The surge isn't working

[bascule]

Well, that's my view! It's the latest in the dog and pony shows the administration has trotted out in attempts to draw attention away from the enormous clusterf*ck that is the invasion of Iraq, the removal of its power structure, and the subsequent (primarily) US occupation which has remained in hopes that a new, democratic power structure actually able to keep control would materialize in its place, and be able to resolve sectarian conflicts between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds.

 

According to some news outlets, the latest dog and pony show is... a dog an pony show, with no real effect, and jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers! Here's the evidence from my previous post with whatever objectionable opinion I placed alongside it removed!

 

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1632751,00.html?xid=rss-world

 

Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday. In its required quarterly report on security, political and economic developments in Iraq, covering the February-May period, the Pentagon also raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.

 

[…]

 

Wednesday’s broader report, the eighth in a series, said that while violence fell in the capital and in Anbar province west of Baghdad during the February-May period, it increased in other areas, particularly in the outlying areas of Baghdad province and in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad and in the northern province of Nineva.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061302357.html?nav=rss_nation/special

 

Iraq’s government, for its part, has proven “uneven” in delivering on its commitments under the strategy, the report said, stating that public pledges by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have in many cases produced no concrete results. Iraqi leaders have made “little progress” on the overarching political goals that the stepped-up security operations are intended to help advance, the report said, calling reconciliation between Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni factions “a serious unfulfilled objective.” Indeed, “some analysts see a growing fragmentation of Iraq,” it said, noting that 36 percent of Iraqis believe “the Iraqi people would be better off if the country were divided into three or more separate countries.”

 

[...]

 

Shiite militias, which have engaged in the widespread killing and sectarian removal of Sunni residents in Baghdad, now enjoy wide support in the capital, the report said. “In Baghdad, a majority of residents report that militias act in the best interests of the Iraqi people,” it said, while only 20 percent of respondents polled nationwide shared that view.

 

[SkepticLance]

The whole approach is Iraq is, and always has been, totally stupid. You do not win peace by marching, jackboots and all, into someone else's country, and by then shooting people.

 

The Lancet study showed 650,000 Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result of Bush's actions. Sending more troops in is only going to mean more militants fighting back. Right or wrong - those guys believe very sincerely that they are defending their country and their religion. End result - more death and destruction.

[Pangloss]

There's a broken link in the OP, just FYI.

 

I agree with the first sentence in SkepticLance's post above, and disagree with every subsequent sentence in it.

 

As far as whether the surge is working, I've no idea. My disposition towards the politics of George Bush hasn't directed me to prejudge a verdict here, so I'm forced to wait and see. Unlucky me.

[Sisyphus]

It certainly looks bad now, but then, I have a hard time understanding what they hoped would happen. What would the surge "working" look like? Certainly Tony Snow hasn't given a straight answer.

[SkepticLance]

To Pangloss

 

You are entirely entitled to disagree with me, anytime you like. However, as part of this discussion, I would ask you to consider the history of the US's military activities since WWII.

 

Korea. A war that still goes on - a 'temporary' stalemate that still requires enormous military activity, and represents a financial drain that is hard to justify.

 

Viet Nam A total disaster for the USA, and for the 2 million Vietnamese who died.

 

Bay of Pigs. A military disaster for the USA

 

Central America. Support for insurgents, which resulted only in more deaths.

 

Somalia. A total failure which increased the number of deaths.

 

"Successes" include Kosovo. However, that was not the USA alone. It was a NATO action, with the full support of most of the world. It includes Granada, which is a tiny helpless island unable to fight back, and it includes the abduction of Noriega, which occurred in another tiny helpless place.

 

The attack on Afghanistan was shrewdly carried out, by being in alliance with a local faction. However, the history of foreign invasions into Afghanistan makes it seem unlikely to have a successful outcome.

 

And the invasion of Iraq was utterly stupid. Bush senior was too shrewd to try an invasion. Junior should have listened to his Daddy.

[Pangloss]

Korea wasn't a failure, it made the South Korean success possible. But your point isn't even about the military, it's about political will. This country has always been like that. Shelby Foote (a famous civil war historian) used to say about the Civil War that the North fought with one hand behind its back and had it pulled out the other hand the war would have been over very quickly at any point in its length. WW2 is far more the exception than the rule.

 

The kind of pessimism you're touting there is just self-fulfilling defeatism. You're not talking about making smart choices, you're talking about giving up and shooting ourselves in the head. Thanks, I'll pass.

 

This country needs a kick in the pants, not a prescription for Zoloft.

