George W. Bush doesn't have much reputation left to protect, but he's attempting to salvage some shreds of credibility with his surge initiative in Iraq. According to the latest reports from the civil-war zone, the addition of tens of thousands of US has caused the level of violence to diminish. A recent Pew Research Poll found that roughly half of the public (48 percent) believe the military effort is "going well or fairly well." Has the situation in Iraq really turned around or has the surge merely postponed the messy end of the conflict until after Dubya leaves office?
There are approximately 162,000 American troops in Iraq, up from 130,000 a year ago, and their role has changed: they've replaced the Iraqi police force. In many areas, particularly large cities such as Baghdad, it's our troops who now patrol the streets, because Iraqis don't trust their own cops. In addition, the US is arming Sunni insurgents if they agree to hunt down Al Qaeda fighters. And, Baghdad has been partitioned into ethnic zones where walls have been built around neighborhoods.
There has never been any doubt that if the US injected enough troops into Iraq the civil war would abate; the real question is whether a US-imposed truce will endure. Sadly, indications are that it won't. A recent New Yorker article described day-to-day life in a Joint Security Station in the Baghdad suburb of Ghazaliya. The writer, Jon Lee Anderson, described a mixed situation: ethnic killings are down as are IED attacks; on the other hand, the locals still do not trust the national police and Sunni leaders appear to be preparing to attack nearby Shias once the American leave. Andersen concluded, "Iraq's future, for the moment, is in limbo. The best one can say, perhaps, is that the U.S. has bought or borrowed a little space to work with."
The Bush Administration argues an improvement in the security situation will inevitably lead to political stability. But, there is little evidence of these positive political changes. The Iraqi government has yet to achieve any of the political objectives that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki delineated a year ago. As a result, the White House downplays the lack of political progress.
Despite the reduction in violence, the latest Pew Poll indicates American sentiments about the Iraq have hardened: 54 percent of the public want our troops brought home "as soon as possible," a majority that hasn't changed much in six months. Nonetheless, on November 26th the President and al-Maliki signed a Declaration of Principles that defines a long-term US commitment to Iraq and appears to take the side of the al-Maliki Shiites in the civil war. Not only does this Bush action fly in the face of public opinion, it fails to recognize that the al-Maliki regime is part of the problem. Reporting from Iraq, on November 15th, Washington Post military writer Thomas Ricks noted: "Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than Al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias."
President Bush's rationale continues to be that the US needs to fight terrorists in Iraq rather than fight them here. Most Americans would support the war if we were certain that our protracted presence in Iraq would insure there would not be another terrorist attack on America. Unfortunately, what we have learned about the US involvement in Iraq suggests that it is counter-productive: more likely to provoke another attack rather than prevent it. Experts tell us that rather than stifle Al Qaeda the occupation of Iraq has encouraged it by bringing new converts to terrorism. And, the US focus on Iraq has meant that the Al Qaeda infrastructure has reconstituted itself along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and created dangerous political instability in the region.
Moreover, the US involvement in Iraq has had a dreadful cost: 3878 Americans killed and roughly 38,000 wounded, with an equal number victim of "non-hostile causes." The occupation costs $2 Billion per week and it's estimated that the the total war cost could exceed $2 Trillion. Meanwhile, over the past few months, the White House has informed the American public that we don't have money for domestic programs such as health insurance for poor kids; all our "discretionary" funds must be spent on the war in Iraq.
Perhaps the surge has reduced the level of violence in Iraq. That's a good thing. But it's not a sufficient reason to prolong the occupation. America can't afford to throw good money after bad. We can't afford to sustain a troop surge solely to protect George Bush's reputation, so he can claim, "I didn't lose the war."
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.
Civilian deaths down, "insurgent" deaths not included
I just would like to know if "insurgent" deaths, which are not included in these rosy trends, are up or are down or are holding steady. In other words, I'm wondering if there's a switcheroo in the definitions to make the lines on the graphs go the way somebody wants them to go. Of course, only civilians killed by the armed forces of Iraq or the US could be redefined-- for the purpose of statistical lying--as insurgents. Civilians killed in suicide bombings and such would still be counted as civilians, and thank goodness that number may be down. Does anybody know all the numbers?
by
Rosa Schmidt Azadi (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 50 comments)
on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 2:23:34 PM
Many formerly mixed neighborhoods have now been "cleansed" of such mixing and thus handy targets of violence are much reduced. Millions are now refugees and not available for more violence as well.
