The myth of the "surge"

I think the most ironic part of the whole deal is that Iran has won the Iraq war which was initiated and fanned by Zionist "think"-tanks.

Let's make sure we keep listening to their view carefully....and do the exact opposite.

Whenever Obamobots like you and Ricks write this kind of pablum, I always picture you (or him) in a white frilly dress, with your hair in pigtails, your eyes screwed shut, clicking your ruby slippers 3x, and chanting repeatedly 'It's all Bush's fault, it's all Bush's fault.'

I guess there's no point at which Obama become responsible for Iraq, so you're going to be doing this routine for years, eh?

I do not believe that the goal at any time was for a unified and strong Iraq. Hence, the political quasi-independence of the Kurds and the on-going Sunni - Shia factionalism was part of the intended American legacy.

By any objective measure of effectiveness the counterinsurgency strategy that was initiated in 2007 combined with the required increase in troop levels has made a marked improvement in Iraq. Civilian casualties are down to 10% of the levels they were in 2008. The ability of the Government of Iraq (GoI) to provide essential services such as sewage, electricity, garbage collection has substantially improved throughout the country. The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) as a whole have been transformed and are emerging as a capable force that is largely non-sectarian; a far cry from what they were in 2007. Recently the Iraqis have held Provincial elections and have seated new governments; run by officials who were democratically elected in a process that the UN and all other outside observers judged to be fair and credible. As a result of all this, the people of Iraq now view their government as legitimate; the ultimate goal of any democratic government. Iraq is now establishing formal diplomatic relations with both other countries in the region and the broader international community. It is making progress towards acceptance into the World Trade Organization. In addition, Iraq is engaged in delicate deliberations with countries such as Kuwait over long disputed borders and war reparations caused by Saddam Hussein’s invasion into Kuwait. Economically, politically, diplomatically, and militarily Iraq has been transformed since 2007 and 2008. None of this would have occurred without the so-called surge.

Finally, you brought up the point of reconciliation; claiming that “the goal has not been achieved.” Again, a fair and objective assessment of the situation since “the surge” was initiated about 18 months ago would come to a different conclusion. The “Sunni insurgency” is no longer a viable threat in Iraq. Sure there are small pockets of former Ba’athists who still seek to achieve power, but the Sunni population has rejected them. The only other Sunni extremist group still operating in Iraq if affiliated with al-Qaeda and they too are shunned by the people. The Sunni insurgency is dead and all that remains are small criminal groups and terrorists who wantonly kill innocent civilians to gain attention to their cause. In fact, the “increase in violence” is actually an increase over the low that had been achieved earlier this year and is a result of a handful of tragic high-profile suicide and car bombings conducted by foreign sponsored terrorists who are trying to reignite sectarian fighting; an attempt that is failing to achieve its purpose.

Reconciliation is working, but it takes time. The Son’s of Iraq (SoI) which had over 100,000 former Sunni insurgents is increasingly becoming part of the political process. The GoI is honoring its commitment to them and is helping them find employment both inside and outside of government. A sizeable number of these former insurgents are now part of the Iraqi Army, National Police, and/or Iraqi police. In short, they are becoming part of the solution, not the problem. Are there continuing challenges with reintegrating this group into the political process? You bet. But the process has progressed far beyond what most had thought remotely possible 18 months ago.
Similarly, most of the former Shia militant groups have eschewed violence and are increasingly becoming part of the political process. Jaysh al Mahdi (JAM) is now largely a political organization. Muqtada al-Sadr's new organization the so-called Promised Day Brigade (PDB) has renounced violence against Iraqi civilians and the ISF. In a recent major achievement, Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), an organization that has been one of the most recalcitrant Shia groups is now in a cease-fire with the GoI as it discusses reconciliation and reintegration. With the exception of the small splinter group Kata'ib Hizballah (KH), a group that maintains exceptionally close ties with Iran’s IRGC-Qods Force, almost all other Shia groups are engaged in the political process and have renounced violence against other Iraqis.