[iNow]

The kind of pessimism you're touting there is just self-fulfilling defeatism. You're not talking about making smart choices, you're talking about giving up and shooting ourselves in the head.

I'm still weighing the different sides of the issue myself, but I'm a bit confused about your comment to SkepticLance and Bascule. Weren't they just speaking of past actions and outcomes, also sharing convincing reports of the current state of affairs with the community here?

 

I saw none of the "pessimism" or "self-fulfilling defeatism" in this thread which you referenced, but maybe I can't see all of the same bits of text that other posters do??

[Pangloss]

SkepticLance posts a criticism of the surge based not on the evidence for or against the surge but rather (by his own statement) based solely on the history of American military involvements since WW2, and you don't see anything pessimistic or self-fulfilling about that?

 

Really?

[CPL.Luke]

agreed, skepticlance doesn't mention the first persian gulf war which was an utter success, and that was led by the US.

 

also the bay of pigs was not a US military invasion, it was a invasion that was heavily supported by the US. If the US had at anytime decided that we would oust kastro, we could have done it within a few days, what happened after that would be anyone's guess.

 

In korea we had a total victory until the chinese intervened, and there again the US could easily have provided more troops/ bombings in order to beat the chinese, but we didn't want to risk a wider conflict with china and possibly the soviet union.

 

Vietnam demonstrates that it is no longer possible in the modern era to occupy a country, as Iraq is also currently demonstrating.

[SkepticLance]

luke's point about occupying a country is an excellent one.

 

He calls the first Gulf War an utter success, which I would not totally agree with. It was a partial success, in that it drove Saddam out of Kuwait. It left him in power, which means it was only partially successful, but realistically, that was all that could have been hoped for.

 

It was Bush junior who was the fool, in trying to invade and occupy Iraq. As luke said, attempts at occupation rarely work.

 

Let me suggest a recipe for dealing with situations like that in Iraq before the invasion. For example : dealing with Iran. It is a three stage process, which will leave many people dissatisfied - just like any good compromise.

 

1. Gettin' to know ya. Spend time studying and learning to understand the group that is currently hostile. Learn why they are hostile. Learn to understand them, from their own viewpoint.

 

2. Gettin' to help ya. Provide aid and assistance in helping the hostile group to develop in a humanitarian way. Send doctors, nurses and teachers rather than soldiers.

 

3. Learnin' to wait on ya. Be prepared to take time - sometimes decades. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. If you are behaving as a friend, eventually the friendship will be returned. However, there is a lot of history to be overcome, and that takes a lot of time. If it does not work at first, keep trying, and keep patient.

 

The problem is that political expediency and special interest groups get in the way. Also, short term political thinking. If it does not win votes within 5 years, it aint worth doing.

[john5746]

Actually, could Iran turn out better than Iraq? The military victory would be harder, but the political victory might be easier?

 

Maybe I am wrong, but Iran probably doesn't have as much ethnic strife? They are mostly Persian, shia muslim, I think. So, no reason to totally wipe out the government. They could be jump started back with a much smaller military - who is going to invade them?

[Sisyphus]

Iran is much more homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and religion, it's true. There are significant minorities, but not in such great numbers that an ethnic civil war would be really plausible. However, there are many other complications, such as...

 

Iran is a very large country, with 2.5 times the population and 4 times the area of Iraq. For some reason (I don't pretend to know why), we can't secure the road to the Baghdad airport. How would we ever police Iran?

 

Iran is more or less democratic (There is a "Supreme Leader," but that leader is appointed by the elected legislature.). Overthrowing a democratic regime, no matter how crazy the demos seems to be acting, would be spectacularly unpopular around the world, not to mention that by definition most Iranians would rather we didn't. We'd have less internal fighting and more fighting us, and any "regime change" we forced would lead to a government with less popular support, not more.

 

Iranian culture is in a delicate place. Sabre-rattling Islamicists are in control, but there is also a large and growing peaceful movement for liberal secularism, particularly among the youth. Rolling in on tanks, thereby confirming everything those Islamicists say about us, would be just the thing to crush the very spirit we want to foster.

 

The Iranian and new Iraqi governments are all buddy buddy now. Do we seriously want the Iraqi government that we've gone to such extreme lengths to install and defend to turn against us? Why did we oust Saddam, again?

 

I don't know what to do about Iran, but I'm quite sure invasion is not the answer.

[doG]

The surge isn't working

Well' date=' that's my view! It's the latest in the dog and pony shows the administration has trotted out in attempts to draw attention away from the enormous clusterf*ck that is the invasion of Iraq[/quote']

 

Recent news seems to indicate the surge is working:

 

The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

 

The high-profile attacks — generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other "soft" targets that produce mass casualties — have dropped to about 70 in July from a high during the past year of about 130 in March, according to the Multi-National Force — Iraq....