I rerally dont consider anything regarding this horrid, illegal and unecesary invasion of a sovereign nation to be termed a success. Did anyone else here our pResident today stand before the press and continue to live in his own personal universe?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 4:28:04 PM
I believe the reports that there are less people being killed each month.. certainly, US casualties are down, and people are more mobile. This is very good news! But..I'm not willing to credit the surge. Remember, Al Sadr had called a 6 month cease fire in August to prevent an all out Civil War..even that lunatic knew if his militia didn't stop the violence, he wouldn't have a country left to lead. The irony is Iraq used to be a secular government under Saddam..but now a Shia Cleric has the country by the balls. Now, Iraq has much in common with Iran..if that is good or bad, I don't know.
by
Bob A. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 9:09:39 PM
The Iraqi Insurgents Know a Waiting Game is Advantageous
I wonder why more isn't mentioned about whether the 'breather' possibly purchased by the 'surge' isn't more of a calm before the storm? As the author of this article mentioned, there is a lull partly because the militia-infested Iraqi police aren't doubling as both police and death squads..and as another person commented, maybe the ethnic cleansing and the walls and the exodus of over a million Iraqi's has simply reduced the population available to do suicide bombings or be targets of it...and also, as the author mentioned, the warlords like Maliki, AlSadr, and the Sunni warlords know that if they destroy too much there will be no country left to take over once the Americans leave. You see, these people KNOW that the US can't stay there forever. They know we are hemmhoraging money at a suicidal rate from our own economy, all to be paid back at interest to China and other countries...they see the American public tired of the war, and rightly so...we are accomplishing little other than putting things into a very expensive holding pattern until we MUST leave through sheer economic and military exhaustion and through political anger at home....they know we will leave. They are quietly preparing for civil war once we leave so that the top dog can be determined and the new dictatorship emerge, whether it is an Iran-style group of mullahs or more likely a combination mullah-warlord, like Al-Sadr or someone else. So, the surge allows Iraqis a chance to save their own fire for each other later by letting the US police the place while they gather forces under the radar for eventual jockeying for position .Despite Bush's dream of a permanent occupation, it is physically impossible for us, and economically impossible for us to continue our presence there for much more than another year or so. Once the election happens and a new president comes in, the people here will expect Iraq to be wrapped up before our country's economy and our military collapse or are in such crisis that we will have to lick our own wounds and won't be able to stay in unpopular, expensive occupations overseas. This may be the calm before the storm that will most likely come as a new regime comes in in Washington and makes a break with Bush's stubborn intransigence. Bush has USA by the cojones, just as Al-Maliki has Iraq by its cojones. The US faces grave problems with Afghanistan and Pakistan coming up shortly and Iraq will be too expensive a waste of our resources to stay there forever.
by
JOHN LORENZ (16 articles, 65 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 134 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 3:13:14 AM
so every reporter and politician including Jack Murtha
says that the surge is WORKING... (not that it has worked, but that it IS, in the process, of reducing violence...)
These are people who have had to retract previous statements regarding Iraq.. Murtha stated flatly numerous times that the surge could NEVER work..
I have a different take... Over the course of the war, we have had different levels of troops in place with relatively little change in the level of violence..
We had 160,000 some odd troops when we first arrived in 2003.. That number went down to 130,000 in 2004, then back up to 150,000 in 2005, BACK down to 130,000 in 2006, and then, back up again to the 160,000 "SURGE" level...
Right... a "surge" is what LBJ did in the 60's as he sent 100,000 troops per year for 3 years... THAT is a surge! needless to say that did not work out so well...
I come at this from the angle that it was completely absurd to call this a "surge" There is no way an extra 20,000 troops are making a difference now that was not made in 2005 before we decided to scale back a bit... That means, ladies and gentlemen, that the violence might be lessening because there are less people alive to commit violence.. Just a thought... History has taught us that 20,000 + or minus have not made any difference, until now... SO, there must be some other explanation to answer the lack of violence...
Maybe the violent people are calming down so that we all leave... nobody here can come up with any real answers, because nobody here is in Iraq...
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 507 comments)
on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 8:19:16 AM
