Is the surge still working?

[Pangloss]

Back in January we had what I felt was a pretty congenial and interesting discussion about the surge (which can be found here). People seemed willing to agree that the surge seemed to be producing a lower level of violence, and some degree of political progress was happening. More has occurred since then, including further coalition steps between Shiite and Sunni, and a continuance of Al Sadr's cease fire.

 

But I for one am becoming increasingly concerned that the dip in violence has bottomed out (and, as we saw the last few days, may be increasing again), and that we may not see the desired conclusion of political progress before it ends and we have to pull back from the current level of deployment (I believe they're planning to draw down to about 140,000 troops by July, but someone please correct me if that's wrong).

 

As Obama put it rather succinctly today, we've returned to the previously intolerable level of violence we were at in 2006. Is that really a success? Reducing it to a previously-seen-as-disastrous level of violence?

 

Still, I have to point out that there wouldn't have been THIS level of progress without the threat of imminent departure that the surge indicated. As iNow put it in that other thread, "... their free lunch leaves office in 11 months, and they know they must do something on their own to FINALLY make things work before that happens."

 

So I guess the question at this point becomes how do we continue the political progress while *lowering* troop levels? It seems likely that the continuing pressure of imminent departure might have an impact, but I'm not sure that's enough to offset increasing levels of violence, if they come.

[bascule]

I get an eerie sense of deja vu from the "stay the course" vibes now re-eminating from the other side, so similar to the ones we heard on the run-up to the 2004 election, shortly before violence exploded in Iraq

[ecoli]

How do we continue political progress? I think maybe the Iraqis are the only ones who can figure that one out.

[CDarwin]

The only way to let the political progress happen is to keep the security situation stable for long enough to let it happen. The best way to do that is to maintain the current level of militarization, but with Iraqi troops carrying the brunt of the burden as they are less likely to inspire bitterness.

 

I know that's not a very original proposal, but I still think it's the best one. Rebuilding a polity to stability/democracy/liberalism along Western lines (what we supposedly invaded for) takes a long time (it took the West, what, 1000 years?). Since occupation has proved untenable, internal militarization is the only course for the Iraqis for the next decade at least, probably.

 

Maybe I'm a little pessimistic.

[bascule]

A transfer of control to UN forces who will respond to the Iraqi government's requests to leave would be a step forward...

[CDarwin]

A transfer of control to UN forces who will respond to the Iraqi government's requests to leave would be a step forward...

 

Certainly. If the international community can step in as a peacekeeping force that would go take a lot of pressure off both the factions and the Iraqi army.

[Pangloss]

Well first you'd have to get the UN to want to do that. If I remember correctly, the UN set conditions on its participation that I believe are still in effect and which still have not been met. I don't know what those conditions are off the top of my head.

 

The UN doesn't have a great track record, but all sides have always agreed that international cooperation is preferable to unilateral action, so that would seem to be a step forward.

 

But I think it's important to keep in mind that what constitutes a "step forward" means different things to different people. To an Iraqi civilian I think it means something very different than, say, an American voter hell-bent on proving BushandtheNeocons(AmenBrotherPasstheWeed) wrong, and there's an entire gamut in-between.

 

IMO the focus should be on achieving peaceful democracy for the Iraqi people, not what's best for America, what's best for the UN, what's best for Europe, what's best for the global economy, etc.

[bascule]

IMO the focus should be on achieving peaceful democracy for the Iraqi people, not what's best for America

 

I guess I'm crazy and want what's best for America

[Pangloss]

Right, plus you can blame the plight of the Iraqi people on people you didn't vote for. What's not to like? (SARCASM ALERT!!!!!!!! broop)

 

I'm not giving you a hard time, though -- that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. It's certainly a common enough point of view -- I dont' think it can be marginalized or dismissed. I just think it's interesting to see it coming from the left. Usually that sort of thing is what the left accuses the right of doing -- abandoning our worldly responsibilities, and so forth. I don't really get that, but I can't really say that I disrespect it. People are really upset about Iraq and want us out regardless of the consequences, and I can't say that they're wrong in suggesting that the consequences aren't any worse than staying either. Nothing in life in certain. Not even, oh I don't know... global warming.

 

(I'd add an ellipses there, if I did that sort of thing.)

