The "Surge" in Iraq was a failure...get used to it.

[joeybee12]

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/10/the_myth_of_the_surge

With the level of violence rising and the Kurds pressing for a level of autonomy that borders on independence, can we finally dispense with the myth that the 2007 "surge" in Iraq was a success?

The surge had two main goals. The first goal was to bring the level of violence down by increasing U.S. force levels in key areas, forging a tactical alliance with cooperative Sunni groups, and shifting to a counterinsurgency strategy that emphasized population protection. This aspect of the surge succeeded, though it is still hard to know how much of the progress was due to increased force levels and improved tactics and how much was due to other developments, such as the prior "ethnic cleansing" that had separated the contending groups.

The second and equally important goal was to promote political reconciliation among the competing factions in Iraq. This goal was not achieved, and the consequences of that failure are increasingly apparent. What lies ahead is a long-delayed test of strength between the various contending groups, until a new formula for allocating political power emerges. That formula has been missing since before the United States invaded -- that is, Washington never had a plausible plan for reconstructing a workable Iraqi state once it dismantled Saddam's regime -- and it will be up to the Iraqi people to work it out amongst themselves. It won’t be pretty.

With the passage of time, the "surge" should be seen as a well-intentioned attempt to staunch the violence temporarily and let President Bush hand the problem off to his successor. Hawks will undoubtedly try to pin the blame on Obama by claiming that we were (finally) winning by the time Bush left office, in the hope that Americans have forgotten the strategic objectives that the "surge" was supposed to achieve. It's a bogus argument, but what would you expect from the folks who got us in there in the first place?

________________________________

Something to consider, since proponents of the surge in Afghanistan believe the surge in Iraq worked.

[StarfarerBill]

1. Thanks for posting this.

This raises points I've tried to get across to supporters of the Afghanistan surge plan, as they often point to its Iraq predecessor as an example of the strategy's success.

[joeybee12]

2. You're welcome...and when the surge in Afghanistan fails...

...they can say, but it worked for George Bush, so Obama's to blame.

[joeybee12]

3. Hmmm...un-reccing...hmmm...n/t

[StarfarerBill]

4. I'm not surprised. But for what it's worth, you had my rec after I read the article.

[kenny blankenship]

5. I concur and would add that there's quite a bit more bilge in the surge than indicated in the quotes

We are paying AND ARMING Sunni groups. That is why they stopped shooting at us. They know we're going to leave and when we do they will be on their own versus the Shia majority. Probably they will try to follow the Kurds' example and assert their autonomy in Anbar Province. The Shia will not let the Sunnis just walk away with all of Anbar province: their religious shrines are there (in Najaf and Karbala) and even if they were not, the province nearly cuts Iraq into two north and south portions with the capital Baghdad in a very narrow middle. Anbar crosses the Euphrates and reaches to the outskirts of Baghdad. That would make for a capital that could be invaded at any moment by forces (perhaps Sunni, perhaps Saudi, perhaps ours) massed in its western suburbs which is an impossible condition for the Shia to accept. A western commander could launch his invasion from the independent Sunni state of Al-Anbar on a morning and be taking lunch in the Baghdad Rashid Hotel by noon. Most likely there will be a shitstorm after we leave, with the Sunnis trying to separate and the Shia refusing outright to let them go or trying to minimize their territorial loss west of the capital.

The Surge worked on its intended audience - Americans with their infamously gnat sized attention span. Iraq's problems remain and will be worked out to some final disposition only after we're gone and the wondrous Surge will vanish like a fart in a desert wind.

[G_j]

6. you mean the bribe?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2413200.ece

September 9, 2007

US bribe insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda
Marie Colvin and Sarah Baxter

AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

Petraeus will tell Congress that there has been great progress at a local level in Iraq following a surge in the number of troops this year, but little sign of political reconciliation.

In a letter to US troops, the general wrote that “local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers”.

The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp.

..more..

[frylock]

7. knr

[stray cat]

8. Maybe we should ask the Iraqis? Why does your media pundit speak for them?

[hfojvt]

9. well intentioned? More like a cover-up

and it seems likely to work too.

[roamer65]

10. Iraq will still break apart if and when we withdraw.

You are correct on the failure of the "surge".

Iraq is a contrived country held together dictators and colonial occupiers since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Remove the dictators and colonialists and it will implode.

[joeybee12]

11. We'd need a major, never-ending presence there to get the country to NOT

fall apart. And even with that there would be huge fissures.

[roamer65]

12. We will have to permanently occupy the Kurdish region...

just to prevent a Turkish invasion. You are absolutely correct.

Iraq is a hodge-podge of ethnic groups, just like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

...and the Moron kicked BOTH of these beehives.

Now Americans will finally see why Bush 41 did not go to Baghdad in the 1st Gulf War.

[roamer65]

13. ...OR convene a UN-based conference on the re-partitioning of the former "Iraq" region.

It will be a long drawn out process, but needs to start ASAP.

[joeybee12]

14. I recall Joe Biden talking about this very idea in 2006, before the 2006

elections...he was right then, and of course nothing was done.

[roamer65]

15. Joe Biden is a very geopolitically savvy man.

He knows we screwed up the British partitioning of the "Iraq" region of the old Ottoman Empire.

I'm sure he realizes we're going to screw up the India-Pakistan partition of 1947 next.

As Afghanistan and Pakistan get worse, those countries will come apart as well.

[joeybee12]

16. I think the idea of this Afghan surge is simply to "pretend" we've achieved victory...

...get the violence down, although not permanently, then hadnd it over...and hope there's enough time after our pull-out and when it all goes to hell so people have forgotten about it.