The Surge Is Over…
…and it’s time to state for the record, unapologetically, that it was a massive success:
Admiral Michael Mullen said today that he expects to be able to recommend troop reductions in Iraq this fall, as security gains from the troop surge continue to hold. Mullen made his comments in a Pentagon press conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the occasion of the removal of the last of five additional brigades ordered into Iraq as a part of the surge. The withdrawal of the third infantry division’s second brigade officially ended the surge, and went little noticed in the mainstream press, itself an indication of the strategy’s effectiveness.
Having said that, I can hear my regular lefties screaming bloody murder already. So let’s clear up some things about Iraq:
(1) The history of the Iraq War will show that it was an ill-founded war with little legitimacy since it was based upon a view of Iraq’s weapons programs that was categorically false.
(2) Nevertheless, the MILITARY history of the war will show an enormously successful invasion, followed by a disastrous occupation strategy…and yet:
(3) History will also show that the military, and yes, the Bush Administration, adapted brilliantly, if belatedly, and turned around a chaotic situation bordering on civil war.
Let’s go a little further and shoot down some talking points before they get any air:
(a) No one is saying the surge is the ONLY reason violence in Iraq went down. Obama in particular seems quite uncomfortable with admitting that his country had the right strategy, perhaps because that would be an implicit acknowledgement that McCain, also, was on the right side:
Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?
Obama: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.
Couric: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.
Obama: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision– to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
Couric: And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …
Obama: Yes.
Couric … would exist today without the surge?
Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that– not just today, not just yesterday, but I’ve said that– previously. What that doesn’t change is that we’ve got to have a different strategic approach if we’re going to make America as safe as possible.
He did, finally, after much gnashing of teeth, admit at the end there that the troops contributed to the reduction in violence (but in typical Obama fashion, he rewrote his own past position, when he claimed that an extra 20,000 troops wouldn’t be able to quell the sectarian civil war then brewing).
So, yes: the cooperation of the Sunnis, the ‘forward base’ strategy of the American military, the Sadrist ceasefire – all of these are contributing factors to the decline in violence. Yet to deny the surge a role in that decline is to be downright pigheaded. All of these factors contributed, and they all reinforced one another.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that your country finally got one right in a war where it got so much wrong.
(b) The American troops are in Iraq, at the moment, legitimately, however dubious the initial decision to invade. We are authorized by the United Nations to have our troops in Iraq through December of this year. After that, we are essentially guests of the Iraqis, at least as it stands. Iraq’s government has NOT requested that we leave. They have made it abundantly clear that they want us to leave sooner rather than later, but there must be a reason that even their ‘sooner’ is over two years away.
That reason is patently obvious to anyone looking at the situation with a clear eye. Iraq does not feel comfortable handling its own security without our assistance at this point. Even at the end of the ‘withdrawal’, Iraqi officials have indicated they want a small support presence of advisers and a small quick-response combat unit to remain.
(c) The talk of timetables that is so much in the news is essentially a political conversation, on both our end, and the Iraqi end. Iraq is helping itself domestically by pushing for an earlier withdrawal, and they are taking advantage of Obama’s popularity to squeeze the administration in the ongoing status talks for our troop presence beyond December, when the UN authorization runs out. They are playing their hand brilliantly, if a bit deceptively (Obama is not the president yet, and they are not showing good faith to the current occupant of that office).
Make no mistake, though – this Iraq debate is a far, far different one than either Republicans or Democrats envisioned in 2007. The surge, in combination with the aforementioned changes in Iraq’s factional dynamics, has fulfilled its objective. We are now talking about an Iraq whose future will be decided by its sovereign government, and not by the winner of a bloody sectarian civil war.
And THAT, my friends, and that means you, too, partisans on both sides, is indeed cause for celebration…
You say Obama made an admission at the end, after much gnashing of teeth, that he clearly made at the beginning. At the end of the first line you quote of his, he says: “…there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence.” This is about as hacktastic as I’ve ever seen you, Mark.
Obama cannot admit the surge was a success. The media would eat him up. So, while there is “nothing wrong” admitting the country (either us or, god forbid, we give some credit to the freaking Iraqis rather than all of the credit to the troops, or, as I’ve stated before, Al Qaeda going to Afghanistan and Pakistan) did SOMETHING correct (not necessarily the surge) in the past year it doesn’t change the fact that voters will be steered toward the conclusion of the media.
The media are dumb. Obama knows this.
And, no, I’m sorry Mark, saying the surge caused a change in the level of violence is a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Shoot, I’d go so far as to say that if we had drawn down troop levels instead of increasing them, the violence could have been reduced more! So, perhaps the surge HURT! Oh, yes, that possibility exists.
