« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Missing Argument: Fine, The Surge is a Monumental Success!
I've been perplexed by the President and John McCain's incessant strategy of promoting the 'success of the surge.'
Firstly, because it proves all of those fired generals were right about number of troops necessary for succes in Iraq. Something conveniently missed in the non-coverage of the absurdity of this claim. Bush is now taking credit for not doing what 'his generals' had told him, and then doing it too late (okay, I admit, better late than never).
Whether or not one believes the surge is a success, we all agree that the reduction in violence, particularly, American force casualties is welcomed. The Iraqi government has made strides, no doubt. However, undoubtably, these gains have no affect on American troops as it pertains to ending the war.
With the resurgence of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the Af-Pak area, it is now clear that the misadventure in Iraq has distracted us from our real enemies (who are not Iraqi). With John McCain's acknowledgment of the re-emerging challenges in Afghanistan, made evident by his position reversal, his parallel argument for the continuation of war in Iraq needs to be re-examined.
However, 'the surge is a success' is as far as the right is willing to take the debate.
In a previous posting questioning the actual 'success of the surge,' Billy Glad (TPM user and poster) made the point that Barack Obama had removed statements from his website that doubted the effectiveness of the surge.
I realized this was his only point of contention and that with all of the talk about the 'success of the surge,' Bush nor McCain have explained what that is supposed to mean.
What conclusions they would like the American public to reach.
The surge is working, let's stay in Iraq for a hundred years!
If this is the argument, it should be refined and explained is such a way that the people understand the surges' relevance.














Comments (3)
I strongly suspect that reducing violence by throwing more bodies at the problem (aka "the Surge") is nothing but a short-term measure. The truth is, if we don't keep Iraq loaded down with hundreds of thousands of Western troops, the minute we leave, the real insurgecy will take place. It's just Whack-a-Mole. We can't stop the anti-Western/anti-American sentiment that has only grown due to the phenomenal job Bush has done to swell the ranks of fundamentalist Islam, not to mention decades of Western imperialism and the centuries-old struggles that are endemic to the region simply because we "reduced violence" in Iraq.
The US has been simplistic about Iraq and the Middle East - let's see - forever. The truth is, the British began their Crusades against the Moslem countries long ago. Queen Isabella ousted the Muslims and Jews around the time of Columbus, even though they were the more enlightened and peaceful members of the Spanish southland. And then, in 1948, brilliant Western minds ousted the Palestinians to put Jewish refugees in their "homeland" of Israel. Maybe that was something that seemed fair at the time to people coming out of WWII and the Holocaust, but it set up an imbalance that we had to bolster all along.
I'm not anti-Israeli in this, even if I totally disagree with some of their policies. They have a right to live, having been there for 60 years now. But, frankly, so do the Palestinians, and so does the whole Islamic world. Extremism is what it is, wherever it's found, and it doesn't go away just because we kill a lot of people. Even if we kill Osama, another leader will take his place.
But we've stirred up the pot. We've outraged people by our wanton killing and destruction, our total lack of accountability and our obvious imperialist intentions. I'm sure there are many people all over the Middle East who would like to have the freedom - the democratic government - that Bush likes to talk about - after he talked about WMDs, then freedom, and before he began to betray that the entire Iraq War was about oil and control of the region. But be that as it may, bringing freedom and democracy to the citizens of the Middle East isn't going to be accomplished at the point of a gun, and when we leave Iraq, the "surge" will be seen for what it is - smoke and mirrors and a delaying tactic that will ultimately leave the next president to deal with the situation. If it's McCain, of course, that won't matter. He's already on board. But if it's Obama, he has his work cut out for him, and the "surge" hasn't corrected the problem.
I don't know the solution, but I suspect it's one of humanitarianism, diplomacy and education more than it is about war. I hope that's true. Otherwise, we are still fighting the Crusades, but in a time of nuclear weapons. Not smart.
Well, that's how I see it.
July 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The initial stated aim of the surge was "“America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad."
Then on January 23, 2007, Bush stated:
to provide the Iraqi government the breathing space they needed to achieve the benchmarks laid out for them.
As of July 12, 2007, the progress on the benchmarks was as follows:
These benchmarks are what will ultimately be the mechanism to "stop sectarian violence." I must note that even those benchmarks that received a "satisfactory" grade all had qualifications about how complete they were and that they had to have continued results.
I would argue that there hasn't been much progress in the past year and that some of the items in the "satisfactory" column have not been sustained.
McCain and Bush need to be held to discussing the true aims of the surge and not the reasons for it that have been altered to fit the results. We went through that with the justifications for the Iraq invasion, and that was bad enough.
July 17, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should all be glad the Iraqi people have a shot at a better future. Anyone who has reviewed Saddam's policies can only be horrified by what he has put his nation through. This doesn't mean we should have deposed him on those grounds or any other fascists (like Khameini) for example.
I don't agree with the policy, but I do believe we need to acknowledge and applaud the success of our military in pulling off one of the most difficult operations they've ever taken on in our history. I'm in awe of these folks, and am reminded daily that the people that actually go to war are almost always far better than the ones who send them.
July 17, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment