We’ve arrived at a very weird place in terms of our presidential candidates’ positions with regard to Iraq. Thanks to the amazing success of the surge — the policy that Bush at long last initiated after four years of John McCain saying that’s what we should do — both McCain and Obama find themselves in an awkward situation.
- The Surge has succeeded so well that Maliki is emboldened to say that we can start talking about the Americans leaving, since the Iraqi government sources have gotten so much better at kicking the Sadrists around and other such demonstrations of prowess.
- Obama is so wedded to the mythology of MoveOn.org et al, for whom it is a religious precept that every soldier or Marine ever sent into Iraq was the worst, most horrible mistake in the history of the universe (actually, I’m probably understating their position just a little here).These are the bruised innocents who reaction to the surge was, "What? We’re going to send MORE soldiers in to be maimed and killed; have we lost our freaking minds?"
- McCain feels like, "Finally, everybody (except the MoveOn types) recognizes that MY idea of boosting our force levels has worked beyond our wildest dreams, bringing us closer and closer to being able to declare victory." Of course, with things going so well he’s not about to say that the success of the surge we can, irony of ironies, speak about Americans drawing down forces — just what Obama’s always wanted to do, regardless of realities on the ground. That would look like Obama was getting his way, and among the simple-minded it would look like "Hey, Obama was right all along" — even though he was the exact opposite of right, even though we only got to this good spot by doing what Obama adamantly opposed.
- And Obama certainly can’t recognize currently reality and say "Oh, well, the surge worked. Wow, great jobs guys; you proved me wrong. But now can we leave?" If he ever uttered the phrase, "the surge works," his most intense and devoted supporters’ heads would explode spectacularly.
So here we are: Things are going well in Iraq, and neither campaign can use that fact advantageously.
How weirdly ironic is that?
Related Posts
We’re talking about the lives of American men and women. We ought to be able to get over the politics, declare victory and get out.
If we entered Iraq to get rid of WMDs, we are victorious.
If we entered Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, we are victorious.
If we entered Iraq to establish democracy in Iraq, we are victorious.
If we entered Iraq because Hussein somehow was connected to the attacks of 9/11, we’re gullible for buying into it.
This war isn’t like other wars. There’s no Hirohito or General Jodl to sign an instrument of surrender. We must define victory on our own terms.
Mr. Obama was right on the war. Mr. McCain was right on the surge. Let’s bring the troops home and go after the real terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Today’s guest column by Drew McKissick about Obama demonstrates the fledgling senator’s evolution into Clintonism, the despicable science of occupying every position at the same time so as to keep voters from finding the real candidate.
Meanwhile, the real Obama opted not to visit wounded soldiers today because his press entourage would not have been allowed to attend, hence no photo op, so why bother?
I tell you, Mr. Warthen. If Obama can’t admit being wrong about something, the surge, for example, I can’t see why anyone would want him to be president. That would mean he still thinks there are 57 states and a Great Lake bordering Oregon.
Just another example of Mr. Warthen’s mendacity. To shamelessly mislead and say you’ve not made up your mind about the presidential election while cheer-leading George Bush’s cheerleader in chief is all too typical.
The State paper last endorsed a Democratic candidate for President in 1952. Mr. Warthen is proud to continue that tradition. He refused to answer Keven Cohen when asked if he had made up his mind. That tap dance allows him to continue his Hamlet charade.
Mr. Warthen was wrong on the war, John McSame was wrong, the State’s choice for President TWICE, Junior Bush, was wrong, and not a one is man enough to admit their bloody and costly mistake while OBL is a free man because of their misguided and duplicitous policies.
I’m sorry to hear The State endorsed a Democrat over Eisenhower. How foolish. Thank goodness South Carolina’s flagship newspaper has had it right in every election since then.
The last Democrat who got my vote for president was Jimmy Carter. I won’t make that kind of mistake again. Democrats have all but destroyed America, and just look at that present lineup of congressional and spiritual leaders: Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Shumer, Clinton, Rangel, Kucinich, Sharpton, Jackson, Obama. Yea, behold the human bridge to nowhere.
By the way, methinks no one would want to be the kind of “free man” Osama Bin Laden is. Being free to visit whatever corner of the cave where you’re hiding ain’t much of a life.
Why does it matter whom Mr. Warthen and his shrinking enterprise endorse for President? Do we consult the blacksmith for advice on automobiles? With numerous other filtered and unfiltered sources of information available why do we need the State, talking heads like Olberman or Limbaugh, Church “leaders”, celebrities, etc. to dictate our electoral choice?