You point to the Arab-Kurd crisis as evidence that the surge failed in its goal to achieve reconciliation. Remember that “the surge” was designed to give Iraqis time and space to pursue reconciliation by getting the level of violence down to an acceptable level such that the political process could continue. While there is Arab-Kurd tension, political dialogue continues. To date, this tension has not resulted in violence. Does this issue remain a potential flash point? Absolutely. But it is something that the KRG, GoI, USG, UN and others are working hard to ensure doesn’t erupt into a conflict. As you may recall, this conflict has been in existence for a century; and it is not something that is likely to be resolved over night. No long standing conflict ends quickly. How long did it take for reconciliation and reintegration totake place after the US Civil War? Or, how long is it taking in Northern Ireland? The point is that the level of violence has been reduced to the point where a political process is possible.

Was “the surge” in and of itself responsible for these successes? Absolutely not. Did unanticipated events occur that contributed to the substantial progress. You bet. In fact one could also that a little bit of luck was involved. But, luck was also involved with D-Day yet it is recognized as a military success story.

It’s absolutely fair to criticize the Bush Administration for the many mistakes that were made between 2003 and 2007. History will also be the judge of whether the conflict was worth the costs. But, to deny that significant progress has made in Iraq along all measures of effectiveness is factually inaccurate and intellectually vacuous. Without “the surge” none of this would have been achieved. While some analysts bet their credibility on predicting the failure of the surge, to continue to argue that the surge was a failure demonstrates an acute lack of understanding of the progress that has been made; and the causes of that progress.

Is it that time already?

Iraq was a disaster before the invasion in 2003; but it's convenient to forget the hundreds of thousands that were killed by Saddam because we didn't see it on TV. Today, despite the periodic high profile attacks conducted by foreign supported terrorists, much of Iraq is peaceful and is experience democracy for the first time in its history.
The discussion on how to count casualties is fruitless because every group has a different incentive for coming up with numbers. The US military tried to count all civilian deaths as accurately as possible by physically checking with the morgues. So, the numbers presented in Congressional reports are known and verified civilian casualties. We all know that this number does not capture all killings. But, what killings do you count? Any murder? Only sectarian killings? How does one know the difference? The UN also has some “estimates” which are higher than the US known killings. The ground truth is somewhere in between. But, in no case is the comment “several hundred thousand killed” verified by any credible source. And whowver wrote millions of fatalities is off by a factor of ten. Where are the FACTS to support your assertions?

As far as who is responsible for all the civilian deaths a couple of thoughts come to mind. How about Iran for their sponsorship of Shia militants responsible for sectarian killings of Sunni civilians? How about Syria for allowing former Ba’ath party extremists operating in Iraq to receive funds and munitions that transit their country? How about al-Qasda and its affiliates al-Qaeda in Iraq and ISI for embracing an ideology of hatred and intolerance that not only gives them the “justification” to kill Coalition Forces and Iraqi Security Forces, but also innocent Iraqi civilians – Sunni, Shia, Christian – who oppose their view of the world. The United States can only be held accountable for all these deaths by following the same long that say the United States is responsible for Global Warming, World Hunger, the spread of HIV AIDS, and World Poverty. The truth is that all of these opinions are devoid of a factual basis and reflect an ideology not an analysis.

As far as Iran being the big winner in Iraq, well that is the most common assertion by those opposed to the war in Iraq. But, is this assessment supported by the facts? It was probably a much stronger argument in January 2008 than it is today. Why? First, the Iranians overplayed their hand in March 2008 while supporting Shia on Shia violence in Basra. This resulted in widespread condemnation by the Shia led government of Iraq and, more importantly, by the Iraqi Shia population that dominates southern Iraq. The Iraqi Shia population has largely turned against the Iranians – and Iranian supported political leaders – throughout Iraq. That was the big lesson from the elections held in January 2009. Finally, the civil unrest in Iran during the aftermath of the June 2009 Presidential elections has further diminished Iran’s influence in Iraq. This issue is still playing out, but watch in the next year as Iran becomes more and more isolated regionally as a result of their own domestic repression. The Iraqi people have been through a period of violence and war-weariness has set in. While last year the Iranian system of Islamic governance was held up as model for other Shia societies, today it is becoming increasingly clear to the majority of the Iraqi population that clerical dictatorship is just as bad as secular dictatorship.

