Did the Surge Work?

[thejester]

Tactical success in lowering the violence, but that's yet to be translated into political success. I guess the big question is whether or not the Iraqi Security Forces will be loyal to the state rather than their ethnicity and be combat effective - and at the moment the safe money is on 'no'.

[Guardsman Bass]

What's all this celebration about Anbar? This is the same region which was a hotbed of violence against US troops a few years ago, and the people who we're so proud of there are the same people who were committing those attacks. This is just another example of the US switching from one set of allies to another: they waded into the country all shit-hot to free the Shiites from the yoke of Sunni oppression, and now they've changed their minds and decided that they're actually friends of the Sunnis against the dangerous Shiites, so they're going to befriend the same people who were planting IEDs to blow up US patrols in 2004. And when those people manage to assert firm control over their territory, the US gets to pat itself on the back for doing such a good job in this one province? While Baghdad has been successfully ethnically cleansed in the meantime? What a clusterfuck.

I suppose if you simply measure your success in terms of lower casualties, then it's a success. Obviously, it's a deal with a group you'd rather not have to deal with, but then Iraq has basically been one long exercise of lowering the bar of expectations.

[K. A. Pital]

Going out of Iraq would lower the casualties of the US even more. Strange that they don't consider that - but then again, the minds of US leaders work in mysterious ways.

The aforementioned ethnic cleansing basically ran for several years unhindered in Iraq. The US simply watched and picked the side of the "pacifier" once the deed was closing up.

Incidentally, parallel to the cleansing, Iraq experienced an economic wonder:

I suppose those are kind of... more fundamentally damaging economic processes which can't be fixed by a surge. And economy drags politics along, as we know.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Look, Stas, clearly all they need is shock-therapy by the Bretton Woods institutions and liberalized markets.

Duh.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Look, Stas, clearly all they need is shock-therapy by the Bretton Woods institutions and liberalized markets.

Duh.

Do you know if the proposed law to open up Iraqi oil to foreign companies ever passed?

[Guardsman Bass]

Look, Stas, clearly all they need is shock-therapy by the Bretton Woods institutions and liberalized markets.

Duh.

Do you know if the proposed law to open up Iraqi oil to foreign companies ever passed?

I don't think so.

[Sam Or I]

Everyone is 100% correct when saying that political reconciliation does need to take place for the to be successful.

The surge has not failed, and the Surge is working.

For the Surge to fail violience is going to have to break out making it impossible for reconciliation to take place. Until that time the Surge is did what it was ment to do, buy time.

The Surge troops will go home this spring, but that does not mean the time they bought has run out. (It very well may if violence shoots back up, but that is uncertian at this time.)

Until that time runs out the surge is doing its job. There is no set date when reconciliation must happen.

Have all the objective of the Surge been met, no. Is the Surge working, yes.

If violience in I raq goes back to pre-surge levels for a couple months, I will conceed it was a failure. Until that time though violience is down and the government does have breathing room.

[Adrian Laguna]

Now, of course, one may ask what the point of the war was if its sole result was to kill a lot of people and break a lot of things before leaving the country under a Shia oligarchy instead of a Sunni dictatorship.

I do believe the argument behind withdrawal is that there never was a realistic point to it nor is there one now. What you do with pointless wars is end them.

[Edi]

Everyone is 100% correct when saying that political reconciliation does need to take place for the to be successful.

You have yet to establish that such reconciliation is possible, that there is some common ground that can be used to base it on.

The surge has not failed, and the Surge is working.

Evidence?

For the Surge to fail violience is going to have to break out making it impossible for reconciliation to take place. Until that time the Surge is did what it was ment to do, buy time.

Evidence? The violence has been winding down and lessening because the ethnic cleansing has been completed and there are no more mixed ethnicity neighborhoods, not because the surge has prevented the ethnic cleansing.

The Surge troops will go home this spring, but that does not mean the time they bought has run out. (It very well may if violence shoots back up, but that is uncertian at this time.)