Let’s see, the Repugnant Party, led by the worst president in history, Junior Bush.
The party of Rush “Oxycontin” Limbaugh, Bill “Slots” Bennett, Larry “Wide Stance” Craig, David “Ho-Hopper” Vetter, Dick “Draft-Dodger” Cheney, John “Flip-Flopper on taxes, immigration, Bob Jones, Confederate Flag” McSame, his brown-nosing Little Light in the Loafers Lindsey, and the American Ayatollah All-Stars of John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson.
The Culture of Corruption Party, a shrinking regional party of racists and plutocrats.
OBL is certainly more free than my brother-in-law, killed at the WTC, with his killer roaming free complements of Junior Bush.
Politics aside for the moment, whatever’s happening in Iraq is being keenly watched by the long-standing bad guy in the region, Iran. The surge is succeeding to some extent with Iran’s cooperation as Shiite militia rest and rearm in Iran awaiting the outcome of the US election and the impact on troop levels. While Bush is in office Iran can afford to be patient and hope for a return to America as usual before it resumes operations at a higher tempo. It can still tighten its grip on Lebanon and work to keep the Syrian regime compliant, but has had to pause its 30-year campaign to kill Americans for several months.
Back to politics, ua gotta get up early to fool p.m. who complains that Obama did not visit the soldiers while he was in Germany. We have wounded in Germany? Hey, we beat the Huns in 1918, why are we still there?
The Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) serves as the primary medical treatment center for casualties of U.S. operations within Europe, Southwest Asia and the Middle East; it’s right down the road from Ramstein Air Base. Yup, 63 years after the end of the Big One, we still have bases and forces in Germany. It would probably be a good idea to have bases in Iraq for some years just to keep an eye on the area.
I doubtbut hope that we’re doing more than just watching Iran.
We were utterly wrong to go into Iraq. It makes it hard to argue that you ought to send more troops into Iraq, once you realize that. However, we did so, and now have a shining chance to get out in some order. And yeah, we have to worry about Iran. Bet we wouldn’t have to if Iraq were still a strong power.
Agree with Karen. Supporting the surge is like supporting chemotherapy after contracting lung cancer from years of smoking.
Who runs Iraq now? The Iraqis or Americans?
Let’s not be naive enough to disregard just how much money the U.S. defense industry would lose if we pulled out. Dick Cheney needs somewhere to go in six months.
The funniest comment I’ve seen lately is John McCain’s claim that he knows how to win wars. Based on what results, Senator? Which wars did you win? Sorta like Brad Scott claiming he knows how to win football games.
And let’s define “winning a war”… normally that would mean either total annhilation of the enemy or their surrender.
As fas as I know, we’ll never achieve the latter and the former has not happened. The enemy just moved somewhere else.
This has not been nor ever will be a war. It is purely a counter-terrorism operation.
Karen and Doug – Lanny Davis, who served as special counsel to President Clinton 1996 – 1998, wrote about his feelings about the war, the surge, and the future of Iraq in an op-ed this past Monday.
Opposing the war was a no-brainer for him.
Of course, things did turn to poop thereafter,
Do you know?
Good post, Mike. To say we were “utterly wrong to go into Iraq” implies knowledge of what would have happened had we not, when no one can know. I myself would like to see us stay in Iraq until the Iraqis become our friends and see us as theirs. But I’m not sure anyone can know whether that can happen, either.
p.m. – I agree, but the next few years are going to be extraordinarily difficult because Iran is up to something. They’re providing longer range missiles to Hamas and Hizbollah with the latter building a formidable logistics infrastructure under the nose of the UN forces in Lebanon. They’re not doing that as a public works project, but to counter any Sunni influence with the region’s pawns, the Palestinians. Whether they’re doing so in order to react to an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities or to engage Israel in a war of attrition to keep them from attacking Iran is hard to say. It could be both.
Iraqi Shiites will want to remain independent from their Persian brethren and need us to do so. That helps internal Iraqi politics and encourages ties with the Sunnis. If we get involved in any large-scale military action with Iran, who knows what the impact will be.
Good news!
Back around last Thanksgiving I announced that we’d won in Iraq. Lo and behold, the AP has discovered that we’ve won too!:
Wow! But if you think that’s amazing, consider this: in the 1300-word report, the word “surge” is not used even once. That’s like writing a novel without using the letter “e.” Tom Maguire has more.
