Was the surge a success?

[Poiuyt]

That's become a de facto truth if you listen to anyone on TV these days. But was it really a success?

First of all, is violence in Iraq indeed down? Or just American deaths?

Were there other factors that contributed to the decrease in violence such as negotiating with the terrorists in the Anbar Province, al Sadr declaring a cease-fire, ethnic cleansing defeating the need for more violence? What affected the violence the most, the surge or other factors?

I'm just curious if everyone on TV is correct or if Bush just won the spin on this issue.

[Deja Q]

1. Oh. I thought that was because Michelle Duggar announced her 19th pregnancy prematurely...

:yoiks:

[LWolf]

2. No.

To extend that thought, when a Democrat suddenly decides that it's been a success, that doesn't change reality, and I'm not buying it.

[ingac70]

3. If bribes to the "insurgents" can be call success...

as soon as we stop paying them they will kick off again.
And deaths are down, but only a sadistic asshole would call it acceptable...

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Maggie_May]

4. Lets look at it this way

If you take an extra 500 police in put them in a high crime area will crime go down? Probably yes crime would go down. The question is if you take those 500 police out will crime stay down.

[kentuck]

5. Does everyone lose their capacity to remember anything ??

The violence had subsided before the "surge" had started. Because the Sunni had already decided to rid themselves of al Qaeda. Then it was another several months before the Administration would admit that the surge had been completed, because the troops were added piecemeal. The "surge" may have helped with the decrease in violence, but we really have no way of knowing? More probably, it was the supplemental appropriations of Congress to pay off the tribal leaders, including al Sadr, and their new security forces that led to the decrease in violence. But it is an effective piece of propaganda for Joe Lieberman and the Republicans to say that everything is the result of the "surge"...In my humble opinion, it is like giving the rooster credit for the sun rising...

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. The Splurge is Working

[gatorboy]

7. If it worked, why are they still sending new recruits to Iraq.

My wife's cousin recently joined the Marines and after only two months of training he's already gotten his orders: Iraq check-point duty. :(

[Maggie_May]

13. My son-law has been there less than a year

He will be going over in September got his orders last month. My daughter is a mess and she will be really bad when he leaves. They of course told him when he joined that he wouldn't see really active duty for awhile. I tried to talk him out of it at the time but you know how that goes they don't listen to you. Now he is saying boy mom wish I would have listen to ya.

[gatorboy]

14. Same thing here.

When he joined they told him that he'd a year of extensive training in sunny Florida before any decisions were made. Now that basic training is over, it's changed to two months training in South Carolina then it's straight to car bomb duty.

[Maggie_May]

19. My son-in-law says

When they station you in South Carolina you know you are going.

[jrd1415]

30. you can still save his life

If he says he wishes he'd listened to you then, maybe he will listen to you now. Pack him and his family off to Canada. Really. In the here and now it may seem like a radical thing to do, but this is a bad war instigated by evil people and a little man with desperate ego needs. You son-in-law should not pay with his life or mental health for their spiritual defects.

A year from now, under a different administration, they can come back and get on with their lives.

[Philosoraptor]

8. The surge was a mostly successful publicity stunt to stall for more time and money

[Psephos]

9. I hate the war as much as anyone, but denial of the obvious isn't doing anyone good

The surge has succeeded based on the objectives laid out at its onset. This didn't come from more boots on the ground so much as a change in counterinsurgency tactics. Petraeus deployed soldiers out of the fortified camps and onto the streets. Their new visibility made it obvious to the average Iraqi that US soldiers were helping defend against the bombers rather than retreating into their bunkers. With a choice between increasingly vicious fundy bombers, and soldiers obviously trying to solve the problem, Iraqis began to turn over information about the insurgents and their weapons and bomb caches. That's what turned the tide.

This says nothing about the years of idiocy that preceded the surge - only that an actual competent commander finally took over.

From a military perspective, what has happened in Iraq over the last 15 months is an impressive reversal. Both US and Iraqi deaths have dropped to levels last seen in the first year of the conflict. That's a strong metric.

From a political perspective, who knows what lies ahead? It looks like an intransigent mess to me, but perhaps not quite as intransigent as before. The situation on the ground is actually good enough that troop withdrawals can and will commence soon.

