|
||
The Surge Is Working ... On You
illustration, Capt. T. Patriquin
We're being showered with stories about the Surge's success. In Al-Anbar Province, deaths are down. In the Democrats' America, waffling statements are up. Surely something is working somewhere. Is the Surge succeeding?
That depends on how you define its mission. Is the Surge supposed to create the physical safety needed to support political change and stabilization, so that the U.S. can withdraw and leave a viable Iraq? If so, it's failing. Or is the Surge's purpose to intimidate Democrats, mislead the press, provide talking points for the Right, and confuse everybody else? It's succeeding very well in that mission.
Unfortunately, people are sacrificing their lives to make it happen.
Let's review the picture on the ground. "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq," Hillary Clinton said, "and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working." Admirable people argue she was not saying that the Surge "is working," but I have to disagree. Although she doesn't mention the Surge by name, and a parsing of her words might exonerate her, she left the clear impression that the Anbar situation was a result of the Surge. And Rep. Jerry McNerney was clearly wavering on his commitment to troop withdrawal after his government-sponsored Iraq tour.
But is the Surge working militarily? Let's take a look at Anbar province, where attacks are clearly down. Doesn't that mean we're on the right track? Unfortunately for the Right, they were touting the improved situation in Anbar in their usual organs before the Surge even started. (courtesy Nick Bradley). In fact, as Capt. Travis Patriquin explained in a PowerPoint presentation (warning: pdf) that became popular among troops and officers, the only way to defeat insurgents and foreign fighters is by reversing four years of Administration policy and allying with local sheikhs and other forces.
Unfortunately, this strategy involves allying ourselves with people that don't fit the stereotype of "enlightened democracy" that we're told is the Surge's ultimate goal. Sheikh Abdul Sattar, the warlord responsible for that success Sen. Clinton touts, is not exactly a Robert's Rules of Order kinda guy. From the National Review:
"In an overt (and televised) gesture of his determination and solidarity with the Iraqi government, Sheikh Abdul Sattar sliced the palm of his hand with a knife and proceeded to pound the blade into the table before him."But if you want to show results for the folks back home, the way to do it is with allies like Sheikh Sattar.
That gets us to the Surge itself, which is concentrated in and around Baghdad. As in Anbar province, any improvements we may be seeing are the result of a Faustian bargain. In Baghdad, it meant cutting a deal with the same forces we dismissed to disastrous effect four years ago. Michael Ware observes:
"The surge has shown some successes. But the real success ... is coming from something totally different, and that is coming from America cutting deals with its former enemies, principally the Ba'athist insurgents, the Sunni insurgents. It's by cutting a deal with the Ba'ath Party on the terms that the Ba'ath Party offered America four years ago and had to wait for America to be battered into submission to accept that the tide has turned against al-Qaida. It's by unleashing the Ba'ath that the al-Qaida bombs are coming down, that the al-Qaida attacks are starting to slow down, not directly from the surge and not from the presence of U.S. troops."The result of this short-term improvement in the statistics is a worsening of the long-term reality on the ground. Iraq is a more dangerous place, less likely to achieve the results we claim to want, as a result of our recent actions there. Ware again:
"What the U.S. troops are doing is giving a set of numbers, a series of data, a number of lowered attack figures that may give the military the political cover it needs in Washington. But at the end of the day, by cutting these deals the seeds are being sown for a much broader, more entrenched civil war that America will leave behind."Is the Surge working? It isn't creating a safer Iraq, that's clear. But it's beginning to work very well on Democrats and the media. Its ultimate target is the American people, and its ultimate goal is tolerance for an extended occupation. It may well succeed at that.
Capt. Patriquin wanted the Surge to succeed, but he'll never know how it turns out. He was killed by an IED last December.
The next time somebody tells you the Surge is succeeding, ask them: At what?
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
Comments for this post are now closed
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
The Petraeus appearance (no matter what he says, or who wrote it) before Congress in mid-September should be a turning point for US policy in Iraq - says the eternal optimist in me! As a result of the surge in US forces in Iraq, it should come as no surprise that there has been some limited military progress but the question is, as you correctly point out... to what end?
Unless there is simultaneous progress on the political front, any military progress is absolutely meaningless and may even be counterproductive. Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems to believe that political progress can be magically wished into being because the President and his foreign policy team has done nothing to begin a process to bring all the parties together in an effort to facilitate a political accommodation among the Iraqi factions that would bring in the regional and major powers to help promote and secure any settlement.