Mark, everything here is spectacularly obtuse. Even if we stipulate that the surge reduced violence, which I wouldn’t do (since I don’t believe it for a second) except to move the argument forward, this all misses the point. The surge’s stated goal was to create room for political reconciliation. We may or may not be moving toward that now, but for most of the duration of the surge, that simply wasn’t happening. You and the President may think we’re too stupid to notice you moving the goalposts and pretending the surge’s endgoal was reduced violence, but that’s blatantly false.
And speaking of moving the goalposts, I love the way you admit that the war was waged with little (I would say no, but why split hairs) legitimacy and that the occupation strategy was disastrous… and then go on to tell us how brilliant the US was for sending a lot of troops to clean up a mess that was entirely of our making. I fail to see how starting an illegal, immoral, and unjust war that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of human beings and the near-destruction of our credibility throughout the world can somehow be counterbalanced by the fact that we sat on our hands for a few years before finally bandaging a gaping wound.
I am as happy as anyone that fewer people are dying, but it’s that same respect for life that makes it abundantly clear how little we can do to wash the stains of our crime from our hands.
Everyone here should read Michael Yon’s book:
Moment of Truth in Iraq
It’s a short book and a fast read. You can read it in a day or two.
Michael Yon is as apolitical as they come (that’s a near direct quote from his self-proclaimed ultra-liberal publisher), and has spent more time over in Iraq than any other journalist. He’s probably spent more time there and in “hot zones” than the next 5 combined.
This book should be required reading for anyone running for national office this year or for anyone voting for President. Actually, strike that last. Presidential candidates should have someone on staff who carries the book with them at all times and reads it to the candidate continuously.
The book is that good and is that important.
He explains quite clearly why the surge is the reason for the reduced violence, why it was required, and how we almost lost and why. Now, don’t get miffed at that last sentence. There’s plenty in this book
to tick off conservatives and liberals alike. Yon calls ‘em like he sees ‘em without regard to politics.
BTW, Michael Yon now says the war is over:
You should read his blog, too. Quite a bit of the book parallels his blog entries.
Ryan,
You’re either lying or you have a poor memory.
Let me refresh your memory. From the President’s speech on the surge:
Here are the very first bullets from the White House Fact Sheet on the Surge:
Political and Economic goals were stated next. So, to paraphrase you:
You and the Democrats may think we’re too stupid to notice you moving the goalposts and pretending the surge’s primary goal was anything other than reduced violence, but that’s blatantly false.
The ultimate goal of the surge was political reconciliation, by way of reducing violence in Baghdad. If the violence was reduced but the political reconciliation never came, it would be incorrect to say that it had succeeded in its goals.
I totally disagree with the premise that:
WMD was just the rational that was felt, at the time, to be the strongest argument. In retrospect, it was an error to emphasize WMD since they were never the reason, only the excuse.
The reason was to disrupt the status quo in the Mideast and show that if you attacked the US at home, we would attack your homelands in far, far greater force.
(And yes, I know that no Iraqi was involved in 9/11–that simply does not matter, it was the anti-American Mideast fanatics, of whatever nominal nationality, that were the target.)
We should have withdrawn in 2003 after installing a stooge. That would have mean the civil war would have occured without American dead.
Well, our victory after the surge still advanced the strategic goal. In fact, the tactics of our terrorist enemies helped us very much in the end.
Despite the whiners here, our enemies are going to think hard and long before they mount a 9/11 attack. If they do, we’ll have to destroy something else until the lesson is learned.
We learned a lesson too. Destroy and withdraw, no occupation.
Let me make sure I have this right.
Even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, we were justified in invading their country because people from other countries in the same general region attacked us?
If I punch you in the nose, you are justified in retaliating against my neighbor?
Shorter Bob: If somebody attacks, retaliate against whoever you want and don’t clean up your mess. That’ll show ‘em.
Wow. I will give Bob credit for this much: he isn’t interested in playing the same silly, disingenuous games that the President and his supporters insist on playing. I happen to think his position is wrong and immoral, but it doesn’t require him to lie through his teeth and insult my intelligence at every turn. It’s a forthright admission that this is about naked American power, pure and simple. I oppose that, and I think most Americans would too if it were put that way, but he isn’t trying to tell me that we should ignore the wishes of the Iraqi people because we know what they need better than they do. It’s Caesarism rather than Nixonism; I guess I can kind of live with that.
“If I punch you in the nose, you are justified in retaliating against my neighbor?”
Does your act of punching me in the nose indicate that there is something wrong with you or just one example of many that there is something fundamentally wrong with the neighborhood in which you live?
If it is the latter — that you live in a neighborhood which encourages improper behavior — it would make sense for the police to begin patroling the neighborhood more thoroughly and to encourage proper behavior.
