Iraq looks to life after the 'surge'

[[R_H]]

BBC

The last of the American combat brigades brought in last year for the US troop "surge" has now left Iraq.

The announcement coincided with a visit by the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, bringing to a head the almost feverish interest, both in Iraq and America, in the issue of US troop withdrawals.

Mr Obama has not relented on his commitment to complete a troop withdrawal within 16 months of taking office if he is elected. That would mean by the middle of 2010.

By coincidence, the first day of his visit to Iraq also saw the resumption of high-level negotiations between the US and Iraq on the future status of US troops here.

Their presence, and that of other foreign forces, is currently covered by a UN mandate that expires at the end of this year, so a bilateral accord is now being hammered out - with the distraction of a hothouse political atmosphere in the near background.

'Mistaken distraction'

Elections coming up in both countries have made the US troop presence a burning issue on both sides.

In the run-up to the American presidential poll, the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, has accused Barack Obama of getting Iraq wrong all the way through.

He says his Democratic opponent was wrong to oppose the 2003 invasion, wrong to oppose the troop "surge", and is now risking squandering its benefits and plunging Iraq into chaos by setting a fixed deadline for withdrawal.

Senator Obama argues that Iraq has been a mistaken distraction from what he describes as the main battle against terrorism, and the time has come to reduce commitments here and reinforce the effort in Afghanistan.

polls coming up this year and general elections in 2009, politicians are under increasing pressure to show movement towards regained sovereignty, especially now that the security situation is generally much better and Iraqi forces are playing a larger role.

Now that the surge is over, American commanders and diplomats in Iraq will pause for a period of roughly six weeks to assess and evaluate the situation before recommending any further changes.

Ending the surge brings US troop levels down from a high of nearly 170,000 to around 147,000.

That is still higher than before the extra troops were sent in, because some combat brigades rotating in are larger than some rotating out.

Significant blows

The surge is generally given a large share of the credit for the huge improvement in security in most parts of the country over the past year.

The number of attacks, and the casualties they claim, are now down to levels prevailing in 2003.

Graphs plotting attacks and casualties of all sorts from 2003 until now look something like a bowler hat in silhouette, rising from and tapering back down to the brim.

The surge enabled US and Iraqi forces to deal significant blows to al-Qaeda and related insurgent groups on the Sunni side, and to break the power of the Shia militias, notably the Mehdi Army.

The momentum of the pacification process has been bolstered by the emergence of localised Sunni groups which have turned against the insurgents and helped drive them out of their areas.

Unless there is a dramatic reversal of fortunes, the expectation is that a further modest reduction in US troop numbers will take place before the end of the year.

depend both on what emerges from the current negotiations between Iraq and the US on the future status of American forces, and on who wins the presidential contest.

Although the positions of senators Obama and McCain seem far apart on paper, their different approaches might in practice produce the same results - provided that the security situation in Iraq continues to improve and the Iraqi armed forces continue to develop in capability and performance.

If those conditions are met, Mr Obama's plan to have the bulk of US combat troops out of Iraq two years from now would not be unrealistic, even if the withdrawal were purely conditions-based and not timetable-driven.

The Democratic contender has also allowed himself a safety clause by saying he would retain an unspecified number of troops in Iraq to train and mentor Iraqi forces and keep up operations against al-Qaeda remnants.

Bogged down

The US-Iraqi negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) have involved a steep learning curve for both sides, and have been beset with difficulties since they began in March this year.

The US has about 113 SoFAs with other countries around the world. Normally their details are kept secret. Officials say they are immensely complicated, technical accords which usually take around two years to negotiate - and that is in times of peace, and not covering combat operations.

By June, the talks were getting bogged down and surrounded by what one official described as a "political and media swirl" of leaks, rumours and denials.

Now, short-term issues have been separated out from the long-term ones which are included in a Strategic Framework Agreement that covers the broader relationship between the two countries in economic, political and cultural fields, as well as security.

The SoFA talks have been carried up to the topmost levels in the Iraqi political spectrum, and the current hope is that they might be concluded not long after the original notional deadline of the end of this month.

But officials say there are still some tricky unresolved issues. Some focus on what the Iraqi side regards as questions of sovereignty - the authority for US troops to conduct specific combat operations, their right to detain Iraqi citizens, and whether they should enjoy immunity from the Iraqi law.

There is also the burning issue of timetables - a word that one US official close to the talks said had rapidly become "toxic".

The Bush administration has from the outset rejected the idea of cut-and-dried timetables and deadlines.

But Iraqi leaders, to borrow a golfing metaphor, need at least to see the flag on the 18th green, however many strokes it may take to get there.