[bascule]

Usually that sort of thing is what the left accuses the right of doing -- abandoning our worldly responsibilities

 

I think we did that when we illegally invaded Iraq in the first place. Continuing to ignore the fact that America and Iraq aren't the only players involved has cost America dearly, but given Bush's position on the matter, it's no wonder the UN and the rest of the world haven't reached out to us and attempted an international resolution to the situation.

 

People are really upset about Iraq and want us out regardless of the consequences

 

Two things there: first, the consequences of remaining are staggering, both in human and economic cost.

 

Second: I think it's fair to argue that our presence is instigating violence (although on the flip side it is also abating it). Exactly where the balance lies is a matter of debate, but I don't believe the presence of large numbers of US forces are best for Iraq. There are more options available than Dubya's false dichotomy of "stay the course" or "cut and run," and I think we should be exploring all of these and finding an option which reduces the number of American lives lost and dollars spent in Iraq without leaving a power vacuum that plunges the country into total chaos.

 

That said, large presence of US forces in Iraq is terrible for America.

[iNow]

The surge began on the presumption that it would be a temporary fix to give the Iraqi government time to get their shit together.

 

The announcment of the surge came in January 2007, but the units had already been selected, planned, and many were already well into the process of moving when it was annouced publicly, so the action phase had already been reached before the January public release. Many suggest that the build-up had actually been going on continuously since June of 2006, but let's just say January 2007 so we're on the same page and don't have to quibble.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html

 

 

That gives us a rather conservative estimate of 15 months. In military terms, "temporary" almost never exceeds 2-3 months...

 

15 months is 5 times longer than 3.

 

 

Considering the surge was a "temporary" fix to give the Iraqi government more time to get their shit together, and that still hasn't happened, I humbly submit that:

 

No... The surge is not working.

 

 

 

Is anyone else reminded of Charles Schultz?

 

 

 

 

 

We don't belong there.

[Pangloss]

I think we did that when we illegally invaded Iraq in the first place. Continuing to ignore the fact that America and Iraq aren't the only players involved has cost America dearly, but given Bush's position on the matter, it's no wonder the UN and the rest of the world haven't reached out to us and attempted an international resolution to the situation.

 

Two things there: first, the consequences of remaining are staggering, both in human and economic cost.

 

I didn't cause global warming. Can I opt out of fixing it? Sweet, I like that deal.

 

 

Second: I think it's fair to argue that our presence is instigating violence (although on the flip side it is also abating it). Exactly where the balance lies is a matter of debate, but I don't believe the presence of large numbers of US forces are best for Iraq. There are more options available than Dubya's false dichotomy of "stay the course" or "cut and run," and I think we should be exploring all of these and finding an option which reduces the number of American lives lost and dollars spent in Iraq without leaving a power vacuum that plunges the country into total chaos.

 

That said, large presence of US forces in Iraq is terrible for America.

 

This is the better argument, IMO, and the less partisan one to boot. As you say I think it's *arguable* -- it's not clear-cut at all.

 

I think you make a reasonable point in saying that it's been presented as a false dichotomy (stay-the-course vs cut-and-run), and I think you're right in saying we should explore all options and find the one which reduces the numbers of lives lost and dollars spent without plunging them into chaos. I think that was very well put, thoughtful, and a long way from a partisan response.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but you do so much better when you drop the Michael Moore rhetoric and dig a little deeper. But maybe that's my fault for digging into you when you post the rhetorical ones.

[iNow]

I didn't cause global warming. Can I opt out of fixing it? Sweet, I like that deal.

 

I am not certain how the word "cause" plays out here, but you've definitely contributed to global climate change (whether you choose to acknowledge that or not), so your comment above is non-representative of reality.

[Pangloss]

Do you pay taxes, iNow? Vote? Buy products from companies that have lobbyists in Washington? You've definitely contributed to American foreign policy, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

 

Saying we should leave now, after creating this situation, seems pretty specious to me. I do understand the attraction -- I've never felt it was exactly fair that I had to pay for things that weren't my fault. But American foreign policy and actions are, in the end, American actions. It's very convenient to opt out of the decisions you don't agree with, to pretend you aren't responsible for their consequences. But in fact, just as with global warming, we all have to deal with the consequences of those actions over the long haul.

