home

Surging the Surge: More of the Same That Isn't Working

Is the Surge working?

For the second straight day, insurgents struck at Shiite pilgrims and other civilians across central Iraq on Wednesday, apparently seeking to reignite a cycle of sectarian retribution as hundreds of thousands of Shiites made their pilgrimage to Karbala to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein.

. . . At least 70 people were reported killed across Iraq on Wednesday, victims of bombs, drive-by shootings and assassination, according to hospitals and local police officials.

. . . Attacks against Shiite pilgrims making their way to Karbala for the Arbaeen holiday coming this weekend continued on Wednesday, though none were as bad as the coordinated bombings that killed at least 113 people on Tuesday at a false aid station for pilgrims in Hilla.

Not so much.

So how about more of the same?:

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told the Senate Budget Committee last week that about 6,000 additional support personnel -- such as headquarters staff, military police, and medical personnel -- would be needed to complement the 21,500 additional combat troops....The request probably will come to about $2 billion.

The bottom line is that the United States can do next to nothing now to stop the burgeoning Iraq civil war:

In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak political institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration's political objective in Iraq -- creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops -- is unrealistic. Given this unrealistic political objective, military strategy of any sort is doomed to fail almost regardless of whether the administration goes with the "surge" option, as President George W. Bush has proposed, or shifts toward a pure training mission, as advised by the Iraq Study Group. Even if an increase in the number of U.S. combat troops reduces violence in Baghdad and so buys time for negotiations on power sharing in the current Iraqi government, there is no good reason to expect that subsequent reductions would not revive the violent power struggle. Civil wars are rarely ended by stable power-sharing agreements. When they are, it typically takes combatants who are not highly factionalized and years of fighting to clarify the balance of power. Neither condition is satisfied by Iraq at present. Factionalism among the Sunnis and the Shiites approaches levels seen in Somalia, and multiple armed groups on both sides appear to believe that they could wrest control of the government if U.S. forces left. Such beliefs will not change quickly while large numbers of U.S. troops remain.

That's why defunding is the only option for Congress for dealing with a delusional Bush Adminsitration. Wanting to help is not good enough:

Although critics of withdrawal do a masterful job of painting a grim picture of the apocalypse that awaits, they offer no account of how U.S. forces in Iraq will do more than preserve a status quo that is already deteriorating into wholesale ethnic cleansing. Although more than 115,000 U.S. troops have been in Iraq for the last four years, about 3.8 million Iraqis have fled their homes and at least 50,000 Iraqis are fleeing each month. It would be nice to think the surge of troops to Baghdad would help to staunch the flow. But with only one-third of the new troops on duty at any given time in a city of 6 million people, they will have no more success deterring the militias intent on carving out homogeneous Shiite or Sunni neighborhoods than U.S. forces have had to date. About 74% of Shiites polled and 91% of Sunnis — the people who have the most to fear from genocide — would like to see U.S. forces gone by the end of the year. Unfortunately, many of those who favor a U.S. exit have recklessly waved off atrocity warnings or taken to blaming Iraqis for their plight. What is needed to stave off even greater carnage than we see today is neither assuming massacres won't happen nor suspending thought until the surge has demonstrably failed in six months — at which point other options may no longer be viable. Rather, we must announce our intention to depart and use the intervening months to prioritize civilian protection by pursuing a bold set of measures combining political pressure, humanitarian relocation and judicial deterrence.

There really is nothing the United States can do anymore. It is time to get out.

< Immigration Raids Leaves Dozens of Kids Stranded | Libby Juror Calls for Pardon >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    By forcing us to cut off funds (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:29:42 PM EST
    Bush will make the situation even more dangerous. He should take the Progressive Caucus up on its offer to fully fund the redeployment that Murtha offered a year ago.

    Sadly, "should" is not reality. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Noor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:32:01 PM EST
    And damn it, I wish it was.  I am so sick of this war I could scream.  It's a rant-inspiring angst, and I am trying hard to not give in to it.

    Parent
    Yes we are now forced into (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:34:37 PM EST
    the least worst option.

    Parent
    He's like an irritating roommate (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:41:20 PM EST
    He leaves the milk out overnight and blames you for not letting him try to fix it by putting it the freezer for 20 minutes.