The compromise, emerging out of weeks of confusion over statements, quotes, misquotes, selective quotes, corrections and denials by Iraqi leaders in particular, seems to be that any agreement will have "aspirational time-horizons" but no inflexible hard-post deadlines.

At one recent stage, the issue had become so heated on both sides that White House officials were even voicing suspicions that Iraqi leaders were exploiting the US election contest to bolster their position in the talks.

Desirable timeframes

But at the end of the day, none of the stakeholders in the current political and security processes wants to risk a collapse by sticking to a rigid timetable if the Iraqi security forces are not ready, or if insurgents or militias stage a comeback.

The desirable timeframes that are expected to be agreed would not cover specific geographical withdrawals, but two processes: handing over official security control to the Iraqis province by province (10 out of 18 have so far been transferred), and transforming of the US forces' role from combat to "overwatch" (providing training, logistics, intelligence, air support etc. to the Iraqi forces).

"In reality, the result is likely to be a document that says: 'We'd like to be at a certain point at a certain time' - rather than unqualified deadlines," said an official close to the talks.

At this stage, it is not clear what form the final agreement would take.

Officials say it could be a protocol, a memorandum of understanding, or simply an exchange of diplomatic notes.

But Iraqi leaders insist everything must be transparent and approved by parliament so that it is a "national decision".

That may make it easier for them to defend it against criticism from Iran and others. But it is unlikely to make the process of approving the accord any easier, given parliament's fractious record.

[Sea Skimmer]

In related news, American deaths in Iraq this month stand at just 12… but when you look at the details so meticulously archived at http://icasualties.org you’ll find that just FIVE of these deaths are from hostile fire, plus two MIAs found at last, but whom were killed in 2007. The remaining five deaths are all from accidents, and while its possible a few of those accidents might have been directly linked to enemy action (drive away from IED roll into ditch ect…) this is still getting very close to becoming the month with the lowest death toll for Americans of the war. International Coalition deaths for the month are zero, and its pretty safe to assume that Iraqi military and civilian deaths are relatively low.

A premature mass withdraw could unravel all progress that’s been made, but then that seems to be what a fucking lot of people want, even Americans, they WANT a failure and they want to be able to go ‘I told you so, Bush is teh dumb!’ and then happily ignore the chaos that follows.

Now that doesn’t mean we can’t reasonably expect a major draw down, below 75-100,000 by the end of 2009, but the Iraqis, for all the progress they’ve made, just can’t fight alone yet. They’ve got a big mass of infantry and some armor online, but no military medical service, no divisional artillery (forming 2009) almost no air force and almost no logistical support above the battalion/regimental level. Course, if the insurgency just completely evaporates in the next this could change, and we could then reasonably then drop down to a 20,000 man presence but that’s probably way too optimistic.

[Wanderer]

In related news, American deaths in Iraq this month stand at just 12… "snip same old bullshit"

Which means jack and shit!

Jeez, it is already been noted we bribed everyone to lay off and they pretty much did so to purge their own ranks and drive others from their territory. Body counts don't mean a damn thing!

Quit with trying to say we won. We haven't, unless our goal all along was to destroy the Sunnis for all time and leave the Shiites to form an Alliance with Iran on top of fucking everything up.

[Lord of the Abyss]

In related news, American deaths in Iraq this month stand at just 12… but when you look at the details so meticulously archived at http://icasualties.org you’ll find that just FIVE of these deaths are from hostile fire, plus two MIAs found at last, but whom were killed in 2007. The remaining five deaths are all from accidents, and while its possible a few of those accidents might have been directly linked to enemy action (drive away from IED roll into ditch ect…) this is still getting very close to becoming the month with the lowest death toll for Americans of the war. International Coalition deaths for the month are zero, and its pretty safe to assume that Iraqi military and civilian deaths are relatively low.

And why would you assume that ? The last time I saw a discussion of lower American casualties, it was pointed out that at the same time we'd moved more towards using air power - and bombs aren't all that discriminate.

As for victory, perhaps you'd care to define one ? It's difficult to imagine any result of this stupidity that could benefit America more than it's cost in wealth and lost reputation and destroyed political capital and increased strength to America's enemies and so forth.

A premature mass withdraw could unravel all progress that’s been made, but then that seems to be what a fucking lot of people want, even Americans, they WANT a failure and they want to be able to go ‘I told you so, Bush is teh dumb!’ and then happily ignore the chaos that follows.

There will be chaos no matter when we leave, as the collaborators we've propped up flee or are killed off. And as for wishing failure, well, of course. We are the bad guys. We are the invaders, the conquerors. I want as big a failure on our part as possible, although I'd prefer that as many casualties as possible be American and not Iraqi. Preferably something bad enough that it breaks military morale and turns us off on wars of conquest for a generation or two, Vietnam style.

