Who Has No Fundamental Understanding of the Surge?

I am catching this a little late, but this is important to correct. The McCain campaign attacked Barack Obama for saying that the surge would result in an increase in violence. Pointing to this quote from Obama:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

McCain says that that was clearly wrong saying:

Sen. Obama said that the effect would be the reverse. So, he has no fundamental understanding of the entire situation that warranted the surge, which led to the success."

This is ridiculous. The surge DID increase violence in Iraq. Yes the last eight months violence is down - but the eight months before that were the most violent since the war began - making 2007 (the year of the surge) the deadliest year for American troops (see the chart from icasulaties below). Putting U.S. troops in the most dangerous neighborhoods of Iraq was bound to increase violence.

Violence has decreased since  - and while the troop increase and the change in strategy has had an important impact, other factors (factors not a part of the original of the surge plan) explain the decline in violence much more effectively. What are these:

1. We cut deals with the enemy. The Anbar awakening and the deals struck with Sunni insurgents were the most important factor contributing to the decline and violence. But its important to note that this was NOT part of the original surge strategy but was arrived at due to the escalating violence and the failures of Iraq's political leaders to make any headway on the political benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration as part of the surge.

2. Ethnic cleansing was more or less achieved in most neighborhoods. As in other ethnic conflicts - violence usually peaks at the outset, as integrated neighborhoods are forcefully segregated. As neighborhoods become segregated they are often walled off - creating more security for neighborhood residents by preventing outsiders from entering. This has been a tactic deployed by Petraeus and is a common counter-insurgency tactic. While this is effective at preventing violence, it also has the negative side effect of freezing sectarian divisions in place creating a significant long term obstacle to reconciliation (think Belfast).

3. We had a cease-fire agreement with Sadr, which has been extremely important in lowering attacks on the U.S.

Attributing the recent decrease in violence solely to the increase in troop levels and ignoring the fact that violence significantly increased during the first eight months of the surge is indicative of someone who "lacks a fundamental understanding of the entire situation that warranted the surge."

Comments

[DMW1]

Please - do not try to confuse ohn McCain any further than he already is by presenting him with facts.

[continental]

Also, what good is the surge if the Iraqi Parliament can't get their act together. The surge was intended to give the parliament a chance to make decisions but they're still deadlocked.

[marinemomof3]

Who Has No Fundamental Understanding of the Surge?

THE MSM, that is who!

All I hear all the time is how the surge is working. Blitzer asked this of some Repug talking head yesterday WITH NO DAMN FOLLOWING UP.

I am so sick and tired of this BS from the media.

The surge was to be put in place SO THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO
WORK ON THE 18 BENCH MARKS.

Why is there no follow up question, like "how many of the 18 bench marks have been negotiated"?
Never never do you hear the follow up. What the heck does less violence mean when the Iraqi government is not doing its job. How long before they settle on these issues?

Will it be the same amount of time to train the Iraqi Army which is now OVER FIVE YEARS!!!!

Will they go on vacation this summer for another TWO MONTHS???

Please write to local papers, comment in the online section of these rags, comment to your Congressperson or Senator, write to CNN, MSNBC, and yes even Faux News.

This is supporting the troops.

From a bitter white woman, who has not been very proud of her country.

[beaupritchard]

Republicans want the story to be about whether the surge is or is not working.

What their stubborness and arrogance won't let them see is ... unless you were for the war in the first place ... no one cares if the surge is working ... voters want what they wanted in 2006 ... voters want out of Iraq ... voters are going to get what they want.

[darker]

Not "surge". It's SPLURGE.

SPLURGE more USTaxpayer money by shoveling it into pockets of
Bush-Cheney WAR PROFITEER pals and greedy BIG OIL.

That is "mission accomplished".

[peterv]

These so called awakening councils to it out of self preservation, insurgents used extreem violence and because US paid every member $300 a month. So in a way bought loyality and because they these tribes were convinced that extremists used too extreem tactic and violence. The danger is that this startegy can backfire like it did in afghanistan, you pay and deliver weapons to fight russians and next you become the enemy.

[peterv]

"Old News" but anyway the surge troops were mostly deployed in capital, which in effect logically resorted to more displacements and violence. This violence only subsided in sep 2007 when Mahdi army declared a freeze for 6 months, this violence erupted again last month in Sadr city. McCain can declare he was in favour of surge, but he was not not the one who set policy. In debate nobody discusses the many private armies, since even when you withdraw regular troops there upwards to 30 - 50.000 security personnel active in Iraq.

[GLaB]

While I'm in favor of getting out of Iraq asap, this article is simply wrong.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the SECTARIAN VIOLENCE there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

This is Obama's quote cut and pasted from your own article - I highlighted the important phrase.
The issue at debate between Obama and McCain here is the SECTARIAN VIOLENCE. Saying that "The surge DID increase violence in Iraq" because U.S. troop casualties went up does NOT address this in any way, and is either dumb or deceitful. In neither case is it a helpful point to make in the argument for ending our occupation.

[CaptainObvious]

Yeah. Too bad we don't actually keep track of Iraqi casualties, or we might have some idea about how bad the sectarian violence actually is.

[SaltySaltillo]

It all strikes me as the equivalent of putting your finger in the dike to stop the leak. Works great until you actually want to walk away and go on with your life...

[Liberoservative]

What I get from my friends who are deployed to Iraq is that the surge isn't working... what is working is the fact that we have all these factions walled up and they can't leave their little safe areas... Imagine, a city with 18 foot walls around each borough and you have to present identification to go in and out... that's what our "surge" has accomplished. Now the Iraqis have told our government that they won't sign the occupation agreement without a timeline for withdrawal.... what does McCain say to that?

[fred123]

What are you talking about when you say "the Surge"? Is it just the increase in troop levels, or do mean the whole counter-insurgency strategy developed under Gen Petreus, of which the troop increase was a part? If all you are talking about is the troop increase, then you have a point - just upping the numbers in Iraq without changing strategy wouldn't have done much good. However, the full strategy involved actively doing some of the things you seem to believe were fortuitous coincidences (like "flipping" the al-Anbar tribes to our side). The troop levels were established to match the strategy, not just pulled out of thin air.

Your point that 2007 had more US casualties than previous years is correct, but also meaningless in evaluating success. The Surge forces, and the strategy , were not fully in place until the summer of 2007, so a lot of your statistics for that year pre-date the Surge. Also, as you noted, the Surge required offensive action to hunt and destroy the insurgent groups where they lived. Obviously if you avoid combat, then your casualties are lower, but that doesn't suppress the insurgency. The reason violence is coming down now is that the offensive ops did their job, and the outreach to the Sunni tribes got them to chase out the al-Qeida groups. It wasn't a coincidence - it was part of the plan.

[johnqeniac]

some of your arguments are legitimate. however, in the even BIGGER picture, what really has the 'surge' of that genius bureaucrat and bush loyalist, mr. patreus, accomplished? 1. We have locked down the remainder of our combat forces in baghdad in perpetuity in an unsustainable occupation. 2. We have armed various warlords who ultimately have no loyalty to us whatsoever. 3. We have armed both sides of a civil war, thus creating an intrinsically precarious 'peace' that will collapse the moment we attempt to withdraw. 4. We have positioned ourselves in a state of perpetual belligerent confrontation with iran, the one country that could help us to stabilize iraq if we would actually talk to them. Thus, in the larger view, the 'surge' has been nothing more than bush's means of trapping us in iraq for the duration, which is what the repellant little s--- wanted to do all along.
We should be negotiating with iran (this is critical to our withdrawing) and we should be pressuring the sunni and shia factions to negotiate with one another.

[CaptainObvious]

Obviously, this chicken hawk is an expert in the field of combat avoidance.

[knowhelpnow]

Well how long do we pay them to continue to put up with us their and what happens if they decide that they have enough money to continue to try and win control of their country? This I say is a very stupid way to fight a war it is just prolonging the unrest. We need to get out NOW and let them deal with who will take charge we do not have the money to keep poring into this country, while our people wait to bring our schools, roads, all our systems up to standards.

[Enlightened22]

Coming from a different country, it is with some sadness that I do have to say the american traditional media coverage of politicians is simply something to laugh at. Journalists poorly informed, pundits disguised in "pseudo-journalists", pure acceptance of continuous lies and hald-truths without any kind of confrontation, networks (Foxnews and others) that would turn Goebble green of envy, the whole thing is quite scary for a country that struggles to portray itself as a leader in democracy. But not only are they bad, but ignorant of theirs own flaws, you hear them congratulate themselves on a regular basis, something you would never hear on other countries' channels. Quite strange.

[Gma11]

Well said. I'm always amazed at the difference in media coverage between the U.S. and other nations when I travel.

We do tend to be badl informed.

Which is one reason i support HuffPost.

[CaptainObvious]

And coincidentally, the violence started going back down right around the time we started reducing troop levels again. "the surge is working" is nothing but a propagana campaign.

[WilliamGossett]

The surge on the surface appears to have worked, even if it was coincidental. But the key to this is to use the expense (both dollar wise and military troop number wise) of the whole thing. Using the fact that we were led into the war with untrue statements, that there was lying on the part of the administration, etc.

With $4 a gallon gas and it appears on the rise, with unemployment up, these facts about the whole opeartion in Iraq has destroyed our economy for the middle class and that is the theme that must be hammered on, not the theme that the "surge isn't really working." Make the surge irrelevant and make the cost relevant and that is where success lies.

This is a chess game and we have to be ahead of the opponents - like it or not. John Kerry killed himself with too many heady long winded "yes and no" responses to questions. The American public is not heady (nor is the public anywhere else in the world) andquick sound bite answers must be devised for the questions that are coming. Using the surge as an example, "Hasn't ther surge worked in reducing violence?" must be answered with "We have paid too much a price already for a war that we entered into illegally."

[bgregs]

The surge, when coupled with everything that Max pointed out, have in fact reduced violence levels. However, the surge has failed, because the goal was to allow breathing space for the Iraqi govt to get its act together. Not one of the goals set forth has been completed, and most aren't even in the PLANNING stage!!!

[CaptainObvious]

It reduced violence levels? By what measure?

[noamjunior]

GIven that the GOPERS have LIED at EVERY STEP of their ILLEGAL INVASION OF IRAQ
WHY ON EARTH do supposed "liberal" or "progressive" writers take their claims at face value
The question should NEVER BE "is the surge working"
it should be
WHY ARE WE THERE?
HOW MUCH IS IT COSTING?
WHO IS MAKING MONEY on this?
WHY HAVEN'T the CRIMINALS who LIED US INTO WAR been PROSECUTED?
WHY ARE WE LETTING LIARS AND CRIMINALS SET THE AGENDA IN IRAQ?

[darker]

We know those questions and WE KNOW THE ANSWERS!

The real question is WHY are there no adults in WashDC
asking, answering, demanding and PUNISHING THE CRIMINALS IN CHARGE.

[jacksondrew]

Hey, noamjunior- you are spot on! Sadly, we can not depend on the media. Its corporate owned, and those who does the reporting are just pimps and prostitutes.

Viva for the internet, or as the IDIOT in the white house would say 'INTERNETS'