The Surge Did Not Work
Today’s big talking point is that Barack Obama should apologize for not supporting the surge and then acknowledge that it worked. The media is big on pushing the false meme that thanks to the surge violence in Iraq is down. This is simply not true. One may be able to claim it helped in part to reduce violence but it is in no way shape or form the sole reason why violence in Iraq has dropped.
The major reason why violence in Iraq has dropped is because Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to stand down. There is a direct correlation between the time when al-Sadr ordered the cease fire and when violence began to decrease in Iraq. The surge, coincidentally, only started ‘having an effect’ after the Mahdi Army stand down. Bush started surging troops into Iraq of Dec '06 just after the Democrats took Congress. More troops were sent in March '07 and June of '07 as well as July '07. Violence didn't start to drop until Sept '07 after al-Sadr ordered the Mahdi Army to stand down.
Everyone in the media and in Iraq knows this. When military commanders are pressed on how the surge exactly worked most will openly admit that a large part of the success in reducing violence is in fact because the Mahdi Army stood down. The other part of the equation is because we started paying Sunnis not to attack U.S. troops.
I’m not sure why the media insists on pushing the claim that the surge has worked. They know it’s a half truth at best. They also seem hell bent on McCain getting credit for the surge and therefore by proxy getting credit for ‘winning’ the occupation of Iraq. Again if it wasn’t for al-Sadr the surge would be a blatant failure. We’d be sending more troops to Iraq instead of talking about redeploying them to Afghanistan.
I love watching the media try to force Obama to comply with their demands. It’s amusing watching the pundits try to dictate policy and political strategy to Obama.
Obama should not apologize or cave in to their demands. What he should state firmly is that while the surge played a small role in reducing violence the overwhelming reason why violence in Iraq dropped was because the Mahdi Army stood down and because Iraqis started taking control over their own security.
McCain is really turning into a pathetic joke. The problem is the media seems content to push his false image and not call him on his lies, distortions, half truths, and flip flops. Fortunately most Americans pay little if any attention to the media.




















Comments
It's really amazing...based on what the Republicans are saying, the surge is the greatest military victory in the history of mankind.
Posted by: jim marquis | July 22, 2008 04:03 PM
what the media [and almost everyone else] seem to forget is the REASON we were given for the surge in the 1st place:
it wasn't put in place to lesson the VIOLENCE. it was put in place to give the Iraqi government time to get its act together.
the government just kept dragging its feet LONG after the extra troops were put in place. it seemed to be in no hurry to put its house in order. in-fighting at the highest levels of gov't kept happening. it was like herding cats to try to get them to agree on a time to have lunch. and as to creating policy, forget it.
there were huge INCREASES in the levels of violence to begin with. Iraq couldn't fill local police precincts because the insurgents just kept killing the recruits.
I'm not certain but, I THINK things began to get better when BushCo finally reopened the gov't to members of the old Baath Party [not the top levels who had been the corrupt officials of the old guard-- but the bread-and-butter bureaucrats who had actually run the country before we invaded and threw out the baby with the bathwater. (pun not intended)]
that move alone went a long way toward solving their unemployment and reducing the resentment of the population which, I think, helped lessen the violence.
but, to hear Bush tell it today-- the lessening of the violence was the original goal. It wasn't.
that's not surprising-- remember how many reasons we were given for going to war with Iraq in the first place? the reasons just kept changing as the last set of reasons turned out to be based on fantasies.
Posted by: two crows | July 22, 2008 08:48 PM
The other fact the NEOCONS overlook when declaring victory with the surge is that "ethnic cleansing" of Iraq made it peaceful. How many refugees are waiting to return when they think it is safe?
Posted by: NorthCountryLiberal | July 24, 2008 06:28 AM
Good point NCL
the neighborhoods were "cleansed" and millions of refugees fled.
So perhaps the way to decrease crime in New York City is to have millions of people leave the City then declare that your "Clean up the City" program was a roaring success?
Thats about what happened with Baghdad. Everyone was killed or fled.
Posted by: PoliShifter | July 24, 2008 09:25 AM