Now that doesn’t mean we can’t reasonably expect a major draw down, below 75-100,000 by the end of 2009, but the Iraqis, for all the progress they’ve made, just can’t fight alone yet.

Of course not. All the motivated people, the actual patriots, are going to be the ones in the "insurgents".

[Sea Skimmer]

Which means jack and shit!

Jeez, it is already been noted we bribed everyone to lay off and they pretty much did so to purge their own ranks and drive others from their territory. Body counts don't mean a damn thing!

Right… in a war casualties don’t matter, what brilliant logic you have. Tell me, if war is NOT about people, then what is it about?

Quit with trying to say we won. We haven't, unless our goal all along was to destroy the Sunnis for all time and leave the Shiites to form an Alliance with Iran on top of fucking everything up.

You’re just a dumbass if you think anyone in Iraq is going to ally with Iran, they fucking hate each other more then anything else.

And why would you assume that ? The last time I saw a discussion of lower American casualties, it was pointed out that at the same time we'd moved more towards using air power - and bombs aren't all that discriminate.

The US began moving towards heavy use of air power in 2006…. US losses went up afterwards and kept going up until about ten months ago. Since then they’ve been way down and violence of all forms is down, this is a real shift in the war, not just saving a handful of Americans with 500lb bombs.

As for victory, perhaps you'd care to define one ? It's difficult to imagine any result of this stupidity that could benefit America more than it's cost in wealth and lost reputation and destroyed political capital and increased strength to America's enemies and so forth.

Justifying the cost of the war is irrelevant at this point; do you have a time machine to turn back the clock? In the absence of that we can only look forward… so do we abandon the place, throw away every dollar we’ve spent and ever live we lost, or do we realize that a difference clearly CAN be made and keep going? I don’t care about money, in percent GDP terms this war is simply not that expensive, we’ve had peacetime defence budget which spent a higher percentage then our normal Dod budget + Iraq and A-stan supplemental. I do care about lives, and fewer lives on all sides are being lost.

Victory is leaving the country in a functioning state at this point with a government and a military to defend it.

There will be chaos no matter when we leave, as the collaborators we've propped up flee or are killed off. And as for wishing failure, well, of course. We are the bad guys. We are the invaders, the conquerors. I want as big a failure on our part as possible, although I'd prefer that as many casualties as possible be American and not Iraqi. Preferably something bad enough that it breaks military morale and turns us off on wars of conquest for a generation or two, Vietnam style.

And why the fuck do you want that? Wanting the US out of Iraq is a fine opinion to have, but why the hell do you fucking want the US to leave and want Iraq to turn into chaos? If the US fails, it wont matter to the US, 20 years from now it will be totally irrelevant just like no one gave a shit about Vietnam by the late 80s. But for the Iraqis, chaos means they get to keep fucking dieing, maybe for all of those same 20 years. Why the hell is that what your sick fucking mind wants? You can't have it both ways and wish that withdrawal kills Americans and not Iraqis. That is not what will happen, so get the fuck in line with reality.

Of course not. All the motivated people, the actual patriots, are going to be the ones in the "insurgents".

Right, so that’s why the Iraqi Army is stronger then ever, while insurgents managed to kill just five Americans in twenty five days and are weaker then ever… and yeah this means all the motivated people are with the insurgents. Great logic.

[Knife]

There will be chaos no matter when we leave,

True.

as the collaborators we've propped up flee or are killed off.

Are they not true Scotsman's? er...True Iraqis?

And as for wishing failure, well, of course.

Why? What end result are you looking for at this point? I think we should pull out too, but you've been against it from the beginning, fine, but we were there, what's your end result?

We are the bad guys.

Meh, one of many.

We are the invaders, the conquerors.

Meh, one of many. Sunni being the last ones, Shi'a wanting to be the next.

I want as big a failure on our part as possible,

I agree with you there, however I agreed with the war at first. They just failed miserably at every thing past 'lets go to war'.

although I'd prefer that as many casualties as possible be American and not Iraqi.

This taints you as an ass. I don't want any more casualties, Iraqi or American. The simple fact your root for American deaths to prove a political point makes you no better than the neo-con fuckers who started it.

Preferably something bad enough that it breaks military morale and turns us off on wars of conquest for a generation or two, Vietnam style.

Pfft, what history class did you go to? We were barely out of Nam when we were fucking around with Teran, then Gernada, then Panama, then Iraq, then Somalia, then Yugoslavia, then... you get the picture.

