... In other words, Bush has gotten not only his war, but also everything else he wanted: now America will no longer be able to afford health care, or any of the social programs he hates. Cheney and he must be savoring every moment of their triumph, and looking forward to what McCain and Palin have in store for us: McCain will fire any one who is left who has any competence, and Palin will replace them with her friends from Alaska.

[mostlybluedot]

You may be right about this but let's not give up. On the money front, you know Cheney is right within some bounds. But you can only print so much money until you get inflation and then hyper-inflation. That is what I am starting to fear now with the trillion dollar bailout on top of the Iraq war deficits. You are right those deficits may prevent us from having health care, et al. That's is why the healing must start now and that is why we have got to end these neverending wars we are in. Get out of Iraq now for starters. Get BO in the WH on election day.

[caterpol]

I won't bore everyone with repeating the litany of slogans/excuses GWB and the boys gave for this war over the years, but if the goal is and always was "victory"-­---defined by GWB and McCain as a Democratic independent Iraq----how did the surge "work"?

It seems to me that we're no closer to the Republican's version of a Democratic Iraq than we were when Bush declared Mission Accomplished.

I can't possibly go along with calling the surge even a small "victory". It's just the wrong word to use in a such an unnecessary, bloody, unholy, hopeless mess.

[mostlybluedot]

Ok I buy it, now can we leave that godforsaken place?

[caterpol]

Well I'm certainly not as qualified as Sarah Palin to speak on this mess, I don't hunt furry animals, I don't have five children, and I can't see Russia from my porch, but I say yes, yes we can, and yes, we should.

The US needs to announce a firm withdrawal date. The Iraqi leaders aren't children that need to be babysat, they're politicians using the US war/occupation as a political tool against domestic enemies to prevent any one party from making ANY political progress.

[dadw5boys]

McCain does not even know Bush is paying these different War Lords to stop the attacks on U.S. Troops ?

al Sadr was paid millions !!!!!!

[CompetenceMatters]

And the cost of the unnecessary surge - in lives? In dollars? In loaves of bread? In gallons of gas? In doses of life-saving medicine? In units of education? In our reputation abroad?

My heart breaks...

[oldfart1]

And 5 million refugees...

[billwetzel]

There's a good chance that we're just prolonging the inevitable, another significant Shia vs Sunni clash. The Kurds have been mixing it up with the Iraqi Army too. And the final benchmarks are all the toughest ones, maybe not even reconciliable, so it might be that the some of the worst fighting is yet to come. Maybe not, I certainly hope not, but even Petraeus says the situation is tenuous.

[oldfart1]

Iraquis have been there 8000 years, and i don't think W's democracy will last for more than a few months after our troops leave. Neither does W, which is why McCain and he want them to stay for 100 years, or until all their oil is gone.

[akoop]

Prolonging the inevitable? Now that we've rearmed the Sunni ( you know the ones we removed from power but then had to protect them from the Shia who we put in power) and trained the Iraqi Army (the government one) while al Sadr has taken a breather to reform the militia, we have not only prolonged the inevitable but we have insured that the inevitable will be longer, bloodier and result in a less favorable situation then that which existed prior to the invasion.

[CitizenE]

So can someone given the current financial crisis we're entering give me a reason we should continue to noodle around there at $10 bill/mo? I mean isn't time we start after all this time bottom line our military adventurism?

[emariejon]

I believe the intention of Bushco always was to get control of the oil output in this region--forget about terrorists. After all, if we taxpayers pay for an occupation which secures the Iraqi oil for the American oil barons (Bush's base), what a win-win for big oil since they can also hike our price of gasoline at will. McCain will only trot along behind his masters and continue this disastrous game.

[oldfart1]

That was his plan, but it hasn't worked. They thought they could turn the Iraq oil over to our oil companies, but now the deal is off (the secret reason is that the oil men have figured out that Obama can win and bring the troops home, so their investment would disappear right before their eyes, just the way it has in Russia).