Over the past couple of months, the Bush administration and pundits in the conservative media have been beating us all over the head with the insistence that Bush's "surge" strategy has succeeded. John McCain has predictably taken the opportunity to point out that he supported the surge strategy, and therefore he's the best qualified to be president. Amid this fanfare, we should all take a moment to think about something that is going unmentioned, namely that the surge is not a success.
Bush's surge strategy has four elements:
1. Escalate troop levels in Baghdad.
2. Decrease sectarian violence.
3. Enable political reconciliation of warring factions.
4. Reduce troop deployments to pre-surge levels.
Point 1 has been accomplished. Point 2 has arguably been, as well, though I'm not sure that the causal link between 1 and 2 is as cut and dry as people in the conservative media and the Bush administration would have us think.
Point 3? Umm... No. Point 4? Also negative.
Therefore, at best, it is premature to declare the surge a success. The overall strategy will only be a success once all 4 elements have been a success. Calling the strategy victorious at this point is only going to set Bush up for another "mission accomplished" moment, once things fall to pieces again.
Speaking of that, the recent fighting between the Mahdi Army and the Iraqi security forces have shown us that not only has Bush's surge not succeeded, but it has, in fact, failed.
From the BBC:
The monthly figure of people killed in Iraq rose by 50% in March compared with the previous month, according to official government counts.
A total of 1,082 Iraqis, including 925 non-combatant civilians, were killed, up from 721 in February.
The Mahdi Army decided to ignore Muqtada al Sadr's cease-fire order and resist the assault of the Iraqi army to take control of Basra, resulting in a burst of violence from Sadr City in Baghdad to the southern tip of the country. The Iraqi army was unable to gain any ground against al Sadr's forces and had to resort to calling in US air strikes. After a long week, several members of Iraq's government traveled to Iran and met with al Sadr, a meeting mediated by the Iranians, and brokered a cease-fire.
From The Huffington Post:
The Iraqi government sent a three-member delegation that was headed by a prominent Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, Ali Adeeb, and also included two of his Shiite colleagues, Hadi al-Amri and Qassem Sahlani, said the Iraqi official based in Tehran. The meetings in Qom also included representatives from Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, he said.
If you recall, the Revolutionary Guard is the group that Congress last fall declared to be a terrorist organization.
Once al Sadr asserted his authority and instructed his followers to stand down, the level of violence fell back to the atrocious level it had been previous to the week's events.
I don't wish to diminish the role of the US troops who have been surged into the country, but it seems like the reduction in violence has a lot more to do with al Sadr's cease fire and the Sunni insurgent cease-fire (aka the "Awakening") than with the troop surge. If al Sadr were to declare an end to his cease-fire, there would be an explosion of violence across the southern half of Iraq, which, incidentally, is what people are preparing for.
The real question about part 3 of the surge strategy is what will happen after this fall's provincial elections. As Robert Dreyfuss at The Nation puts it:
Sadr's movement is positioned to register a massive win at the polls in Basra and throughout southern Iraq in provincial elections scheduled for October, an electoral defeat that would portend the end of the Dawa-ISCI regime.
So even if the Bush administration is able to successfully enact step 4 of the surge strategy and bring troops back to pre-surge levels, his strategy has failed.
.
4 comments:
Hi Mike, I think in cases like this you have the left who will look at the glass half empty and the right who will look at it half full...the truth is always somewhere in the middle (at least that is what they say in pre-law) I think it is true. When we hear from the General I suppose we should take a listen he however the one in the middle of the conflict. It does need to go better or the troops will never begin to reduce. I understand the politics of negativity against the current administration but we must look at the situation with a degree of optimism for nothing less than morale and energy. I believe if you want the troops home then let'f focus on the good be realistic on the bad and push for more cooperation from Iraqis. Bringing the troops home now is not good for anyone...that is my 2 pennies. And thanks for letting me steal an article...I still want to do a opposing thing, I haven't figured out how yet...when things are decided on the dems side I will think on it more. :)N
Hey Nikki. The main failure of the surge strategy is that step 3, political reconciliation, is very unlikely under the present arrangement. It is not the Bush administration's goal to allow the Iraqis to work out their differences and run their own country. Bush's goal is to prop up our puppet and make sure that we can maintain a fairly large presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. This is why the Sunnis are starting to complain that the government is not keeping its promises, the Shiites are splintering, and before long the Kurds will push for full autonomy and perhaps even their own country.
Until the Bush administration (and whoever takes over in January) is able to accept whatever political situation arises in Iraq, which may include Maliki losing power to Muqtada al Sadr, we are going to be there forever.
I anxiously await Patraeus's testimony tomorrow. Thanks for the comment!
Hi, Mike
I followed your site from Nikki's and, while I suspect we disagree on a number of topics, you have a great site.
So let me look for some common ground. The great fear that we share is that creating a democracy in Iraq may lead to the eventual election of some very dangerous folk. I recall how Bush praised Putin and look what we have in Russia now. If we have faith in democracy then we have to respect the results.
As for the surge, I believe there is progress but it will take time given the failed Rumsfeld approach.
Khaki, you said "If we have faith in democracy then we have to respect the results."
That is something that too many people forget (or never think about.) Democracy can be an ugly thing. Look at Hamas, for example. But like you say, if we only support democracy when the people we like get elected, are we really supporting it?
RE: The surge, obviously I think it has failed on most every level, but at minimum it is too soon to say it has succeeded, because it hasn't been completed yet.
Thanks for the comments!
Post a Comment