The argument over who was for the “surge” first misses several important points. It’s true that there were doubts about the efficacy of deploying additional forces into Baghdad, since it seemed to be no different from previous increases in the number of soldiers there, but the more significant objections were to the proposal that the “surge” be temporary and that this temporary measure would facilitate political reconciliation. The latter has still, for the most part, not occurred, nor was there ever much reason to expect that it would occur. Even the Pentagon’s own more positive report has little good to say about the Iraqi government. According to the administration’s standards, the “surge” has generally not yielded the results that it was supposed to yield–that’s normally what we call failure. Meanwhile, the GAO says that the measurements that the administration is using to show progress in Iraq are either flawed or show a less positive picture than the one currently being trumpeted.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Failure of the Surge
The American Conservative's Daniel Larison:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A few things.
If the surge isn't working, why are the troops going home?
The surge was meant to reduce the violence to allow for political improvements. Well, the violence is down so now the political improvements can begin.
The reason that violence went up briefly in March and April, like the article says, was because the Iraqi Army was fighting the "insurgents". The fact that the "insurgents" had to flee to Iran seems pretty successful to me. And the fact that the Iraqi Army did this pretty much by themselves is good news.
They mention that there is still trouble in the Northern Iraq. Maybe since they have defeated the "insurgents" in Basra and Sadr City the Iraqi Army, or maybe our army, will be able to take care of the North.
The article says that only 10 percent of the Iraqi troops can operate on their own. It seemed like that was enough to head the offensives in March and April.
It says that Iran and Syria were safe havens for the "insurgents". I didn't realize one of the goals of the surge was to defeat Iran and Syria.
There has been political progress. Sunni and Shiite clerics have been working together, supporting each other and the governments efforts to stop the "insurgent" groups from both sects. That's a big deal. it shows that both sides are beginning to trust each other. That trust will lead to other political improvements.
Also, if the surge has failed why are so many companies wanting to invest in Iraq? Granted most are foreign countries, not the US, but maybe the US companies don't want to invest because they keep hearing how bad everything is from the media.
They say the economy is "fragile, reversible and uneven". Doesn't the economy have to be improving to be described like that? Any progress is at least fragile and reversible at this point. But progress has been made.
One final thing, if the surge is a failure, why does it look like General Petraeus is going to bring home additional troops this fall?
Post a Comment