Surge Fraud

I feel like I am stepping in front of an avalanche of Republican triumphalism here, but I have to dissent from the idea that the Surge has been a success.

Obama is being hammered by the right for refusing to acknowledge the success of the Surge, which they accept as an irrefutable truth. But I don't think the Surge has been such an undeniable success.

First, let's take a look back at Obama's judgment in late 2006 given what he knew then. Obama was highly critical of the Surge but stated that additional troops could help suppress the violence while failing to solve its root causes. We should also remember that, at the time the Surge was proposed, Rumsfeld had only recently announced his resignation and had not yet been replaced. Gates became Secretary of Defense in December of 2006 and Petraeus did not become the top commander in Iraq until January of 2007. Americans had not only lost patience with the war, they had lost confidence in the Bush Administration. There was no indication at the time the Surge was proposed that the Pentagon would dramatically overhaul its strategy and tactics in Iraq in conjunction with the Surge.

Second, Iraq cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Continued investment in Iraq comes at great cost, and Obama has consistently maintained that Iraq was a distraction from the more important war in Afghanistan.

On the Surge itself, there are two broad reasons to doubt its success: (1) the purported relationship between the Surge and reduced violence is speculative, at best; and (2) there is no evidence that the Surge has resulted in political progress.

Reduced Violence

In addition to the Surge, candidates for credit for reduced violence are the Baghdad Wall, the Sunni Awakening, strengthened Iraqi Security Forces, and the completion of ethnic cleansing.

While the Surge and those other factors may have contributed, I would suggest that the most likely reason for the reduction in violence in Iraq is the cease-fire called for by Shia nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on August 30, 2007. Note that date: August 30, 2007. Here is a chart showing the number of violent deaths in Iraq from January 2006 through December 2007:


Here is the timeline for the Surge:

• January 10, 2007: Troop level at 132,000 when Bush announces surge.
• March 20, 2007: Troop level reaches 152,000 (approx. half of surge troops have arrived).
• June 15, 2007: Troop level reaches 160,000 and surge operations commence. "All the forces initially identified as part of the surge have completed their strategic movements into theatre in Iraq."
• August 2007: Surge troops expected to be operating at full capacity.
• September 2007: Troop level peaks at 168,000. Surge results disappointing.

While the drop in violence followed the Surge, it coincided more with the Sadr cease-fire. Additional troops from January to June appeared to have no impact. In the summer, with all Surge troops in Iraq and the Surge reaching full strength, violence remained at previous levels. In September, after the call for cease-fire by Sadr, the violence dropped dramatically.

Political Progress

As stated above, Obama was concerned that political progress would not be advanced by the Surge. He was probably wrong in stating that the Surge would hinder political progress, but there is no evidence that the Surge is responsible for political progress. Even if there has been substantial political progress, and the Iraq Study Group says there has not been, the political progress is not necessarily a result of the Surge.