By analogy, 9/11 awakened the United States to the problems of the Arab world. It was only one example, but it was the one of which we most easily took notice. For decades, the United States had encouraged strongmen in the name of stability, ignoring the crimes they committed against the people in the region. Thus, the need to change the geopolitics of the Arab world was necessary. It had been necessary for a while prior to 9/11, but 9/11 simply awakened (most of) us to the necessity. One cause of terrorism is the absence of democracy. If you live in a democracy, don’t like the state of your country, but have a lot of supporters and a lot of money, you can run for office or lobby those who are in office. If you live in a dictatorship, it doesn’t matter how much money or support you have, you will never be able to change policy through peaceful campaigning. Terrorism is the only alternative. Thus, a democracy needed to be established in the Arab world as proof that, despite the common perception of racists in America (i.e., Democrats and/or “liberals”), Arabs are not too stupid to understand how mark a ballot.
So, what were the best candidates for democratization in the Arab world? The United States would prefer to see a relatively pro-American democracy, so the countries with pro-American dictators (Egypt, Saudi Arabia) are out, not that their current leadership is indispensible, but most of the people tend to be anti-American. Thus, it would be preferable to establish a democracy in a country with an anti-American leader (whose populace would tend to be pro-American): Iraq, Libya, Syria.
Of these, we had a peace treaty with Saddam Huessein, which he had already violated in 1998, giving the US a pretense to go to war with him, a pretense it lacked with the other two.
9/11 also awakened the United States to another reality: that terrorists were capable of striking the United States homeland directly. Thus, our tolerance of a threat level from a foreign leader (who could have potentially sold or given a WMD to a terrorist organization in the future) was lowered.
I disagree with the contention that we should have installed a pro-American stooge in 2003, as it would have only exacerbated the problems in the Middle East, turning a relatively-pro-American populace into one as strongly anti-American as those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (allow me to pre-empt any nonsense about Iraqis today being as anti-American as Egyptians as a result of the occupation; anyone who suggests that has no idea what he is talking about).
Fargus, fine, Obama said it at the beginning, and he said it at the end…but there was still much gnashing of teeth in the middle. I don’t think this is a spectacular instance of hackery, but be my guest to disagree, you nearly always do.
Ryan, you won’t admit for one minute that the surge reduced violence. Well, a party of one can still be a party, I guess…but I don’t know of any serious analyst that doesn’t have a partisan act to grind that would agree with you.
It was a spectacular turnaround, and that shouldn’t be treated as a partisan statement…
Ditto Chris’s recommendation of Yon. He is as good as it gets, he’s nonpartisan, and he spent much, much time in country, not typing in his pajamas from the safety of his home…and yep, he says the surge worked, spectacularly, and that the war is, for all intents and purposes, with the disclaimer about a major event like an attack on Iran, over…
And let’s not pretend that stating that the surge was aimed at political reconciliation is anything but a baldfaced lie through the gate of half-truths – it was aimed at providing the breathing space for political reconciliation by reducing the violence. The military cannot bring about political reconciliation – only the Iraqis can. That was evident from the start and stated on numerous occasions by Petraeus. Anyway you slice it, the increase in troops was manifestly, self-evidently, unmistakably aimed at reducing violence…and this time, a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED is actually in order…
Oh, come on, Mark. That’s just ridiculous. Since analogies seem to be all the rage in here, that seems to me to be similar to something like this: The goal of our operation was to get rid of the alcohol to reduce dad’s drinking so he’d stop beating on mom. He doesn’t drink as much, but he’s still beating on mom. That means that the operation was an unqualified success because he drinks less. The violence reduction wasn’t the ultimate goal of the surge. Military might is itself a tool, not an end. Unless you’re Bob. Or Aaron, who seems to think that, say, if some German terrorists had bombed us, we would have been justified in waging a campaign against Finland.
Iraq was an enemy already. We fought a war in 1991 and Iraq had violated the terms of the cease fire agreement. We were enforcing a unilateral no fly zone which is an act of war. We had already used missles in Operation Desert Fox.
Its not like we picked some country at random. We had plenty of justifications to invade Iraq, just not the will. 9/11 gave us the will.
Obama made an interesting point in his interview with Brian Williams yesterday. He acknowledged the reduction of violence which was concomitant with the surge, as well as the effect which the additional troops had in reducing violence (“if you add 30,000 troops, of course the violence will go down”). However, he also made the point that these are 30,000 troops who could otherwise be in Afghanistan, which seems to be getting worse by the day. Hence in evaluating the surge, you would have to balance the positive results in Iraq against the negative results in Afghanistan.
