Comments on: Washington Post: the Surge is Working

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:44:08 +0000

Bob, I'm happy with progress from the bottom up, and I hope you're right. Time will tell.

By: legion

legion — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:18:47 +0000

Thanks Dave - I hadn't looked real close because I didn't expect actual facts on an Op-Ed page; certainly not the WaPo's :-)

Legion, if the month-to-month death rates were climbing would you likewise be claiming that trend was meaningless?

Frankly, Bob, yes. Those numbers would still tell practically nothing about the effectiveness of the surge (though they might lead to some conclusions about other aspects of the war). But as you note, body counts don't mean a lot without some objective gains in Iraqi security & stability - even WaPo can see that:

This doesn't necessarily mean the war is being won. U.S. military commanders have said that no reduction in violence will be sustainable unless Iraqis reach political solutions -- and there has been little progress on that front.

Hmm. I wonder how much more progress there could've been if they hadn't taken August off...

By: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:03:14 +0000

I guess you on the left are not only incorrect about the surge. It seems you are missing some important happenings in Iraq itself. None of you paid any attention to the meeting between a major Shia leader and A Sunni leader in Anbar province. Seems they made a joint statement to the effect that Iraq was not for Sunni or Shia, for Arab, Turkoman, or Kurd, but for all Iraqis. If the spiritual leaders of Iraq become united, can the Government be far behind? Like someone said, denial is a bitch.

By: spencer

spencer — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:58:33 +0000

The conclusion about US politics is interesting and well worth considering. Thanks.

By: Bob Sile

Bob Sile — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:55:32 +0000

Anderson, the surges original intent was to secure the Iraqi population which would then lead to political reconciliation. The presumption has always been improving security would then lead to reconcliation. And that at some point in time efforts in each (political & security) would begin to positively reinforce one another.

Another point is there is political reconciliation, just not where we expected it. Its occurring at tribal and provincial level. We've been wrong on so many other items in Iraq, so why are we surprised now that we didn't forecast this right?

Legion, if the month-to-month death rates were climbing would you likewise be claiming that trend was meaningless?

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:08:52 +0000

What kind of American are you??

Wait, someone called "Anjin-San" is asking me that? ;)

By: American Power

American Power — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:50:23 +0000

Better Numbers in Iraq...

See also my previous post on the debate of the Pentagon's $190 billion supplemental appropriations budget for Iraq and Afganistant in 2008......

By: Americaneocon

Americaneocon — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:24:45 +0000

Denial's a bitch sometimes, eh?

By: bob in fl

bob in fl — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:36:57 +0000

Legion, I was planning to address the issue of casualties now compared to past years. Even by that comparison, they are down. BUT 6 weeks time is not long enough to judge success or failure, especially when temporary cease fires came into effect & the entire strategic focus has changed. Let's see where the casualty figures stand at the end of the year. Let's wait & see how Iraqi politics shape up by then. My guess would be an even weaker central govt & stronger local ones. That appears to be the trend at this point, & this was not what the surge was meant to accomplish.

I think James was right on when he said the surge bought time. We have just begun to reduce our presence there; hopefully both the security & political situations continue improving. Even if the political solution is not of our liking, I would then say we have success whether caused by the surge or not.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:33:19 +0000

Re-read the linked Post editorial, legion. They cite those figures there.

By: legion

legion — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:49:06 +0000

Sure, I'll pile on here too. It's nice that our death rate is going down, but the month-to-month rate (at least as far as measuring the effectiveness of the surge goes) is absolutely meaningless. The only use for the number of US casualties in this matter is to compare the rate now to the rate at this same period in previous years. Anybody got those numbers?

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:17:50 +0000

Anderson...

Dude, why do you hate the troops? What kind of American are you??

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:30:25 +0000

Fred Hiatt hasn't looked at anything "objectively" in his entire life, as far as I can tell. But he's very serious, I'm sure.

By: glasnost

glasnost — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:46:43 +0000

I think that the implications of our withdrawing our forces from Iraq before Iraq is significantly more peaceful and stable than it is now are sufficiently dire Like what consequences? Like another nasty third-world war in another third-world country? I think we'll survive. Or is it the dreaded Strike On the Homeland we're worried about? The two most recent attempts in that direction have come from Pakistan, yet we seem to be able to get by without occupying Pakistan. How come we can make that choice, but not this one? "consequences" are conventional wisdom. It's formulated by people that have a vested interest in staying. No one questions it because it's intellectually natural. It's also facile and simplistic. It's easy to exaggerate consequences to the US.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:44:17 +0000

So, the surge is "working," except that there's no progress on its stated purpose. Hitler thought that the invasion of Russian was working splendidly in 1941 ... look at the objective measures! the body counts! the prisoners taken! the miles advanced! Unfortunately, short of killing everyone, there's no such thing as a military solution without a political solution. If the surge's "success" lies in allowing us to continue postponing a coherent policy on Iraq, then what would "failure" be, exactly?