GAO: Surge In Iraq A "Failure"

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-09-05 06:29pm

Posted on Wed, Sep. 5, 2007

GAO report says U.S. troop 'surge' is a failure

By RENEE SCHOOF & WARREN P. STROBEL

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The surge of additional U.S. troops in Iraq has failed to curtail violence against Iraqi civilians, an independent government agency reported yesterday.

Citing data from the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, the Government Accountability Office found that daily attacks against civilians in Iraq have remained "about the same" since February, when the United States began sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to improve security in Iraq.

The GAO also found that the number of Iraqis fleeing violence in their neighborhoods is increasing, with as many as 100,000 Iraqis a month leaving their homes in search of safety.

The GAO's conclusions contradict repeated assertions by the White House and the Pentagon in advance of the coming congressional debate on whether to stay the course in Iraq or to begin withdrawing some troops.

Neither a July report from the White House nor a report last month from 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, however, provided any statistics to support their claims that the surge has improved security.

The GAO report, in contrast, includes charts showing the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians, Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops. Only attacks against U.S. troops have declined in recent weeks.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, U.S. Comptroller General David S. Walker, who heads the GAO, said he couldn't vouch for charts that Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, had shown him during a recent congressional visit to Iraq. Coleman said those charts showed a decrease in violence.

"Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Walker said. "So I don't know what Gen. Petraeus is giving you."

When President Bush announced in January that he'd dispatch more troops, he said the goal was to cut sectarian violence so the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could work out political compromises on key issues among Iraq's rival religious and ethnic groups.

Supporters and opponents of the surge now agree on at least one thing: Al-Maliki has been unable to get those agreements. So does the GAO. Its report found that of the 18 benchmarks Iraq's government set for itself, three have been met, four have been partially met and 11 haven't been met.

"Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," the report said.

The GAO said it couldn't determine whether sectarian violence in Iraq is down "because measuring such violence requires understanding the perpetrator's intent, which may not be known."

But the report said it was possible to assess the overall daily number of attacks against civilians. A chart showed that those attacks have remained relatively constant throughout 2007, despite additional troops. The GAO referred a request for precise numbers to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, acknowledged the controversy over the numbers in comments to reporters in Baghdad yesterday. But he said that violent incidents in Iraq are at their lowest point in 15 months this week.

At least 42 people were killed or found dead across the country yesterday, the Associated Press reported, citing police reports.

The Electricity Ministry announced that eight engineers and technicians were kidnapped and murdered on Monday by gunmen in east Baghdad, AP said. *

I'm sure this will be spun in a positive light, however. Three, count 'em three benchmarks (out of eighteen...) are successes!

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-09-05 06:31pm

Wow, how shocking. Everything else Bush has come up with has gone so well...

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2007-09-05 06:36pm

It's stunning to me how easily false numbers about civilian deaths and troop attacks are being accepted from the military by the media without any sourcing at all.

When the top general in Iraq Petraeus is giving private Congressional briefings to Republicans, I think any numbers the military gives should be suspect as probably politically influenced and must be verified.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-09-05 06:38pm

LMSx wrote:It's stunning to me how easily false numbers about civilian deaths and troop attacks are being accepted from the military by the media without any sourcing at all.

When the top general in Iraq Petraeus is giving private Congressional briefings to Republicans, I think any numbers the military gives should be suspect as probably politically influenced and must be verified.

Well, I've read more than once that the numbers aren't even tracked by the US government. If true, it's not especially surprising when various claims of numbers are made.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-05 07:07pm

I love the way that craven asshole scumbag fucktard dipshit lying twat imbecile Billy Kristol came on The Daily Show and reported that the surge was working, based on his subjective assessment of "troop morale"; a benchmark for success that is conveniently immune to objective measurement.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-05 07:12pm

I had heard somewhere that the military wasn't even counting the large number of unidentified bodies that turn up daily all across Iraq and adding them to the death toll. I'd completely discount that if it weren't for the fact that at one point they had stopped including things like car bombings and shootings in their definitions of "violence".

Elaro · Post by **Elaro** » 2007-09-05 07:38pm

Huh. I recently read an article (by Time) about how the situation in Iraq improved with the coming-into-power of Petraeus. (Here.) Should I dismiss that article as too rosy, then?