I know that Senator McCain doesn’t give a fig for my sentiments, but you gotta feel some sympathy for him (as David Broder notes in a column). After faithfully carrying water for W’s policies for years, suddenly he gets the rug yanked out from under his feet by the Administration and al-Maliki. Goes to show you that life really IS unfair.
Stay in until the Iraqis are our friends? They are asking us to get out. I don’t think staying in any longer is going to win us points, or a calmer Iraq.
July 26, 2008
Did the Surge Work?
by Ivan Eland
The media, egged on by John McCain and his campaign, are going to twist the arm of Barack Obama until he cries “uncle” and admits the U.S. troop “surge” has worked in Iraq. So far, Obama has not cracked under the pressure and, for reasons of political expediency, admitted this dubious proposition.
The smart political course of action for Obama – but not the correct one – would be to admit the surge has worked to reduce violence but to observe that that’s little solace after a needless invasion and five-year (and counting) occupation that has cost more than 4,000 lives and about $600 billion. So far, Obama has stuck to the correct, and maybe even charitable, conclusion that the surge is only one of many factors that has reduced the carnage in Iraq.
Using logic, if the U.S. troop surge had been the cause of the diminished violence, then why did the mayhem go up in 2005 when the United States undertook a troop surge of similar magnitude? Moreover, because little true political reconciliation has occurred in Iraq since the surge began, if the additional troops were the cause of the new tranquility, that calm should be evaporating now that U.S. forces are being reduced to pre-surge levels. Yet so far, no spike in violence is occurring. Thus, the logical conclusion is that other factors are likely to have been more important in improving conditions than the addition of more troops.
For example, many experts believe that the prior violent cleansing of ethno-sectarian populations has separated the battling Shi’ite and Sunni groups and thus reduced the internecine warfare. Also, the U.S. military finally implemented a true counterinsurgency strategy in which it eschewed killing lots of guerrillas (and civilians collaterally) with heavy firepower and moved toward holding ground and winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi population. One would have thought it would not have taken the U.S. military so long to relearn this lesson after the searing experience of the Vietnam War.
Finally, and maybe most important, the U.S. decided to negotiate with (Muqtada al-Sadr and his Shi’ite militia) and pay off (the Sunni guerrillas) enemies to get their forces to quit attacking U.S. troops. U.S. politicians, thinking it is not macho to do either, have either downplayed these factors or preferred to refer to the latter by euphemism. The former is especially embarrassing to the politicians because the United States has criticized the new Pakistani government for negotiating with, instead of fighting, the Taliban and other Pakistani militants, while the U.S. government has pursued the same strategy in Iraq with the al-Sadr Shi’ite militia. The latter is embarrassing because it is considered wimpy to pay off, rather than do battle, with your enemies.
Make no mistake: paying off your enemies is always a better and cheaper strategy than expending the blood and treasure to fight them. For example, if Abraham Lincoln had offered the South compensated emancipation of its slaves – which he had advocated before becoming president – before the Civil War started, he might have avoided the killing of more than 600,000 Americans (38,000 of whom were African-American) in a war that provided freedom for blacks only in name.
Yet paying off enemies to reduce the violence is not a long-term solution to stability in Iraq. In that part of the world, if you quit making the pay offs or conditions change in such a volatile and fractured society, violence could quickly escalate again. The reconciliation occurring in Iraq is largely cosmetic and forced by U.S. pressure. It is analogous to two sets of parents arranging a marriage between two young people who don’t get along and locking them up in a room together until they like each other. To get out of the room, they will go through the motions of amity, but probably will eventually end up divorced.
If the United States is smart, it will avoid the consequences of the likely future divorce among Iraqi groups and move toward Obama’s tendency to declare victory and start leaving while things are going better. Such a policy would leave a better chance of U.S. forces avoiding the likely coming storm of resumed violence. If the United States wants to give Iraq the best chance of stability in the post-U.S. era, it should use its withdrawal to negotiate a radically decentralized government in which exiting armed militias maintain security in their own autonomous regions.
Above all, the U.S. should avoid John McCain’s conclusion that the surge worked in Iraq and should be tried Afghanistan. Obama and McCain are engaged in a bidding war to see how many U.S. troops they can add to another lost war in Afghanistan, which has even lower prospects for future stability than Iraq. The Taliban are much more ideological and militant than most of the Sunni guerrillas in Iraq and far less likely to agree to be paid off. Also, the Taliban have a sanctuary (Pakistan) that the Sunni guerrillas in Iraq never had.