 

But I'm sure I could find support for your opinion too if I wanted to use old articles from months ago like you did....

[geoguy]

This is insane

 

THE PARROT IS DEAD (see Monty Python)

 

Cripes, are Americans so dense they still don't realize they lost this mission the day they invaded and occupied Iraq. 4 and a half years later the country is a basketcase. If it wasn't war, it'd be a comedy skit.

 

the latest progress: 'look, the parrot twitched''

 

The Iraqi parliament takes a month off while American soldiers die. One Iraqi politiian defended the break by bemoaning that nothing is accomplished and the USA runs the country anyways.

 

People. GET REAL. Iraqinam is Vietnam.

 

Encore for the fools running the show. The comedy continues. Come September it will be 'great progress'..Ha! Ha! and, yes we are all waiting for 'give it some more time'...Ha! Ha! the insanity will continue for another year. More dead American troops. More tens of billions down the toilet.

 

It's a scene from Gilligan's Island. One more bonk on the head by a coconut and Gilligan wakes up from his nightmare

 

"hey skipper, I had this wierd dream. We invaded Iraq and...4 and a half years later and we were still in the quick sand....and then we still woulDn't get out AND THEN ANOTHER YEAR...AND THEN....

[ParanoiA]

I've never seen someone more thrilled and excited about death and misery.

 

Hatred comes in so many forms...

[geoguy]

Great 1984 doublespeak:

 

Er, guess who were eager to lie and fudge evidence go to war and kill people? Hint: 'Freedom' and 'Yellow Cake'

[Wormwood]

Iran is a very large country, with 2.5 times the population and 4 times the area of Iraq. For some reason (I don't pretend to know why), we can't secure the road to the Baghdad airport. How would we ever police Iran?

Policing isn't really the military's job, though they are trying to incorporate that now. We are a country in a moral transition, and it is these conflicting morals that cause our problems. Some people want to win the war, but they have to look like the "good guys" while doing it which causes a weak military strategy. If they wanted to control the road to the airport, or stop roadside bombs, they could make travel by car illegal, and destroy any civilian caught traveling in a car. It's not "fair", but it would put a stop to a lot of the chaos.

The only thing people truly respect is demoralizing power. Why do you think there was such stability in the region when Saddam was in control?

 

Iran is more or less democratic (There is a "Supreme Leader," but that leader is appointed by the elected legislature.). Overthrowing a democratic regime, no matter how crazy the demos seems to be acting, would be spectacularly unpopular around the world, not to mention that by definition most Iranians would rather we didn't. We'd have less internal fighting and more fighting us, and any "regime change" we forced would lead to a government with less popular support, not more.

This isn't necessarily true. What if they have a crappy monopolistic two party system like we do in the U.S.? The population here just tries to pick the lesser of two evils. Are you saying if G.W. was forcibly replaced, that the majority of the U.S. would be upset and support the new guy less?

 

Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19352087/site/newsweek

 

Just because someone was elected, doesn't mean a majority of the country supports them. It just means the country gaged that person as less horrible than the alternative.

 

Iranian culture is in a delicate place. Sabre-rattling Islamicists are in control, but there is also a large and growing peaceful movement for liberal secularism, particularly among the youth. Rolling in on tanks, thereby confirming everything those Islamicists say about us, would be just the thing to crush the very spirit we want to foster

This attitude is what I was referring to with the moral transition statement. Everyone wants to be liked for some reason. A war isn't about making friends. If we had taken this approach during WWII the Nazi's would be ruling the world right now. When you see pictures of Berlin around 1945, does it look like they left the schools, hospitals, and churches standing, or does it look like we carpet bombed the whole town into oblivion? Now these Imams know that they can play on American sympathy and the need to be liked; so one moment they are sawing off someone's head on the internet, and the next they are outraged that p.o.w.'s were embarrassed at the hands of a woman, and the sad thing is that we respond by turning on each other and taking their side just like they knew we would. Our sympathy and need to be liked has become a serious source of weakness.

 

The Iranian and new Iraqi governments are all buddy buddy now. Do we seriously want the Iraqi government that we've gone to such extreme lengths to install and defend to turn against us? Why did we oust Saddam, again?