[iNow]

Do you pay taxes, iNow? Vote? Buy products from companies that have lobbyists in Washington? You've definitely contributed to American foreign policy, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

Well, first, to be clear, I never claimed that I didn't. You claimed that you didn't cause global warming, so I countered that you were wrong.

 

Either way, your analogy fails, because your contributions to global warming are direct, whereas any of my contributions to US foreign policy are via proxy, more accurately, via representative.

 

 

Saying we should leave now, after creating this situation, seems pretty specious to me.

That's fair. Saying we should stay seems pretty retarded to me. Does that make us even?

 

 

It's very convenient to opt out of the decisions you don't agree with, to pretend you aren't responsible for their consequences.

I think the "convenience" you reference is better described by the fact that I am only responsible for my vote and my attempts to sway the actions of those elected to represent me.

 

I NEVER thought going into Iraq was the right call, so how is it precisely that you're attacking me now for STILL being against our presence there? Seriously, for you to talk about consequences while simultaneously arguing that we should stay in Iraq seems quite hypocritical.

 

 

But in fact, just as with global warming, we all have to deal with the consequences of those actions over the long haul.

Yeah, no shit, which is why I'm arguing for social and technological change, too. I am consistent in that regard. I think our actions regarding global climate change should be mitigated, just as I think our actions in Iraq and all of the problems which come with those actions should be mitigated.

 

 

Your argument here is what is specious. Sorry to tell you, but you're simply trying to appeal to shame because there is little merit in your argument itself.

[CDarwin]

The argument seems a bit moot. Is there any universe in which letting the Middle East slide into regional war is good for America? It seems to me that the potential consequences of behaving (more) irresponsibly in Iraq are so dire that it is difficult to make the argument that anything that is definitely bad for Iraq can possibly be good for America.

[ParanoiA]

Saying we should leave now, after creating this situation, seems pretty specious to me. I do understand the attraction -- I've never felt it was exactly fair that I had to pay for things that weren't my fault. But American foreign policy and actions are, in the end, American actions. It's very convenient to opt out of the decisions you don't agree with, to pretend you aren't responsible for their consequences. But in fact, just as with global warming, we all have to deal with the consequences of those actions over the long haul.

 

I don't have to pretend I'm not responsible for Iraq, I gauran-damn-tee you I did nothing to promote that mess. But I do get your point. Whether we like or not, all of the republic must answer for the republic's decisions - no matter what the individual 'publics' might have voted.

[Pangloss]

Either way, your analogy fails, because your contributions to global warming are direct, whereas any of my contributions to US foreign policy are via proxy, more accurately, via representative.

 

Contributions are contributions.

 

 

I think the "convenience" you reference is better described by the fact that I am only responsible for my vote and my attempts to sway the actions of those elected to represent me.

 

Are you saying that the United States does not ever have to be held accountable for its actions anymore? I hear you saying it shouldn't perform military actions overseas, but you also seem to be saying that if it goes sour we should just wash our hands of the whole thing. Is that really doing the right thing? It doesn't seem that way to me. You do realize that Iraqis don't WANT us to leave immediately, right? Certainly the Sunni don't, at any rate, and they were some of the most ardent America-bashers earlier (you saw that report on Lehrer the other night, right?).

 

I don't know how that's supposed to get us back on international good graces, either. Or are you disagreeing with ecoli that we also shouldn't have to pay for those mistakes, i.e. you're saying we should pull out and pay?

 

Either way I don't know why you're being so belligerent all of a sudden. Like I said, I respect where you're coming from. I just think it sounds like not taking responsibility for the mess we've made. Am I really a bad guy for wanting to take responsibility for my country's actions, proposing we clean up the mess and take steps to ensure it never happens again? I think we actually have a lot of common ground in this area.

 

 

I don't have to pretend I'm not responsible for Iraq, I gauran-damn-tee you I did nothing to promote that mess. But I do get your point. Whether we like or not, all of the republic must answer for the republic's decisions - no matter what the individual 'publics' might have voted.

 

Exactly, thank you. I don't want to be charged for Somalia, Panama, or Bosnia. I didn't vote for African AIDS funding (though I would have, so I guess I'll go ahead and check that box).

 

Government isn't ala cart.

[iNow]

I clearly articulated how I defined the term working, and I said that by my defintion, the surge was not.

 

You can try to extrapolate all manner of things from my words, by my position is pretty simple. You seem to hear me and others saying a lot of things we are not.