If we can get Obama in the White House, there's an actual chance for a politically stable situation there.

[kentuck]

11. Do you know how many extra troops were put "onto the streets"?

My guess is that we might all be surprised to find out that the number was almost no different? It took almost 6 months for the Administration to complete the "surge" and the violence only stopped once they decided to pay off the tribal leaders, including al Sadr, and their security forces with brand new American dollars. This created quite a bit of tension amongst the Shia, if you recall?

[jrd1415]

21. post hoc ergo propter hoc

The secular Sunni insurgency of Anbar came into conflict with the fundamentalist Sunni Al Quaeda forces, took them on, and sent them packing. This, even before the Americans backed off from attacking them. When the Americans finally figured it out, they stood down their attack. All of which preceded the surge and had absolutely nothing to do with it. The clueless American military leadership opened its eyes for once, discovered that something favorable was happening, and managed to get out out of its own way. So, is that the surge, a change in counterinsurgency tactics, or just dumb luck masquerading as good judgment?

Then the US started paying and arming the Sunni insurgency, their former enemies, who, seeing the rise of the Shia, decided that money and guns from the Americans was, at least for the moment, a good thing. Short term, that seems like a good thing for the US, but what about the longer term? Does anyone really think that the Sunnis of Anbar will be US allies long term? Of course not. This is short term expediency all around. And, to repeat myself, zippo, zero, nada to do with the surge.

Then you have the Baghdad situation. After the bombing of the Golden Mosque it was all out sectarian civil war for control of the city. The massive violence accompanying the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, and to a lesser extent Shias, from the city's mixed neighborhoods, like Tet in Vietnam, convinced the Americans back home that the war was a mistake, led to the Dem victory in the 2006 elections, and forced Bush et al to ***DO SOMETHING*** to stem the free fall of domestic confidence over the handling of the Iraq "war". That "something" was the totally phony-ass surge, which was clearly just a ploy to buy time. It worked in that it bought Bush/Petraeus another six months. Then, when the battle for Baghdad was over, the Sunnis out and the Shia in control of the city, the associated violence came to an end, JUST AS THE SURGE BEGAN. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the surge.

The Bush cabal and the media, despite four years of non-stop bullshit on all things Iraq/GWOT, were still able to spin the entire business as the success of the surge, when in fact it was a classic case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."

But Psephos asserts that:

"The surge has succeeded based on the objectives laid out at its onset. This didn't come from more boots on the ground so much as a change in counterinsurgency tactics. Petraeus deployed soldiers out of the fortified camps and onto the streets. Their new visibility made it obvious to the average Iraqi that US soldiers were helping defend against the bombers rather than retreating into their bunkers. With a choice between increasingly vicious fundy bombers, and soldiers obviously trying to solve the problem, Iraqis began to turn over information about the insurgents and their weapons and bomb caches. That's what turned the tide."

I would ask Psephos where he gets this stuff, except that I know whwere he gets it, we all know where he get it: from the administration-flunky Main Stream Media propaganda machine serving Kool-aid to the hoodwinked masses.

The American experiment is over, wecome to Chumplandia.

[Psephos]

22. Your method of personal insults says all that needs be said about the strength of your arguments

This is your first post? lol

Sure, first post since you got tombstoned for breaking DU rules against unprovoked personal invective. Read up on those if you want to participate here.

[jrd1415]

28. truth

Smarting from my rebuttal to your gullible and tepid analysis, Psephos? Sorry, but that'll happen when grown-ups join the discussion. Read more, think more, evolve, and maybe you can catch up.

Reality-based discourse is only "personal invective" to the Kool-aid crowd.

Support the truth.

It was indeed my first post.

[kentuck]

23. Welcome jrd1415 !

You have a lot of facts on hand for a newbie. But that is mostly how I recall it also. :-)

[jrd1415]

29. Thank you

I love the way "comments"-mediated discussions reveal the thinking -- dare I call it that? -- of the heretofore anonymous masses. We're doomed for sure. "The impostume of too much wealth and peace."

I was sampling this thread and found one post indicative of a reality-based perspective. It ended with the line: "...it is like giving the rooster credit for the sun rising...". Exactly.