Yeah, but Peter, his ‘of course’ doesn’t reflect what he said when the surge was being debated – at that time, he said (I paraphrase, but this is pretty close to the actual wording) “I don’t believe an additional 20,000 troops will do anything to stop the sectarian civil war”. Obama can pretend he knew the surge would work all along, but the facts are against him…
Yes, but:
1) If you are going to compare the candidates based on their judgment, I would prefer a candidate who had the prescience to advocate staying out of Iraq in the first place to one who enthusiastically supported the invasion (and who calls for a one hundred year presence there). In my view, this is a much better criterion than whether a candidate’s crystal ball can accurately predict what expectations we should have for a troop increase.
2) Those who claim that the surge is an unqualified success can only claim that the decrease in violence and the escalation occured over roughly the same time frame. Other factors — such as cash payments to the Sunnis, conflicts between local Sunni and foreign Al Qaeda, and the quiescence of al Sadr — also presumably contributed to the diminution of violence. Nor is there any guarantee that the relative peace will continue. Doubtless the increase in American troops contributed to decreasing violence, but it certainly is not the only cause, and may not be the primary cause.
3) Obama’s comments imply this question: would things have been better overall if the 30,000 troops were in Afghanistan than Iraq? We’ll never know — but a strong argument could be made that the troops would better serve our national interests if they were in the part of the world which is the true center of the war on terror.
Sigh…the hundred years thing again. Haven’t we gone over this before?…and I just posted at length over the fact that the surge was not the ONLY factor that led to a decrease in violence. But it was ONE factor, and it’s to the credit of Bush and the generals. Why is that so hard to wring out of people on the left? Can’t both sides agree, for once, that the decrease in violence in Iraq is a damn good thing for our nation, and indeed the world, without the constant equivocating?…
No argument or equivocation that the decrease in violence is indeed a damn good thing — my point is simply to question the notion that there is a one to one equivalence in troop increases and the reduction of violence. As you state, it is one factor of many. (Another factor is suggested by a front page New York Times article today on the fading fortunes of the Mahdi Army. Apparently the fact that they thrived by extorting the local population mobilized enough Shiites to turn against them. A great thing, but not a direct consequence of American military presence.)
While you acknowledge that there are multiple causes, John McCain does not. Nor does the Wall Street Journal. My point is simply that the equivalence of the surge and the improvements in Iraq is facile and misleading.
Actually, no.
The important development on that front was Moqtada al Sadr’s declaration of a unilateral cease-fire at the end of August 2007 (subsequently, extended for another 6 months). There was an immediate, and precipitous decline in the level of violence, when that happened.
The other oft-cited factor was the Sunni Awakening movement, which started in the Fall of 2006 (i.e., pre-Surge).
The recent decline in the influence of the Mahdi army (if, indeed, that NYT article turns out to be correct) would be heart-warming. But it’s more likely a consequence, rather than a cause, of the decline in violence.
One of the main products of the “Surge” has been the Shiitification of Baghdad. Now that they no longer have to fear the depredations of Sunni militias, the Shiite residents of Baghdad no longer feel the need for the “protection” offered by the Mahdi army. That (as the NYT article tangentially points out) is the most likely reason for its decline in influence.
From the second paragraph of the NY Times article:
The Mahdi Army’s “use of extortion and violence began alienating much of the Shiite population to the point that many quietly supported American military sweeps against the group.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/world/middleeast/27mahdi.html?ref=world
I’m not disputing the other causes which Jacques cites — doubtless they all overlap to some extent — but violence and extortion (at least according to the Times) is a primary cause of their fading fortunes.
I tend to agree with Peter here; I think there is a lot of overlap between all of this things, and even the declaration of the unilateral ceasefire by Sadr has to be considered in the context of the total environment.
However, let us stipulate for the moment that Jacques has the right theory, at least for the sake of argument: today’s bloodbath would be an ominous sign that Sunni extremists can still easily penetrate government security – and thus open the door again to unofficial ‘protection’.
One bad day, even one with many dozens dead, is probably bearable in a country that already has borne so much…but let’s all cross our fingers and hope that this doesn’t begin to repeat itself again…
“[T]his things” equals “these things”, of course, in my comment above…
My oldest friend has a blog (as a blogger, you might appreciate his first post on The Wall at http://malcolmpollack.com/) — he has a tool which allows him to edit posts after they go live on his site. Maybe you can get this tool for Decision08?
Oh, I have the ability…on my comments only, however, it puts the html codes into the paragraph text when I edit them, so I have to do a lot of reformatting…when it’s a minor mistake, it’s easier to let it go and correct in a second comment. When I edit a major ‘post’, however, things are much simpler. I appreciate the tip, though…