As Matt Yglesias explains, all the talk of Victory and Surge success is, well, a little premature. Violence has been reduced in Iraq in the sense that not as many GI's are being blown to sithereens as there were pre-surge. However '07 was the deadliest year for US troop fatalities and the new civilian numbers are horrendous with over 23,000 Iraqi men, women and children dying in the violence.
And, the ultimate strategy of the Surge has failed completely. Matt explains:
The weird thing about the surge is that it's failure has been much more unambiguous. The theory behind the surge was clear. Some people said more troops would bring more security to Iraq. Critics of that idea noted that sending more troops would be logistically unsustainable. Surge theorists posited that a temporary increase in force levels would create a temporary increase in security that would open window of opportunity for political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security. So the surge was implemented. As of September, the surge had failed to generate the political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security. Surge supporters told skeptics we had to give it more time. Three months later, the surge has still failed to generate the political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security.
Now we're near the point of de-surging -- the window is closing rapidly and nobody thinks the opportunity will be seized. And yet surge fans are declaring victory. It's doesn't make sense. The surge's architects laid out admirably clear goals for it. Laid them out and unambiguously failed to meet them.
I have yet to have it adequately explained to me what Victory In Iraq actually is.
The 'Surge' being such a large component of ultimate victory has failed it's mandate... what next?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(134)
-
▼
January
(32)
- It's Getting A Little Dusty In Here... Again
- Blind Eye
- Chump
- In The Mixed
- Breaking Them In Two
- The Bush "Boom"
- Fabulous Fuzzy Friday - All Hippy Edition
- 'Creative Capitalism'
- The Last Of Her Kind
- Stimulating, Isn't It!
- 965 Lies
- The Three Minute Pop Song
- The Not So Long Goodbye
- Padilla
- Pro Life-Support
- Flush After Use
- Betray Us
- No One Could Have Imagined...
- The Power Of Denial
- A Fabulous Furry Friday
- Our Robust Economy V
- Tonkin Bay Redux
- Greed Is Good
- Our Robust Economy IV
- 2% Syndrome
- Hump Day - Hooray!
- Obama
- Hillary
- Our Robust Economy III
- Ahhhtishoo...
- Surge
- One Hand Clapping
-
▼
January
(32)
Links
About Me
- righterscramp
- In my mid forties, two kids, nuff said.
4 comments:
While it may be true that there has not yet been the central government sanctification of political reconciliation that liberals crave, (After all, if it isn't fomalized by a central government it can't be real, right?) there is little doubt that real reconciliation is taking place. Likewise, oil revenues are being shared, even though there is no formal, federal formula for doing so. Not unlike our own Congress, our new Iraqi allies are finding out how difficult democracy is. It's even harder when there's people shooting at you.
It is possible that this government may yet fail to reach agreement on these vital issues. But it is undeniable that violence is way down, and unless there is a dramatic reversal, Al Qaeda has really suffered a devastating setback.
I would define victory in Iraq as the rejection of Al Qaeda by the rank and file Iraqis. That seems to have happened. That was ultimately the point of the whole exercise. Removing Saddam and midwifing a fledgling democracy was an integral part of a global strategy to roll back Al Qaeda. Right now, we appear to be succeeding. Tomorrow, some horrific bombing may take place that puts the initiative back in Al Qaeda's hands.
That's the nature of war. We're up against a ruthless, fanatical enemy that will do literally anything, so it's way too soon to let up.
A year ago, there were basically two people who wanted to do something besides losing in Iraq--George Bush and David Petraeus. What they and the troops have accomplished is pretty historic. The implications of a success in Iraq are world-changing (and I'm not declaring success yet).
If it holds, this could literally be the end of the radical Islamist movement. We've gone into the lion's den and gone head to head with Al Qaeda--and the people are choosing us. I can't understand why anyone who cares about the future of America wouldn't cheer that result.
Your entire argument is ripe with fallacy, inaccuracy and dillusion.
Political reconcilliation was the primary objective of the various benchmarks the surge was designed to achieve, as set forth by this president (not a liberal).