While it is clear that many in the US political system were hoping for a US failure in Iraq in order to bludgeon the Bush Administration, the truth is that we are on the verge of success. The hard fought gains won thus far can still be lost if we don’t carefully manage the withdrawal. But, progress made during the last two years has given Iraq an opportunity for political, economic and diplomatic development. The US and coalition forces played a critical role in this. However, in the end the determination of who is responsible for the victory -- or defeat -- in Iraq will not be President Bush or President Obama. Rather, it will be the Iraqi people. They are in the driver’s seat now and much work still needs to be done. Hopefully the United States will remain by their side in the decade or two to come as they continue to fight for their future as an important player in the dynamics of regional peace and security.

Please excuse me, if I have been brash with you. There is something about the old saying, that one can be tough against the ones one loves....And I have to live up to what's in my genes...being a Dane, probably the worlds least authoritarian people, and being a compatriot of Hans Christian Andersen, who wrote: "The Emperors New Clothes", one kind of have a responsibility to go after the authorities, and expose those emperors out there without any clothes. But I don't mean anything serious against you, whom I admire very much. It's just in my genes and nature, you know, to be contrarian to any authorities. And that is also why I speak out against Israel and its lobby.

I have previously critised Daniel Drezner and Joshua Keating, and you and Tom Ricks slightly, because to my mind you were too harsh on Iran. But whereas some of the former have very little credibility to begin with, Tom and particularly you have very much credit, so my criticism will (I am sure) not have any significant impact.

You and John Mearsheimer simply got so much credit after your exposure of The Israel Lobby's activities, that any criticism can do very little to diminish it.

Please take a look at my new template at Wikipedia about THE ISRAEL LOBBY , where you and John features prominently. Now we shall see how long it lasts, but actually I think it will stay. What it says is mostly correct, although I take the liberty as placing Stuart Levey in the category of individuals with affiliations to the Israel Lobby. Although there might not be any proof of it, what we have is 1) he is Jewish, 2) he is undersecretary (a favorite position for these types to vex influence (consider Paul Wolfovitz as 'Undersecretary of Defense') 3) his resort is nothing less than in charge of leading the combined efforts of the western world in 'containing' and sanctioning Iranian (Iran largely being considered as Israel's greatest strategic foe. Yes I know there have been co-operations in the past between the two countries, but after the end of the cold war, Israel needed a glue, that could tie it firmly to the US; and the new glue was Radical Islam, and thus Iran - ( see Trita Parsi: Treacherous Alliance, The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S. )) businesses and 4) he have spoken to/ made reports to AEI, the American Enterprise Institution, one of most significant think-tanks associated with The Israel Lobby.

P.S: If you can give me an OK here, I will go ahead and simply upload the very nice picture to the left of you -- to Wikipedia, and I will write in the "permission'-section that you have given the permission, just like John Mearsheimer gave his, when his picture from his website got uploaded to Wikipedia. It will save us from a lot of emailing if you simply gave your permission here. Alternatively you could let a student of yorus do the uploading, because at it is, I think your entry at wikipedia are in need of an image of you

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 "ethnic cleansing" point only really applies to areas like Baghdad, where you did have significant population shifts and the creation of areas dominated almost exclusively by specific religious groups. It doesn't really apply to Anbar Province, which was heavily Sunni and extremely violent before the Surge.

Don't minimize the importance of the above, either. What the Surge provided, first and foremost, was Security and Order. Both are critical to any type of societal development, as well as the legitimacy of the state, since the foundation of all states is ultimately the provision of protection.

As it turns out, too, not having that security undermines a budding state in many cases.

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.