    Parent
    Good (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by taylormattd on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    to see you, BTD.

    Thanks for stopping by (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:24:12 PM EST
    If Congress were to (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:33:08 PM EST
    defund the military action in Iraq, what do you think Bush would do? Comply, or keep the troops in Iraq until they are stranded?

    I think that is the question.

    abandon them is my guess (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Noor on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:36:06 PM EST
    And making that comment makes my blood run cold.  I don't think the Bush Maladministration is ethical enough to do the right thing, even if Congress waves impeachment articles under their noses.

    There has to be some sneaky way to fund the phased withdrawal while defunding the war itself.  Transportation bill, maybe?  Just thinking aloud here....

    Parent

    I really (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:23:51 PM EST
    don't see how Bush keeps them in IRaq without money.

    Parent
    I understand your point, and yet (none / 0) (#24)
    by Noor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    I have an extremely cynical view of the Shrub.  He flat out does not care about the ordinary citizen or grunt.  Not even if it would enhance his legacy, such as remains of it.

    Mind you, I'd like to be proven wrong, that he would do the right thing after having his nose rubbed into the mess he's made.  Hell, I'll cheer if you're right!

    Parent

    I don;t think so (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:23:08 PM EST
    I think the question is what happens if Congress does not defund.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by joliberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:51:46 PM EST
    We can't refuse to do the right thing just because we are worried that Bush will do the wrong thing.

    Parent
    Zactly (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:01:18 PM EST
    See the latest from the Out of Iraq Caucus. I just posted on it.

    Parent
    Here? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by joliberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:16:49 PM EST
    I don't post over there anymore.

    Parent
    Umpires with(out) body armor (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by retriever on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:53:07 PM EST
    supportin the troops. Oh yeah.

    Umpires (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    As if. Basically, just another militia aligne with Iran really.

    Parent
    Destabilization (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:04:19 PM EST
     US force will never win out. . Occupiers always spark nationalism. Given that the US soldiers can't distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys  winning is out. It is not an option, save a military dictatorship.  

    The warmongers know that they will never 'win', they just want stay in the game. Perpetual war works best for them.  

    Bush (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:18:01 PM EST
    Has no intention of leaving and it seems the issue is splitting the Dems in congress. Has the pro withdrawal majority now dwindled to a caucus? What part of get the f**k out do they not understand?

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:21:36 AM EST
    I support eh surge but understand why some wouldn't.  However I don't understand how the dems are allowed to get away with pretending they don't support the war but doing nothing to actually stop it.

    BTD actually posting that he's happy to see legistlation that is purely symbolic shows the the Dems don't know what the hell they're doing and the left is forced to support a party that doesn't represent their wants.

    Whatever, the surge goes on without them while they posture in Washington.

    Parent

    of course! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    after 2 months in power the war is the dems fault!
    Typical wrongwing talking point trying to get out from under the the bloody mess they caused.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    Who said there is any fault?   I wouldn't give dems credit for the success Iraq is.

    I just laugh at their obvious political posturing and their ability to get credit for putting forth legislation they know they'll never pass.

    Parent

    hostage negotiations (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by mikeyshriver on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:20:09 PM EST
    Nice writing BTD.

    Walter Reed and the network of VA hospitals (and that entire health care system) are in shambles, and not just metaphorically.

    The same administration that would seek to save funds from the VA appropriations is the same administration that gleefully would mis-spend and has mis-spent funds from the Congressional appropriations for the efforts to respond to Al Queda in Afghanistan.  No small irony coming from the group who would question the loyalty and patriotism of anyone who dared oppose this unethical invasion of a sovereign nation.

    Hadley's egregious statement a few week's back cemented my belief on how we need to end this fiasco.  My position?  Simple:  No money.  Period.  In that regard, Big Tent, I am in agreement with you.

    Hadley was precise in his remarks.  In recap:


    Congress will not defund the Iraq effort because:

    1. Our military personnel are in harm's way right now;
    2. Cutting funds now will exacerbate an already bad situation in that our armed service personnel are in harm's way right now;
    3. the Administration knows that they are in harm's way right now;
    4. the Administration has intentionally put our military personnel intentionally in harm's way right now;
    5. So that point #1 right now.