The al-Qaeda that threatens the United States is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan merely helps al-Qaeda gain support in Pakistan. Thus, the U.S. should withdraw all of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and concentrate on dealing with al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 and other attacks on the US:
* provided a safe haven for Bin Laden and his top aides
* paid $25,000 to the families of terrorists killed in bombings
* funneled cash to the 9/11 hijackers, which they picked up on trips to Europe.
* trained terrorists and hijackers at 2 training camps. We captured Salman Pak intact, with jetline, train, and busses for practice, along with graduation tapes showing Saddam telling the murderers to “Destroy Israel, but attack America first!”
* we captured the financial logs showing payments to terrorists in the US, Africa and Europe, along with a list of over 250 UN and European politicians being bribed by Saddam.
Hmmm. HOWL’s comment is remarkable. I found the following especially noteworthy:
While I do recommend pragmatism, in the real world one often finds that meeting a stated or assumed price is often followed by further conditions and a higher price. I think Lincoln realized that the compensation was not a one-time payment for slaves’ freedom, but a recurring payment for the economic loss of the slaves’ labor.
Moreover, the extortionist’s mentality is clearly one in which any payment in recognition of a demand proves to the extortionist that it was always only a matter of price and encourages him to escalate it.
At the founding the Barbary pirates were a pain that the Congress sought to deal with in the same manner that several European powers did, by paying tribute. After several years that proved to be expensive, so the US took another tack.
After just a little thought and but one beer, I have to consider HOWL’s remarks idiotic. Where has paying tribute really worked? Moreover, it’s a wrong and dangerous notion that makes folks like Chamberlain believe that since the Anschluss (Germany’s annexation of Austria) was okay, the annexation of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland was too, in the proper contexts, with an understanding of people’s histories, honoring ethnic preferences, und so weiter.
With that said, the Iraqis are already our friends and allies, we just need to be aware of their internal politics and political needs.
No nation wants to be viewed as the vassal of another, so the correct response is to publicly voice support for Iraq’s sovereignty, our desire to negotiate agreements as an equal, and all the other stuff we’re doing now. At the same time, agreements and understandings are developing out of public view for quite pragmatic reasons having to do with the neighborhood Iraq happens to occupy.
I hear you, Karen, but you didn’t think we should have been there to begin with, so pardon me if I’m not really listening.
If we don’t come out of this war with Iraq as at least sort of an ally, it will seem to have been a waste, even if it were only an unpleasant necessity.
p.m. Will you please explain to me what you think was necessary about this war?
Two dozen posts and very little mention of what is really important: the cost of the Iraq debacle. 4,200 American soldiers dead. Another 30,000 maimed. $3 trillion dollars wasted. A million Iraqis dead and 2 million refugees. We’ve squandered a great deal of goodwill from around the world. Now everyone’s talking about the threat from Iran. It’s time to break the never-ending cycle of fear driven war making. It’s time to declare victory and come home before the roof caves in again.
For all you cocky, arrogant war-mongers out there Iraq is still a damn bloody mess. To suggest this whole debacle has benefited America or Iraq is a sick lie. Today’s, USA Today Headline:
Bombings kill 52 in Baghdad, Kirkuk
Police say 52 people died in suicide bombs in Iraq on Monday, police say.
bud
Your numbers on Iraqi deaths are a touch overstated. Do try to cut down on the propaganda.
I also noticed bombings elsewhere. Those Islamic militants a busy folks, as are Kurd separatists.
Ya gotta lighten up a bit and stop regarding bad news for the US as good news for your side. It’s quite unbecoming.
It’s sad when intelligent people can spout off any sort of nonsense as fact and then when you point out how wrong they are you get accussed of America bashing. All the pro-war folks have now adopted the position that the Iraq war, because of the surge, is now won and everything is peaceful. When someone points out the inconveient truth that people are still dying – 57 just today – and 1 million + (a figure based on scientific methodology) over the last 5-1/2 years are dead, they quickly turn it around and suggest we’re being negative.
Let’s just call this what it is. We’re attempting to create a colony out of Iraq. And this colonization is based on lies which continue on. Those lies need to be challenged. It’s time to end the occupation and come home. The era of colonization is over.
Deposing Saddam Hussein, Karen. Bettering our military position to thwart Muslim terrorism. Showing folks in the Middle East that we aren’t just a Great Satan.