I'd almost hoped that Bush did Iraq as a war of conquest, it might have gone better. Instead we pinned our hopes on political change that wasn't in the works, bought our way to a new government and wondered why it wasn't working.

Don't blame that on the troops asshole.

[Durandal]

I think he was implying that a large number of American casualties would make us more reluctant to undertake such ventures in the future, so he was hoping that would happen. It's a shitty sentiment to have, but I didn't see where he was blaming the soldiers for anything.

As to the Surge "working", well, others have said it. We bribed the relevant people to stop killing each other and cordoned off everyone so they'd stop killing each other. Yes, it's helped decrease violence, but if this was the very idea behind the Surge, then it's hard to see how it could possibly be an avenue to us being able to exit Iraq. It's a temporary solution, and when that bandage is lifted, the wound is going to just start bleeding again, probably even more fiercely.

As a strategy to help get us out of Iraq, the Surge has been a failure. That should be obvious from how Bush and his cronies are reacting to it's "success" -- that is, by saying that the Surge's success means we have to stay there even longer. No matter what the outcome of this strategy was, the decision to stay in Iraq for an extended period of time was already made. The Surge's brain-dead implementation is essentially a way to try and tie the hands of the next administration into having to stay. After all, the Iraqi government is no closer to achieving a unified Iraq than they were a year ago aside from everyone agreeing that they want us the hell out. Militarily, we've managed to reduce violence through fragile means like bribery and segregation. The Surge is basically a theatrical stage. It may look like stone masonry, but it's really just a bunch of plastic and Styrofoam.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think he was implying that a large number of American casualties would make us more reluctant to undertake such ventures in the future, so he was hoping that would happen. It's a shitty sentiment to have, but I didn't see where he was blaming the soldiers for anything.

Maybe, or it might inspire more unhealthy soldier worship that vietnam caused?

Anyway, he might not be blaming the soldiers, but he is hoping they pay for the decisions of others. That is wrong regardless of the end result.

[Knife]

I think he was implying that a large number of American casualties would make us more reluctant to undertake such ventures in the future, so he was hoping that would happen. It's a shitty sentiment to have, but I didn't see where he was blaming the soldiers for anything.

How is that any different that those neo-con asshats thinking if enough Arabs die, they'll fall in line?

And fine, maybe I misspoke; why should the troops pay for the fuck ups of the management?

As to the Surge "working", well, others have said it. We bribed the relevant people to stop killing each other and cordoned off everyone so they'd stop killing each other.

The Surge was supposed to be a temporary solution to the Bush Admin's fuck up of not putting enough people on the street. Why wouldn't 'paying them off' be acceptable in reference to US and Iraqi casualties? Since they lied and it is not about that but more about US presence, I agree the Surge sucked ass. Doesn't mean the KIA's are any better.

Yes, it's helped decrease violence, but if this was the very idea behind the Surge, then it's hard to see how it could possibly be an avenue to us being able to exit Iraq. It's a temporary solution, and when that bandage is lifted, the wound is going to just start bleeding again, probably even more fiercely.

Indeed, yet the POLITICAL decision is hardly a good enough reason to just say; Fuck it, I hope my people die faster to show the assholes that they are wrong.

Such thinking is the base problem in the first place.

As a strategy to help get us out of Iraq, the Surge has been a failure.

Agreed. Doesn't explain why more should die.

That should be obvious from how Bush and his cronies are reacting to it's "success" -- that is, by saying that the Surge's success means we have to stay there even longer. No matter what the outcome of this strategy was, the decision to stay in Iraq for an extended period of time was already made. The Surge's brain-dead implementation is essentially a way to try and tie the hands of the next administration into having to stay. After all, the Iraqi government is no closer to achieving a unified Iraq than they were a year ago aside from everyone agreeing that they want us the hell out. Militarily, we've managed to reduce violence through fragile means like bribery and segregation. The Surge is basically a theatrical stage. It may look like stone masonry, but it's really just a bunch of plastic and Styrofoam.

I agree. However the opposite shouldn't be more blood for the blood god.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think political cheapshots aside, the question is what next? Politically, Iraq isn't too stable, with the Sunnis and Shitte Arabs and the Kurds not being the best of friends. A good bit of the potential Sunni Arab insurgents have been paid off, and then the Shittes under Sadr seem to be kept with a muzzle, so is the US going to continue this policy of bribery forever or will there ever be a political solution that remains ever elusive?

[Wanderer]

I think political cheapshots aside, the question is what next?

If Obama has balls, he'll just pull everyone out. Pay off the Iraqis to allow us to leave, then spike and blow whatever can not be carried off.