    The Bush Administration believes our military personnel are good hostages.  And cannon fodder. And deserving of substandard care.  And not even worth fulfilling the guarantee for free health care for those who have served this nation with honor and distinction.

    What is the appropriate procedure necessary to remove a military leader when it is known that they are not capable of fulfilling their duties as such?  I do not know.  Mind you, I am in no way implying or even overtly stating my thoughts on the impeachment issue; I am suggesting that in his reckless actions and continued disregard for our men and women in uniform's health and safety that he has proven his inability to have that title bestowed on him, let alone the power that goes along with it. I see a doctor because of their medical expertise; I do not ask my doctor to help me rewire my kitchen.

    I want this war to end.  I never wanted this war to begin with.  3,188 of our nation's finest have now needlessly been killed because of this war.

    Since the White House has abandoned its moral compass, the House has to find the one that Hastert and DeLay tried to smother.  And then act.  Decisively.  And effectively.

    I can think of no other viable, immediate and ethical response than for Congress to stop being both enabler and accomplice.  By their mandate only Congress has the power to appropriate funds.  And to NOT appropriate funds. The President has the authority/power of the veto, but not of the check-book.

    A veto can and has been used in the past to force Congress into a game of chicken with the administration -- which is a pretty fair assessment of the end-game here.  

    Clinton used the threat of to help undermine Gingrich early on in Clinton's presidency.  The stakes were extremely high then also.  If Clinton did not cave to the Gingrich bills (this was after all Newt's moment of hubris aimed at taking out the executive branch), the federal government would have to shut down.  The hostage Gingrich held was the working fate of the federal government's employees.  Clinton did not take the bait.  The federal government did shut down. Gingrich did cave.  And it was, accurately, understood that the federal government did shut down because of Gingrich's intransigence.

    History is, at the very least, instructive.

    Bush has a history of showing that if there is money anywhere at his disposal he will, without even gaining the appropriate congressional approval, redistribute moneys at his disposal to wherever and whenever he sees fit.  The man can not be trusted with either a blank check or unfetterded access to the purse.

    The only way to keeping him from mis-spending is to keep him from any spending.

    Discipline the child and do not reward bad behavior.

    This diary is right.  But the last point for me is that it is great if we all finally "get it" about the problem. But if we don't do something about it, we will still be wrapped up and consumed by it.

    Enabling behavior starts at home.  Change the home behavior, change the enabling behavior.


    Brian Williams doesn't agree with you...nor ABC... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:18:54 AM EST
    Brian Williams

    ABC

    I guess it just depends on if you've already decided this is a failure or you actually want the US to succeed at something.

    Wonder why the dems are so hesitant?  It's because they get the real reports from the generals and the diplomats and they don't want to pull the rug out from something that might actually work.

    I would imagine it's 50/50 but since the dem's only care about politics they aren't willing to take that bet.

    Your position is merely wishful thinking (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:08:48 AM EST
    At least those of use who disagree are using facts on the ground (that biased ol' thing called reality), history, and rationality to form our opinions.  You are clinging to nothing more than fact-bereft hope and misplaced destructive pride.

    Brian Williams is a talking head who has done NOTHING during this war to lead ANYONE to believe he has ANY insight into ANYTHING related to it.  He has been exclusively wrong, just like the administration the MSM has largely stroked and coddled and fearfully gone along with.

    Counterinsurgency as Malpractice is a very important read if you want a historically contextual and unflinchingly honest look at why this new "plan" is really just more of the same delusion.

    Parent

    Facts on the ground? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:42:20 PM EST
    So when two separate "talking heads" report while standing on the ground you dismiss them and instead refer to a book or theory that you've determined directly applies to this situation.

    Just tyring to understand the definition of "facts on the ground".

    I'm not saying that this will work only pointing out that the left seems very eager to declare defeat before the war is over.