He ignored the will of the people, the Conventional Wisdom of the moment and the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. He owns the surge, not the democratic party.
There is nothing 'historic' happening in Iraq right now, except for the consequences of one mans historic arrogance, mendacity and incompetence.
Osama bin Laden's death would have been historic, something this country could've been proud off. Saddam Hussein was a two bit player on a two bit stage, his infrastructure, army and international standing depleted through years of sanctions.
He had no nuclear program, no WMD, no ties to Al Qaeda and no future. But your boy, in his finite wisdom decided to invade and remove him anyway and has been trying to justify this historic folly ever since to the point where you yourself have lowered the bar so low that victory could be defined as a rejection of Al Qaeda by the Iraqi people would be cause for mass celebration and victory parades. Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq until we invaded, it is a preposterous bait and switch and nobody is falling for it any more.
I'll certainly agree that Bush stood virtually alone on the surge and that he owns it. Political reconciliation as conceived in Washington may never take place in Iraq. My point is that political reconciliation is elusive anywhere, but particularly in a war zone.
What you say about Saddam is essentially true. That regime was falling apart. But Iraq is a big prize. Someone was going to emerge there with the second largest oil reserves on earth.
It is beyond dispute that for the moment anyway, things are better in Iraq for us having surged than the bloodbath that would have ensued had we left.
I think we agree that defeating Al Qaeda is the objective. You, and those you pay attention to, seem to be of the opinion that all we needed to do after 9/11 was to hunt down and kill bin Laden. No American would dispute that killing that motherfucker would have been cathartic--but would that have defeated the movement?
He got away. We chased him across Afghanistan, and he escaped into Pakistan. You can second-guess the military all you want, but they couldn't have put 150,000 troops into Tora Bora if they wanted to. Oh, and by the way, it's just about impossible to fly there most of the time. Plus, without Pakistan's assent, we can't provision troops there. There's limits even to American power.
Al Qaeda, in the person of Zarqawi, was in Iraq a year before we got there. Chances are he was planning on carying on as the new head of AL Qaeda in Iraq if we had gotten bin Laden. And you conveniently forget abour Ansar al Islam. But even if they weren't there, removing Saddam was a worthy objective, at least as worthwhile as removing Milosevic, and most importantly, it engaged Al Qaeda in a fight they could not resist, in a theatre that played to our strengths.
Destroying a movement like Radical Islam may not be accomplished by killing its leader of the moment. A true defeat is one where people get the opportunity to see us both up close-the Americans and the radicals-, and they choose us.
bin Laden can hide away in his cave and make all the tapes he wants. He lost in Iraq. AL Qaeda is defeated on the battlefield, and in the battle for hearts and minds.
While we're at it, it's worth contemplating the consequences of a state like Pakistan getting nukes. Can you say Iran? If Pakistan didn't have nukes, bin Laden would be dead. Are you prepared to stand by passively and do nothing to make sure Iran doesn't get nukes?
And as long as we're grumbling about failing to kill bin Laden, wouldn't it have been nice to have taken care of that in 1998? The year, by the way, that Pakistan went nuke. Too bad Bill Clinton was more interested in sodomizing teenagers back in the 90's.
Bin Laden was and is not just a figurehead, he financed, organised and established Al Qaeda. All Al Qaeda operations were reported to and eventually sanctioned by him and probably still are today.
He was not alone at Tora Bora, his organization would have taken a mortal hit had this administration done what they gave Bush 43 so much grief for not having done in Gulf War I, finish the job.
Zarqawi pledged his allegiance to Al Qaeda only after the invasion of Iraq and Ansar Al Islam had no ties to Al Qaeda and were content fighting their own little regional battles rather than declaring Jihad on the West.
Your tendency to conflate disparate geopolitical happenstances is becoming as tiresome as your demonizing of Bill Clinton is becoming a serious sign of mental instability.
Monica Lewinski was a consenting adult, Bill may have stupidly denied the relationship but Monica never once said she was coerced, raped or sodomized. I, personally, have no idea where the sodomy thing came from. Maybe it's just on your personal wish list, or the person(s) you get your information from.
Post a Comment