I don't think they seriously expected all the accommodations to be made by the time the Surge ended, but it did have one good effect - it helped consolidate the central government in Baghdad (the Shiites, too, but that's another problem). The Sunnis complain over the short shrift given to the Awakening Fighters by the government, but they largely haven't gone to re-take arms against them. The Kurds are more threatening from a secessionist point of view, but they've steered clear of any overt attempt at separation.

Dear Mr Walt (with some comments directed to Anti-Iraq-war folks in general),

You admit that the first goal of the surge was met. The second was to provide breathing space so that political reconciliation might occur.

Iraq has gone from having constant sectarian killings averaging in the 100s per night, down to almost none; civilian casualties in the thousands per month, to the low hundreds in the last few months.

The benchmarks repeatedly raised over and over again by anti-war types in the aftermath of the surge have seen tremendous progress. The peaceniks just couldn't understand a few months after the surge began -- when the nightly drilling of heads had barely stopped in Baghdad -- why political reconciliation had yet to take hold. I watched and cringed as anti-war folks continued to deny the obvious security improvements brought by the surge until finally, when attacks had dropped > 70%, they were forced to begrudgingly accept that the surge had not "made things worse" (as our beloved future-President Obama predicted at the time.) Admitting the success of the surge remains impossible, for that would mean admitting that all of the doom-and-gloom predictions were WRONG. So they started harping on the "complete" lack of progress on the political reconciliation front, despite the fact that it was OBVIOUS that some time would be needed after security improved for the reconciliation to begin. After all, the dismal security conditions were in large part (read: not completely) responsible for the need for that political reconciliation. So month after month I watched as they brushed aside the vast and heroic achievements of both our troops and the Iraqi patriots, complaining that a Jeffersonian democracy had yet to take hold, and that after all, the political benchmarks had not been met.

Well I am happy to report that the Brookings Institute has tracked the progress of those benchmarks:

"PROGRESS OF POLITICAL BENCHMARKS AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS OTHER SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS

BENCHMARK SCORE
2009 Budget 1.0
Pension Law 1.0
Purging Extremists from Government 1.0
Provincial Powers Act 1.0
Provincial Election Legislation 1.0
Reformed De-Ba’athification Legislation 0.5
Amnesty Law 0.5
Distribution of Federal Funding to Provinces 0.5
Sons of Iraq Employment Program 0.0
Kirkuk Referendum/Resolution 0.0
Hydrocarbons Law 0.0
TOTAL 6.5/11 "

As you can see, they found significant progress on 8 of 11 benchmarks, with full success on 5 of them, giving Iraq a 6.5 out of a possible 11 as a final score. This hardly indicates a complete lack of political development.

Sorry, but the Iraq War is far from over. I hate to break it to you, but we've really yet to lose, I promise! On BOTH the security and political reconciliation fronts we have seen tremendous progress relative to the dark days of late 2006. We could not have hoped to achieve any level of reconciliation without a drop in violence. On the other hand, we could not expect a sustained overall drop in violence without longer-term political reconciliation. It is still a dangerous place, and it is Obama's responsibility to leave Iraq in a better manner than he found it.

All of our gains can be easily lost. And it's still possible that even a brilliantly planned and executed strategy could fail -- after all, we do not control all of the variables. But a defeatist attitude will get you one thing: defeat. At the moment to closest to victory since the war began, I'd expect to see people in the anti-Iraq-war movement start to come around. Fortunately, I have seen a few people willing to re-analyze their position in light of the dramatic turn of events. Unfortunately, it is few people.

I'm tired of being nearly alone on this: We screwed up the post-invasion period of Iraq. It took a tremendous effort of willpower by our leaders to double-down and commit to victory. The bravery of our troops, a more realistic attitude, the spirit of the Iraqi people, the darkness in the hearts of AQI and a bit of luck brought Iraq from the very edge of the abyss to a much better place. Things are still rough, but with determination, bravery and sacrifice we can leave the majority of Iraqi people in a better situation than we found them, and certainly a better situation than we would have left them in had the cacophony of defeat prevailed in 2004 or 2006. WE CAN WIN!

That's right.. Whatever happened to YES WE CAN???