Lack of forethought, and personal vendettas, but that is beside the point. The truth is, without that regions oil, no one really cares what they do, who they like, or how they want things to be. Pretending like we need them as allies is silly. Acting like they pose some genuine threat, even together is silly. Instead of trying to install a puppet government, we should just set up military bases in the oil fields and claim those as US property since that is a big reason we went. Let the Iraqi's build their own governement, and if Iran has anything to say about it, we take their oil too and sell it back to them at an extreme mark up. Their economies and power structures will fail. It's hard to hire militants with no money and no transportation. Problem solved.

[doG]

Policing isn't really the military's job, though they are trying to incorporate that now. We are a country in a moral transition, and it is these conflicting morals that cause our problems. Some people want to win the war, but they have to look like the "good guys" while doing it which causes a weak military strategy.

 

For the record the war is over. Iraq was returned it's sovereignty on Jun 28, 2004. At that point the interim Iraqi government asked that we remain as a security force. There is no longer any war with Iraq or it's people. People here need to quit arguing about whether or not we want to win the war. They also need to ask themselves if they want another Afghanistan, a weak country with a weak government waiting for Al-Qaeda to move in and take control. That's the only reason we're still there trying to help the Iraqi people.

[geoguy]

The goal of defeating the Nazis was to defeat the Nazis. It was a military goal. The situation, if victorious, in a post war Germany was secondary to the military goal. In Iraq it is a social goal of freedom and democracy....no can do by kickiing down doors and terrorizing the population. The U.S. is still in the fantasy thinking that there is a military solution in Iraq.... use force to subdue 'them' but the U.S. still has no handle on who the enemy is or 'why' those terrorized by American troops are the enemy.

 

Over taking the military fiasco in Iraq is the political game being played in the USA. 'Iraq' is really often internal U.S. politics whther in the Congress or the chase for the Presidemcy.

Draft or no draft is based on....not the military demand but internal American politics. Triple troop stength....not base on the need of the generals to control Iraq but on internal U.S. politics. Americans just don't care enough to win a war if it means any type of sacrifice that impacts their own lives. The cause is not seen as worth it. The war was lost as soon as the cracks in the Freedom Fries propaganda began to show. Powell lied about the Yellow Cake....Rumsfeld lied about 'a handful of malcontents and criminals'...Bush continues to lie about 'great progress'...credibility is dried up and the war is lost.

The bully has had his nose bloodied. The USA will retreat from Iraq with its tail between its legs as it did in Vietnam. There will be no attack on Iran and no attack on North Korea and no attack on any convenient targets (Venezuela? Cuba?) that the USA would have added to the 'Axis of Evil' if the aggresion had been successful.

 

For the record the war is over. Iraq was returned it's sovereignty on Jun 28, 2004. At that point the interim Iraqi government asked that we remain as a security force. There is no longer any war with Iraq or it's people.

 

baloney. The war is not over because the USA declares 'Mission Accomplished'. Tell that to my Dutch relatives who refused to concede 'the war was over because the Nazis and set up a token puppet governmnets in the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, etc. It's incredulous that anyone could actually believe that Iraq is a 'sovereign' state and the USA is 'asked' to remain. The inability to face reality is part of the reason the USA will never win the war (yes 'a war').

[doG]

The war is not over because the USA declares 'Mission Accomplished'.

 

Are you really trying to convince us that we're still at war with Iraq? If not, who are we at war with?

[SkepticLance]

America is at war with Shiite insurgents.

 

The war continues - it just changed its nature. The invasion and capture of Saddm was the easy bit. Today, the war has changed its nature into a war of attrition by Shiite insurgents, and it has become very, very, very difficult - probably impossible.

 

The fact that Bush junior refuses to see what has happened is no excuse for others to put the blinkers on.

[Sisyphus]

Policing isn't really the military's job, though they are trying to incorporate that now. We are a country in a moral transition, and it is these conflicting morals that cause our problems. Some people want to win the war, but they have to look like the "good guys" while doing it which causes a weak military strategy. If they wanted to control the road to the airport, or stop roadside bombs, they could make travel by car illegal, and destroy any civilian caught traveling in a car. It's not "fair", but it would put a stop to a lot of the chaos.

The only thing people truly respect is demoralizing power. Why do you think there was such stability in the region when Saddam was in control?

 

Oh, to the contrary. Occupation almost always takes place after wars, and it always has. What do you think Reconstruction was after the American Civil War? What do you think we did in the Phillipines after the Spanish American War, or Germany and Japan after WW2, or what we're still doing in Korea? Keeping the peace and rebuilding has ALWAYS been an important job of the U.S. military.