    Parent

    FACTS... on the ground. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:51:47 PM EST
    January 7, 2007 - Talks with radicals called key to ending violence:
    "The American officials have been doing everything they can to stop us because they know that would start the end of the occupation," said al-Mutlak, who is leader of the National Dialogue Front, a secular coalition that holds 11 of the 275 seats in parliament.
    ...
    "If there is a timetable for the U.S. troops to get out, if a real Iraqi government has authority to make decisions, it can reach an understanding with the groups in the Mahdi Army to solve the situation, to stop the violence, and also with the insurgent groups," said Jawad al-Khalisi, a Shiite ayatollah and seminary leader in Baghdad who has tried to reconcile the radicals under a nationalist, pro-withdrawal banner. "The Iraqi people will get rid of the extremist powers from both sides. We won't allow them to continue their violent and terrorist acts."

    March 08, 2007

    Military action alone won't solve Iraq's problems, Petraeus says



    Parent
    Slado (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    If only Bush was as candid.

    Taking your odds of 50/50, do you really believe that anyone who wishes not to take that bet is playing Politics? Those are not that good of odds in  war. The US is never supposed to be facing odds such as these.

    Do you think that if President Bush said to the American people, "if all our planning works out and everyone performs to their capability, I'd say we have about a 50% chance of succeeding with our plan to increase troop levels." Do you think the American people would take that bet?

    I don't.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    but that presumes they had the choice to do it all over again which they don't.

    In reality I base my 50/50 on that if this particular action doesn't work meaning the Surge the political discontent will grow even more and we'll give up.

    I think the odds of winning are greater if we want to but unfortunately we don't have the political will to win at all costs so here we are.

    It's very complicated because there is real reason to be upset and I think half of those upset are upset because they never wanted us to go or quickly changed their minds and the other half would support it if we were clearly winning like we were in '03 but we aren't so they want out.    However the 2nd half is still on the fence because they don't want to abandon Irag so they're simply pissed.

    This is were the rhetoric breaks down and the dems have a problem.   Americans don't like to quit but they don't like war so they're just pissed off and want someone to fix it.

    I think this is Bush's last chance and even he is prepared to declare victory if this real change in tactics doesn't work.

    Also here's more evidence that the SURGEmight work.

    Parent

    Winning? (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:36:48 PM EST
    What would that look like Slado? In other words how do we know when we have won?

    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:59:34 PM EST
    You know that question is always a conversation killer. The point at which they pretend they never saw your comment because... hey... well... they have a life, you know... can't be at the computer all day. Unless the talking point bell rings.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:52:02 PM EST
    Actually I do have a life... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:36:44 PM EST
    And that's hardly a question I can't answer.

    We'll know we've won when we can leave and Iraq can stand on their own.  

    Same way we left Germany and the same way we left Japan.

    We've already won the war part we're just trying to win the peace part and that's the harder one.

    Let me ask you guys what would happen if we left tomorrow.

    That's the one the liberals can't answer or won't.

    Parent

    What would happen if we left tomorrow? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    Answer is here (and above, where you ignored it):
    "If there is a timetable for the U.S. troops to get out, if a real Iraqi government has authority to make decisions, it can reach an understanding with the groups in the Mahdi Army to solve the situation, to stop the violence, and also with the insurgent groups," said Jawad al-Khalisi, a Shiite ayatollah and seminary leader in Baghdad who has tried to reconcile the radicals under a nationalist, pro-withdrawal banner. "The Iraqi people will get rid of the extremist powers from both sides. We won't allow them to continue their violent and terrorist acts."
    The Iraqi people are not children, Slado. You're in their way. They don't want you there.

    Parent
    That IS (none / 0) (#34)
    by glanton on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:36:53 PM EST
    the conversation killer!  I'm glad someone came out and put it just precisely in that way.  Thank you edger, it is so simple, and yet had been avoiding me for years now.

    What would be nice would be if some reporters refused to let people with stroke avoid answering those gold questions, what would winning look like, and how would we know we were there?

    I've seen reporters give it a shot at White House Press briefings, but whomever is at the podium just answers an imaginary question instead and then that reporter's turn is over.  

    The Administration and other GOP Lawmakers should be absolutely browbeaten with those questions to the exclusion of all others, and for our purposes so should everyone on this blog who gives aid and comfort to the GOP, until they friggin fess up with something resembling an answer.  


    Parent