In Focus: Has the Surge Failed?
Michael Kinsley has written an op-ed in the Washington Post, “Defining Victory Down,” arguing that the surge is a failure because it has not led to its pre-mandated withdrawal of troops from Iraq. According to Kinsley’s math, the goal was to have reduced the number of troops in country to about 100,000 by this coming July. When the president announced the new war strategy, he cited the addition 20,000 more troops to battlefield that, at the time, already had 130,000 on the ground. In the event, the surge sent 30,000 more, and although today there are 150,000, Gen. Petraeus has declared a “pause” on any further drawdown. At this rate, then, 100,000-by-July seems a wistful fantasy. Q.E.D., the surge is a bust:
So the best that we can hope for, in terms of American troops risking their lives in Iraq, is that there will be just as many in July — and probably in January, when Bush leaves office — as there were a year ago. The surge will have surged in and surged out, leaving us back where we started. Maybe the situation in Baghdad, or all of Iraq, will have improved. But apparently it won’t have improved enough to risk an actual reduction in the American troop commitment.
Against this, Postmodern Conservative writes: “It’s not fair to say the Surge ‘isn’t a success’ at doing what everyone including its wildest fans said from the beginning it could never do. But that isn’t the point, is it? The point is that the conditions that trigger our final objective are still very far away, and still out of our hands.”
“So the surge is bringing down violence,” says Sideways Mencken, “and because of the surge the Iraqi people seem to be managing a halting, shaky, bottom-up modus vivendi, but it’s still a failure because rather than cutting to 100,000 men we’re choosing to be prudent and hold onto 130,000? So it’s time to flee?… He’s balancing his argument on a simple question of numbers. If we were willing — after all we’ve finally learned about the Rumsfeldian idiocy of going in with too few men — to cut an extra 30,000, Kinsley would be fine, it seems. But the fact that we’re being prudent proves that we’ve failed.”
This Ain’t Hell, But You Can See It From Here notes: “[t]he whole strategy of the surge was to stabilize the situation in Iraq so that a political solution to Iraq’s balkanized tribes could be worked out without mortar shells falling on them every ten minutes. It has never been about reducing our troops under a deadline…”
Meanwhile, Kinsley’s colleague Charles Krauthammer, has penned this defense of the surge, pointing out that the coveted political reconciliation it was conceived to bring about has, in effect, begun to happen:
First, a provincial powers law that turns Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but also elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.
Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenue — about 85 percent of which is from oil — to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.
Michael Weiss is the New York Editor of PJ Media.
One of the usual suspects floating a trail balloon for the DNCs attacks on McCain. Yawn.
to the American Left, “success” is defined as defeat—or in this case, surrender/withdrawl. What a joke.
While watching McCain speak today in Indy, the Ron Paul moonbats said the same. The McCain folk around me begged to differ. The Surge has worked because terrorists are giving up and Baghdad is safer than many major US cities. To deny this means you don’t read or care or are dishonest. NY Crimes, Obama, Hillary and WaPo writers fit that mold.
What do we want? A process. When do we want it? Right NOW!
By a similar and similarly absurd metric — our victory in WWII can be defined downward and has been a complete failure. In Germany too we’ve failed to withdraw our troops…
Defeatists are incredibly pathetic creatures.
Kinsley? Give me a break. When was the last time anyone actually listened to this weasel? He’s long been irrelevant and only survives as a pundit because the MSM props him up. In the marketplace of ideas, he was long ago bankrupt.
I wonder why they don’t count the warbots? There are over 10,000 battle droids of various types in Iraq. Why aren’t they counted? The battle droids are doing most of the dangerous jobs which is a big part of why the casualties are so low.
If we pull out 20,000 humans and replace them with 50,000 warbots, would that be a troop increase or a troop decrease?
http://cbs3.com/topstories/robots.iraq.army.2.410518.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/httpwwwnational.html
In another decade the US Army will be able to deploy Brigades consisting mostly of warbots. I can almost here the Liberals screaming now.
John:
I want a warbot.
A whole column, by an intelligent man, built around a complete non sequitur. No wonder MS & Slate dumped him.
Germany was under military occupation until 1955. Even after being given back its sovereignty, the Allied Powers still maintained forces there that dwarfed the Bundeswehr. And a good thing, too, for all mankind.
Just a thought.
Any sober-minded person realises that wars are not as simply as to dichotomise as “the surged has worked/not worked”. Just a little knowledge about the strategy in Iraq would move focus away from “The Surge”. The facts of the situation are:
1. A surge took place
2. A massive anti-al Qaeda Sunni alliance has turned Sunni attention away from the US
3. Shia militia are under a ceasefire.
Whilst the surge may have increased security in some areas it is quite clear from most observers that the Sunni alliance and the Shia ceasefire are the main initiatives.
To put a spanner in the works of those who think that the Democrats simply want to give up, I’m afraid the bad news is that the Bush strategy has been similar – to arm and support former Baathists and other arab nationalists and Islamists! To allow them to run Sunni areas and to leave the Shia alone to run their areas. THESE strategies are the real reason for a decline in violence, but as outcomes, they are a long way from what Bush et al wanted!!
Kinsley will next cite crime statistics in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Washington DC to prove the Civil War was lost.
I do not read the Post so I don’t know if Mr.Kinsley made this judgment based on a visit to Iraq. Or whether he made the decision based entirely on political factors.
It seems that his desk in Washington was the focal point for gathering Intelligence, fact and current assessments. Then with all of the critical information in place ( a scribbled line in the margin of his legal pad), he renders a totally pointless opinion based on a couple of useless illustrations .
Its amazing to think people get paid for this crap.
The only one defining victory downward here is Kinsley.