There’s also that “give democracy a chance” thing, but I wouldn’t expect an Obama follower to appreciate that now that Obama himself has become the new religion.
I would close with “May God have mercy on us” to be ironic, but no one would likely understand my intent, so I’ll exit this way:
We went to Iraq because when you dance, someone leads and someone follows. The United States can’t give states that sponsor terrorism or might sponsor terrorism the chance to lead, though that appears to be exactly what your candidate intends to do while he makes the same mistake that helped destroy the Soviet Union, getting mired in Afghanistan.
bud – Wow, the C work! I’ve not noticed any serious opponent of the Iraq war use “colonization” lately. Of course, I do try to stay away from the Dark Side of the Internet.
I haven’t seen any reports of American colonists emigrating to Iraq to set up farms and factories.
Is the Democrat Nut Base getting this news from Obama’s web site, George Soros, or a shortwave transmitter in Idaho?
p.m. If we want to get those who support terrorists, why didn’t we go after Saudi Arabia (bin Laden, and the folks who carried out the 9/11 atrocities came from there. I don’t know who you think Hussein might have been supporting,but it certainly wasn’t bin Laden; they most truly despised each other. Getting the middle east Muslims to see that we aren’t the ‘Great Satan’? So we went into a Muslim country that was not attacking us, and destroyed it, killing hundreds of thousands (at least) in the process, set up the likes of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and, in the process, running our own army into the ground. And if we want to depose a dictator and or murderous rulers, and ‘give democracy a chance’ why haven’t we tried this in North Korea, Dafur, or some other country where the ruler is destroying his own people? I could be wrong, of course, but I don’t think country can purchase freedom for another country; help, yes, but there must be enough patriots willing to fight their own fight for democracy to grow.
Because Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and many of his officers and terrorists were in Iraq.
The Red Cross has inspected GITMO continuously since 2002 and pronounced its treatement of prisoners to be better than most European prisons.
Over 100 of those released from GITMO have been killed or recaptured while attacking civilians or US troops in Iraq.
I don’t remember Saddam Hussein being our friend or even his own people’s, Karen.
And as to North Korea and Darfur, what’s wrong with your candidate’s favorite weapon, diplomacy?
I mean, if you think war’s wrong in Iraq, why suggest it for those places, especially Darfur, which seems a threat only to itself?
Besides, North Korea is in China’s sphere, and China imports 30 percent of its oil from Africa, so they may be even more interested in Darfur’s realtively new oil fields than we are.
We don’t want a fight against China, do we, considering how Vietnam went?
p.m. I did not suggest that we fight, anywhere, at this point in time. You are the one who thinks war in Iraq is so great. We had no better (and perhaps worse) cause to go into Iraq than the others.
No, Karen, I don’t think war in Iraq is “so great,” though it certainly makes more sense than going to war in North Korea or Darfur.
I do think, nonetheless, that your candidate for president is a piece of political cardboard who didn’t have the courage to visit wounded troops in Germany if TV cameras and his press lemmings weren’t present to further his messiah act and lap at him.
I also think he’s a pathological liar whose charisma cloaks the truth about him. He can’t really touch either one of the Clintons when it comes to character. He’s the most dangerous candidate for president the United States has ever suffered.
Here’s hoping my country comes to its senses before he’s elected.
That’s why Americans have impeachment and the Second Amendment to fall back on.
“Hey, we beat the Huns in 1918, why are we still there?”
A little thing called WWII, and then a little thing called the Cold War…
As far as military action against Iran, here’s plenty of reason to not jump up and buy the hype that’s leading us down that road.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/08/AR2008080802948.html
“I don’t remember Saddam Hussein being our friend or even his own people’s, ‘
Someone is conveniently forgetting the events in the early 80’s when Saddam invaded Iran, engendering US support. We hated the Iranian regime so much that we were fully willing to justify the means to an end- one that never actually came about.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
“Bettering our military position to thwart Muslim terrorism. Showing folks in the Middle East that we aren’t just a Great Satan.”
Had we finished the job in Afghanistan? Was Afghanistan not a perfect opportunity to do just those things? Yes it was.
Yet that perfect opportunity was squandered when we bailed on cleaning up one mess and decided to start making another.
Arming Iraq enough to keep Iran from capturing its oil fields, along with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the rest of the Mideast, was a smart move by the US.
Iraq has mostly been armed by the USSR, Red China and the Soviet Bloc arms industries. The Czechs are big suppliers to Iran even now.