Still, this sucks. What would repair Iraq?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-05 07:41pm

Elaro wrote:Huh. I recently read an article (by Time) about how the situation in Iraq improved with the coming-into-power of Petraeus. (Here.) Should I dismiss that article as too rosy, then?

Still, this sucks. What would repair Iraq?

Dude, that's written by Bill Kristol. He chugs Bush cock like high school sports teams chug Gatorade.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-09-05 07:51pm

Elaro wrote:Huh. I recently read an article (by Time) about how the situation in Iraq improved with the coming-into-power of Petraeus. (Here.) Should I dismiss that article as too rosy, then?

Still, this sucks. What would repair Iraq?

A Delorean going to 2002 and the occupants applying Clue-By-Fours to the Bush government?

Finishing the Florida Recount?

A benevolent alien race appearing and flooding the country with no-side-effect-stungun equipped droids?

They're all about as likely, and those are the only ways.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2007-09-05 08:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:I love the way that craven asshole scumbag fucktard dipshit lying twat imbecile Billy Kristol came on The Daily Show and reported that the surge was working, based on his subjective assessment of "troop morale"; a benchmark for success that is conveniently immune to objective measurement.

That's because he knows he'll never actually meet any of those troops, so they won't kick the shit out of him for saying it.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-05 08:07pm

Vendetta wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I love the way that craven asshole scumbag fucktard dipshit lying twat imbecile Billy Kristol came on The Daily Show and reported that the surge was working, based on his subjective assessment of "troop morale"; a benchmark for success that is conveniently immune to objective measurement.
That's because he knows he'll never actually meet any of those troops, so they won't kick the shit out of him for saying it.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if troop morale was relatively high, considering. As piss poor as the 'surge' is, having more boots on the ground probably does make their lives somewhat easier on the whole.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2007-09-05 10:11pm

Flagg wrote:I wouldn't be all that surprised if troop morale was relatively high, considering. As piss poor as the 'surge' is, having more boots on the ground probably does make their lives somewhat easier on the whole.

Link:

Army Times wrote:The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2007-09-05 10:13pm

Granted, that poll was taken in January, but morale isn't so high as many might think.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-09-05 10:55pm

By the way, for those who aren't familiar with the "Government Accountability Office,", here is a bit from its website:

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is known as "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog." GAO supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. GAO's work includes oversight of federal programs; insight into ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical and equitable; and foresight of long-term trends and challenges. GAO's reports, testimonies, legal decisions and opinions make a difference for Congress and the Nation.

What is GAO?

Under recently passed legislation, we have changed our name from the General Accounting Office to the Government Accountability Office. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an agency that works for Congress and the American people. Congress asks GAO to study the programs and expenditures of the federal government. GAO, commonly called the investigative arm of Congress or the congressional watchdog, is independent and nonpartisan. It studies how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. GAO advises Congress and the heads of executive agencies (such as Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Department of Defense, DOD, and Health and Human Services, HHS) about ways to make government more effective and responsive. GAO evaluates federal programs, audits federal expenditures, and issues legal opinions. When GAO reports its findings to Congress, it recommends actions. Its work leads to laws and acts that improve government operations, and save billions of dollars.

Hope that is useful, especially for those outside the US.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2007-09-05 11:07pm

I'm not really surprised. Weren't the estimates of how many U.S. troops it would take to adequately hold and secure the country actually far higher than the post-surge army there?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-09-06 12:20am

So how about all those news about the Surge working and all that? American media was shamelessly lying about "decreased levels of violence"? Tell me that is not true...

Oh wait, it is.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2007-09-06 02:06am

Guardsman Bass wrote:I'm not really surprised. Weren't the estimates of how many U.S. troops it would take to adequately hold and secure the country actually far higher than the post-surge army there?

The estimates for a proper occupation force are usually given as 200,000, but to really lock down the place you could eat up twice that many troops. If the Iraqi Army and police where remotely effective, right now the ARVN would be a big improvement, the available force would exceed that requirement by a significant margin. As it is that isn’t the reality of the situation and if nothing changes on that angle, then no improvement can be sustained.