Then spend the next few years rebuilding, reforming, and purging the military. Use the freed up money to rebuild ARDACOM and get NASA back on track.

[Wanderer]

Right… in a war casualties don’t matter, what brilliant logic you have. Tell me, if war is NOT about people, then what is it about?

War is about achieving your objectives, everything else is irrelevant and a distraction to achieving your goals. You can lose every single battle, yet still win just by ensuring that you don't lose your army.

Case in point: Vietnam.

You’re just a dumbass if you think anyone in Iraq is going to ally with Iran, they fucking hate each other more then anything else.

Really now, then why is the Iraqi Government getting cozy with Iran, hell even if Sadr comes to power in Iraq, the Iranians will still be happy as they have an effectively neutral nation on their border.

[Darth Wong]

Right… in a war casualties don’t matter, what brilliant logic you have. Tell me, if war is NOT about people, then what is it about?

Casualties do matter, but let's keep in mind that there would have been far fewer casualties from not invading at all. The current situation is basically conceding to the original enemy, ie- religious extremists and Saddam Hussein's former insurgent forces, by letting them take charge and even paying them to do so. Naturally, once they take charge, they will slow down the killing rate, but I think it's a bit difficult to call this "success" rather than "OK OK, we give up".

[Lord of the Abyss]

As for victory, perhaps you'd care to define one ? It's difficult to imagine any result of this stupidity that could benefit America more than it's cost in wealth and lost reputation and destroyed political capital and increased strength to America's enemies and so forth.

Justifying the cost of the war is irrelevant at this point; do you have a time machine to turn back the clock? In the absence of that we can only look forward… so do we abandon the place, throw away every dollar we’ve spent and ever live we lost, or do we realize that a difference clearly CAN be made and keep going?

Haven't you ever heard of the concept of not throwing good money after bad ? All the money and lives spent on it have ALREADY been thrown away.

Victory is leaving the country in a functioning state at this point with a government and a military to defend it.

How is that a victory ? The Iraqis justifiably hate us; they'll be our enemy.

And why the fuck do you want that? Wanting the US out of Iraq is a fine opinion to have, but why the hell do you fucking want the US to leave and want Iraq to turn into chaos?

I don't WANT Iraq to fall into chaos, I just consider it inevitable.

Right, so that’s why the Iraqi Army is stronger then ever, while insurgents managed to kill just five Americans in twenty five days and are weaker then ever… and yeah this means all the motivated people are with the insurgents. Great logic.

And I should believe your rah-rah claims why ? Why should I believe your claims that the "insurgents" are weak and the army strong ?

And as Darth Wong says ( and not for the first time ), the killing has slowed down because for a large part, the killers are DONE.

How is that any different that those neo-con asshats thinking if enough Arabs die, they'll fall in line?

Because in one case, we are speaking of a bunch of civilians who were no threat to us. And in the other, we are speaking of an army of conquest and occupation. Destroying, or wishing for the destruction of such an army isn't at all the same as wishing for or engaging in the deaths of civilians who haven't harmed you at all.

Are they not true Scotsman's? er...True Iraqis?

No, they are collaborators. Traitors to the Iraqi people.

Why? What end result are you looking for at this point? I think we should pull out too, but you've been against it from the beginning, fine, but we were there, what's your end result?

As much harm to America as possible. The same as I would wish upon any other imperialist power.

And fine, maybe I misspoke; why should the troops pay for the fuck ups of the management?

Because "I was just following orders" isn't an excuse.

You’re just a dumbass if you think anyone in Iraq is going to ally with Iran, they fucking hate each other more then anything else.

Oh, I expect that we've cured them of that. Invasion, occupation, devastation, torture and slaughter are great at provoking hostility.

[Sarevok]

Casualties do matter, but let's keep in mind that there would have been far fewer casualties from not invading at all. The current situation is basically conceding to the original enemy, ie- religious extremists and Saddam Hussein's former insurgent forces, by letting them take charge and even paying them to do so. Naturally, once they take charge, they will slow down the killing rate, but I think it's a bit difficult to call this "success" rather than "OK OK, we give up".

Ultimately the test for "WIN" is a simple one. Whether Iraq is left at a better state than it was before the invasion. At this point this seems more and more unlikely. I imagine what's going to happen is akin to breaking a glass artifact then claiming the mess has been solved after duct taping the pieces togather. "Iraq is now better than when there were car bombs every week" is not really a good argument.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

And fine, maybe I misspoke; why should the troops pay for the fuck ups of the management?

Because "I was just following orders" isn't an excuse.

So we should have executed the the entire German, Italian, and Japanese Armies when we were done with them? You're really bloodthirsty.