 

Now, looking at those examples, obviously we've had very mixed results, and our failures weren't exactly because we "went too easy on them." Reconstruction was mostly a failure, because the South thought we were being too harsh and domineering. The Philipines was a hopeless quagmire because the natives didn't feel like trading one foreign ruler for another. We didn't police Germany after WW1, but our harsh conditions (backed up with vague threats) were a major contributing factor to WW2. Germany and Japan were successes, soundly and unconditionally defeated, but afterwards treated with dignity and, yes, "fairness." Korea, also, was a success, even though we're still there, because we're there to assist only where the legitimately sovereign government asks us to.

 

This isn't necessarily true. What if they have a crappy monopolistic two party system like we do in the U.S.? The population here just tries to pick the lesser of two evils. Are you saying if G.W. was forcibly replaced, that the majority of the U.S. would be upset and support the new guy less?

 

Are you kidding? If a foreign power invaded the United States and forcibly deposed the President, then yes, I would most definitely support the new guy less. I'm not fond of our President, and I wouldn't vote for him, but of course I support our democratically elected government.

 

This attitude is what I was referring to with the moral transition statement. Everyone wants to be liked for some reason. A war isn't about making friends.

 

Except that sometimes it is. In Vietnam, we "won" almost every single battle with overwhelming and often indiscriminate force, but we made no progress. Why? Because our enemies were more popular than we were.

 

If we had taken this approach during WWII the Nazi's would be ruling the world right now. When you see pictures of Berlin around 1945, does it look like they left the schools, hospitals, and churches standing, or does it look like we carpet bombed the whole town into oblivion?

 

That's a matter of fighting the war and deposing the powers that be. We're talking about after the war. We didn't harshly police them, because we didn't need to, because, ultimately, they liked us (albeit probably just in comparison to the past and possible future alternatives).

 

Acting like they pose some genuine threat, even together is silly.

 

We attacked Iraq in the first place 90% because we thought they were a threat, in the form of WMDs. Or at least that's what we were told. And even barring that, do you really think the Israel/Palestine problem is the result of coddling Palestinians?

[john5746]

Are you really trying to convince us that we're still at war with Iraq? If not, who are we at war with?

 

We are at war with whomever is shooting/bombing the troops at the time. It changes week to week, month to month. Iraq is not holding together as a Nation - that is the problem. If the Japanese had broken into 4 factions and 2 refused to surrender, we would either still be fighting them or we would have nuked the whole island. Their solidarity to one ruler is what allowed a true victory for the US and a true recovery for them, IMO.

[ParanoiA]

Good point John.

 

By the way, the failure of the surge and american troops is overblown anyway. The military's been saying it, and we've been ignoring it because we want to lose very badly over there. Now, we're starting to see western media pick up on the fact that it isn't going away. That you can only ignore the success in Iraq for so long and eventually you're going to have to tell everyone.

 

From Spiegel:

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html

 

Since June, Ramadi residents have only known the war from televison. Indeed, US military officials at the Baghdad headquarters of Operation Iraqi Freedom often have trouble believing their eyes when they read the reports coming in from their units in Ramadi these days. Exploded car bombs: zero. Detonated roadside bombs: zero. Rocket fire: zero. Grenade fire: zero. Shots from rifles and pistols: zero. Weapons caches discovered: dozens. Terrorists arrested: many.

 

 

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq -- it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq -- not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers -- are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn't hear...

 

Again, just trying to counter the spin we keep getting from Lefties and Righties. One side wants to re-live Vietnam and the other side wants to pretend it's WWIII.

 

Prediction: The surge will bring success and the media will start reporting it, as well as the other successes, bailing the democrats out of their defeatist agenda.

 

If these successes lead to troop withdrawal before next November, it will be interesting to see the democrats somehow transform their defeatist message while getting in on the credit for the success.

[geoguy]

America is at war with Shiite insurgents.

 

The war continues - it just changed its nature. The invasion and capture of Saddm was the easy bit. Today, the war has changed its nature into a war of attrition by Shiite insurgents, and it has become very, very, very difficult - probably impossible.

 

The fact that Bush junior refuses to see what has happened is no excuse for others to put the blinkers on.

 

Most American activity is actually against Sunni insurgents. An increasing percent is against Shiite insurgents. Or is it al-qauida? Or is it foreign influnce. after all bush has vowed to fight 'outside' interference in Iraq....the bozo actually said : 'The United States will not tolerate foreign interference'....American soldiers were all given Iraqi citiznship?

 

What a mess. Just read on BBC '175 killed by suicide bombers'. The headline on Foxnews is 'Toy recall'. No wonder the warmongers in the U.S. are self-delusional about 'great progress'. Perhaps they pigged out on too many Freedom Fries followed by Yellow Cake.

 

The war was lost with the invasion. The parrot is dead.