I'm indeed a newbie to this list, but no newbie to shredding Kool-aid fantasies. Good luck in your endeavors, the Augean stables but a dust bunny to the American pile.

[kentuck]

10. My prediction:

No matter how many troops are in Iraq, once the gravy train is shut down and the Congress stops all their $160 billion dollar supplementals, then the violence will pick back up. George W Bush has been buying off the different tribes with our tax dollars. How long are you willing for that to continue? Would you prefer to keep paying their bribes or would you prefer to let them kill each other? That is the most basic choice that we have, in my opinion.

[Toucano]

12. Missing the point. Federal tanks in Chicago would reduce the violence too.

The reduction in U.S. casualties is unquestionable. We could surge another 40,000 troops and a gajillion dollars more in and likely reduce that even further.

The point to remember is Iraq has 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks to meet. How's that coming along? Has "progress" really been made? Or is it just the window dressing of progress. Remember how much this administration stages and falsifies events. Recall the campaign speech with the MADE IN CHINA labels changed to MADE IN USA?

I don't trust them for a minute.

The other point to remember is that Bush and Rummy put used fewer troops than was recommended in the the FIRST PLACE.

Finally, look what's happening in Afghanistan. Diverting resources to Iraq has caused Afghanistan to crumble into a totally failed state.

[Mz Pip]

15. I suspect it's a

combination of ingredients. If you add more police to a crime ridden area there would probably be a reduction in crime.

Was it worth it? Would we have reached this point anyway without more troops? How are things going in areas where we didn't increase the troop level?

To many unanswered questions to know for sure. No one in the media seems to be asking those questions. They are just parroting "The surge is working."

Say something enough and people will believe it.

[EFerrari]

16. What happened to the President's benchmarks?

Nancy's guy in San Francisco assured us she would hang him by his own benchmarks.

I guess benchmarks are so last summer. :sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. About as much as Tet or the Little Big Horn.

We still have 150,000 troops there trying to subdue a population that doesn't want us there.

The whole region hates our guts.

We are backing a proxy (Israeli) strike in Iran.

The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.

And....our economy is falling apart because we idiotically decided to start a war we couldn't win.


Yup. A great and glorious success.


"One more victory like this and we are undone." - Pyrrhus of Epirus 279 B.C.

[kentuck]

18. And no one mentions the 4 million refugees that left their homes...

as the Shia took over town after town with the assistance of the US military. Now, some are starting to return. Did the surge help these folks re-settle?

[NNN0LHI]

20. Bush had the death squads working for him out of the Green Zone stand down

And what do you know the killing has decreased.

Amazing isn't it?

Don

[DailyGrind51]

24. How long must one plug one's thumb in a leak to still the flood?

The surge is only as effective as it remains in place. Once our troop levels are down, let's see how long the level of violence remains down.

[Bonhomme Richard]

25. Ask me in ten years. n/t

[Disturbed]

26. The Sunni Insurgency groups got smart.

They decided to accept a lot of money & weapons to wipe out al Q forces in their country. They will wait until the so called "Surge" aka US Troop escalation damps down before they restart their campaign to share more power with the Shiites & Kurds. The Shiites groups are also getting paid & have a similar strategy of biding their time.

[EFerrari]

27. There are now about 2000 doctors in Iraq down from 30K.

In ten years, Iraqis will be sucking used band aids and crossing their fingers.

Or maybe in five or maybe next year or maybe they are now.

[PerfectSage]

31. Of course the surge is a success...

...a successful Karl Rove 2008 election psyop.

[JBoris]

32. If gas went down to $3.50 a gallon would we call it cheap? No, and the surge only improved...

conditions in what is still a very violent situation on the ground in Iraq. A situation that we should never have found ourselves in, one that was caused by bush and his enablers, McSame included.

[moondust]

33. Nobody knows.

Have Iran and Syria and the rest of the neighborhood agreed to cooperate fully with the U.S. and allow the Surge to be an ongoing "success"? As long as other countries in the region have the ability to undermine the Surge or anything else the U.S. does in that neighborhood, aren't they the ones that decide what will be a "success" and what will not?