Senator Biden is the preeminent leader among Democrats on all foreign policy and national security issues. And, as the only presidential candidate who has outlined a detailed and comprehensive strategy to begin a diplomatic process to facilitate a political solution in Iraq, he should take a highly visible leading role at this time and coalesce veto-proof support for his strategy from all quarters and across party lines that will finally force the President to radically change his Iraq policy, NOW!
If Sadaam had surrendered before the deadline, would we be asking "is the surge working?"
You bet your ass we would have.
The calculus of this war is not difficult to figure out. Any gains from the surge will dissolve as soon as we leave and the Iraqi factions are free to battle things out in earnest. We won't win regional security, the war on terror,oil, prestige or National Honor. Wishing won't make it so. It might have been different with 1/2 million US ground troops, but I wouldn't wait for that to happen. We can leave now at 3700 US military dead, or we can wait until the next presidential inauguration when the total will be about 5000. Whatever, the bill runs to 90 US dead and 12B$ per month.
The blather that Republicans and their apologists are selling is that pulling out will mean our troops have died in vain. Perhaps, but only if you take the cynical view that service to country and comrades isn't enough. Soldiers don't get a choice about whether they fight for good or bad strategists. If there is a shred of democracy left in this country that is for the voters to judge. The longer Bush draws this folly out, the harsher the judgment will be.
Yeah Bush won the two presidential elections fair and square, Iraq was involved in 9-11, WMD’s were found in Iraq, Iraq was invaded to spread democracy, the war will be a cake walk and on and on. Wake up sheepel,
We may as well face it, Iraq is a tangle from which we will not escape for a very long time. A straightforward withdrawal is politically impossible, even if Democrats win the White House in 2008. The comments coming from probable candidate Hilary Clinton should prepare us for the fact that simply cutting our losses and leaving will take more courage than Clinton or any of the other Dems have.
Unfortunately, it will probably take some "tough-talking" Republican, a Nixon-type, to take us out by declaring the war has been won, or "Iraqisized", handed over to some new puppet regime that will fall within months of our departure. Then we'll start hearing the arguments over "who lost Iraq"? By then the question of how and why we got entangled in the first place will have been long forgotten.
The last thing the whimpy Dems will want is to be blamed for the disaster, so they will stall and bluster and do nothing.
This doesn't mean I'd rather see another Repthug elected in 2008, but my view of where this is headed is not opptimistic.
If a Demo wins in 2008, the People will have
'spoken with one voice' that the war is to be
ended as soon as possible (which still might
be a year or even 2 later). If a Repo wins,
the war will continue indefinitely until a
clear 'win' can be achieved.
The Repos 'own' this war & they aren't going
to be accepting a loss, whatever the cost.
The 'whimpy' Demos will permit a loss, if they
can put the blame on the Repos (which would be
fair, though still difficult).
Interesting to recall that one of the first things Mikhail Gorbachev did, after ascending to power in the late USSR (as a sort of democrat, after many years of 'republicans'), was to remove forces from Afghanistan. What happened next?
http://www.slate.com/id/2102243/
". . . she left the clear impression that the Anbar situation was a result of the Surge."
___________________________
No, I don't think she did. Watching the reporting over the last couple weeks, in the Anbar Province it is definitely a change in tactics other than and apart from the surge that gave rise to improvements in the condition. I think it was that situation that Clinton was alluding to.
Sending more troops was a way of justifying the
presence of the troops already there, honoring
the legacy of all those who served there before,
most importantly keeping the war going til the
end of GWB's term.
Since the war isn't lost until US admits it's
lost, it's not lost. And it's not going to be lost
while GWB is in office.
Now, when the next President takes office,
if a Demo wins, it'll be up to him/her to
lose the war if they so choose. On the other
hand, if a Repo guy wins, you can be sure that
US will hang on for another term or two, waiting
for 'sweet victory' to come our way.
Your choice, people! Get ready to be fooled again.
Whatever happens in the mean time, GWB will
NOT be losing this war. It ain't over until
he says it's over, and he ain't gonna say it,
until it's won.
The military surge is being accompanied by a all-out "win their hearts and minds" propaganda surge in the heartland. It will be interesting to see if Americans fall for it again.
Its working, you just refuse to believe it. Try going over there. Or maybe you could just write a song about it. I'll bet not one person commenting here has been there other than me.
Why aren't you there now? Didn't want to hang around? Did you finish your tan or run out of money? Or did you want to get the hell out of there with your life?
It's working? Exlain.
Have you been over there? I doubt it. You chickenhawks cheerleading for this immoral money grab of a war need to get your rich, fat Republican @sses over there. But of course that will never happen. And in case you haven't noticed, every report given from Iraq by real reporters, outside the Green Zone, away from the scripted dog and pony show visits by politicians, say the same thing. The surge is not producing improvement of any kind on the ground.
Yeah, tell that to the over four million displaced Iraqi refuges... and counting.
Oh, and not to worry, you will be returning with the next surge for 18 months this time.
"I'll bet not one person commenting here has been there other than me."
- jimpryor99
That would be meaningful if you had some credibility.
But you don't.
That's why my money's on the "seven NCOs", and not the likes of you. They were collectively there a heckuva lot longer than you (if you ever really were). And unlike you, they've got the Big C. In spades. Why? Because they could build an intelligent argument based on evidence. Your most highly nuanced argument (yeah, I checked) seems to be "libruls are dumb".
See ya.
Compare this surge to a storm surge generated by a hurricane . Both destroy and do nothing good.
It becomes clear in reading this article that one of the biggest mistakes Bush made in Iraq is that he underestimated the Iraqis.
Once we toppled Saddam we didn't show any respect for the country they were occupying.
Bush assumed that all Baath party members were bad...even though (like the Nazi party during WWII) you had to join if you wanted any type of a career as, say, a teacher, engineer, Doctor, etc.
So, using the same logic we did in Nam (ie: disdain for the "little brown people" of the country) we kicked all of the Baathists out of office without even considering who they were.
Then, the CPA disbanded the Iraqi military and put 300,000 people on the streets who were without a source of income and (worse yet) had been insulted by being told that they couldn't be trusted.And, did I mention...they were armed?
So now we have the Surge!
The only thing it has really accomplished is to hold the line somewhat so that the Iraqi congress could get a vacation.
Bring the troops home.
Haliburtton and Blackwater have made enough money.
We were told that leaving Viet Nam would have a domino effect and all of Asia would become Communists if we left. Well, they seem to have sorted it out.
The Iraqis are going to have to do the same eventually. They only difference is how much more blood and money we pour into Iraq before we get out.
Do it now! before we ruin our Military, our Freedom and our economy.
Not a friggin chance of that happening, the Democrats are in it to win it, National security don't ya know.
Dear Brother RJ,
This war is intended to escalate, it will go on throughout President Hillary Clinton's first term, there will be a draft, and young women will be a part of it.
That's where we are being led, by the leaders they have taken over our Republic and will turn like a rabid dog on its owner, on We, the People should we interfere. Agape.
That's the long and short of it. Agape.
Bush made it VERY clear last year that ending the war in Iraq would be the problem of the next president. Does anyone really think they can end this war in the next 17 months?
And there is NO chance that a draw down will even begin until the Oil Law is signed.
Only problem is that the Iraqi people know what's going on, and will NOT allow their elected leaders to give away 80% of the oil revenue.
So here we are, seven months into the Democratic 110th congress, and no closer to ending the war than we were this time last year.
PEACE
The people touting the surge are the same who have been saying how great things have been going in Iraq all along. Does any of this sound familiar?
We're turning the corner in Iraq.
We've got al-Qaeda on the run.
We're making progress in Iraq.
The insurgency is in its last throes.
We're winning the war.
Some nerve of some people, to now embrace honorifics like "frequent critic of the war" and act like they're shoveling something other than the same old crap down the American gizzard.
what does work? Bueller? Bueller?
war sucks is all I hear, I agree, but is there a solution? Nobody wants to discuss what happens with different policies, only complain about the one we're using...
The surge is obviously not working and Clinton needs to correct the stupid comment she made that has been taken out of context.
Hey! Triangluation and crass political calculation are NOT stupid.
No matter who the president is only one thing will get us out of Iraq. Give Big Oil what it wants. Once the oil 'agreement' is signed we're outta there. Oh, except for 60,000 troops to guard Big Oil as it sucks the money out of the ground and ships it all to the Carlyle Group.
Precisely. We have to make sure the Bremer Protocols (read: Ricks' Fiasco), which essentially codify the view that it is our oil under their sand, are allowed to basically stand . . . Key to understanding the surge: follow the money.
Loading comments…
|
||
Posted August 22, 2007 | 11:35 AM (EST)