Why would it shoot back up because the reason has diminished along with ethnic diversity in areas? You are assuming that reconciliation is possible in the first place. This is not given.

Until that time runs out the surge is doing its job. There is no set date when reconciliation must happen.

You state this bullshit as fact, when you have no evidence to back your asumptions up.

Have all the objective of the Surge been met, no. Is the Surge working, yes.

Evidence, moron?

If violience in I raq goes back to pre-surge levels for a couple months, I will conceed it was a failure. Until that time though violience is down and the government does have breathing room.

Statement of assumptions of fact without any evidence to support it and running counter to arguments already expressed that have supporting evidence. Were you born that stupid or did you have to practice?

[K. A. Pital]

I guess it's just too hard for some people to grasp that correlation does not always mean causation:

For the Surge to fail violience is going to have to break out

If the Surge has little relation to curbing inner-Iraq violence, what sort of relation could it have to a resurgence of such violence? The Surge could be traced as a reason for diminishing attacks on U.S. personnel (although I'm not certain about that), but "the Surge" being a reason for the downturn of violence?

You'd have to show at least a measure of connection between correlation and causation to be sure it's the Surge and not just the mere fact that ethnic cleansing is complete.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm pretty sure all the extra troops HAVE curbed violence, Stas. Of course, we always knew we could not sustain the effect, which is why we wanted to use the time of the surge to cure the cause of violence - which is the political struggle. This has not and will not occur, and I predict that they'll come back out of their holes once the surge troops leave and they know we cannot just do it again.

[K. A. Pital]

This has not and will not occur, and I predict that they'll come back out of their holes once the surge troops leave and they know we cannot just do it again.

Indeed, I think the same. Iraq insurgents aren't dumb; especially their upper echelons.

[Guardsman Bass]

Everyone is 100% correct when saying that political reconciliation does need to take place for the to be successful.

You have yet to establish that such reconciliation is possible, that there is some common ground that can be used to base it on.

There is at least some degree of Iraqi nationalism, among the Shiites and Sunnis (neither of whom want to break up the country; they just want to be in charge of it).

The surge has not failed, and the Surge is working.

Evidence?

The constantly mentioned reductions in both violence against American troops and intersectarian violence?

For the Surge to fail violience is going to have to break out making it impossible for reconciliation to take place. Until that time the Surge is did what it was ment to do, buy time.

Evidence? The violence has been winding down and lessening because the ethnic cleansing has been completed and there are no more mixed ethnicity neighborhoods, not because the surge has prevented the ethnic cleansing.

That doesn't explain the drops in violence in areas like Anbar Province, which was a overwhelmingly majority Sunni population area before the US occupation, and remains an overwhelmingly Sunni population province today. The Awakening movement is the larger reason, but that's dependent in large part upon guarantees of weapons, money, and support from the US occupation in exchange for going after Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

The Surge troops will go home this spring, but that does not mean the time they bought has run out. (It very well may if violence shoots back up, but that is uncertian at this time.)

Why would it shoot back up because the reason has diminished along with ethnic diversity in areas? You are assuming that reconciliation is possible in the first place. This is not given.

As mentioned above, you are oversimplifying it. It's not simply a matter of successful ethnic cleansing, because there are areas where ethnic cleansing was never a major factor in terms of violence (like Anbar), where violence has gone down in the wake of the Surge.

Until that time runs out the surge is doing its job. There is no set date when reconciliation must happen.

You state this bullshit as fact, when you have no evidence to back your asumptions up.

It's not an entirely unreasonable assumption - as long as the US keeps funneling money and guns to the Awakening Sunni Militias, then if they beat down the outsiders enough while the Surge is present, once the Surge is gone, our newly found clients may be able to suppress them to some degree (assuming we don't do something to piss them off and turn them into insurgents again).

Have all the objective of the Surge been met, no. Is the Surge working, yes.

Evidence, moron?

As mentioned, the reductions in violence in multiple areas targeted for extra troops, including areas where ethnic cleansing would not be a significant factor.

If violience in I raq goes back to pre-surge levels for a couple months, I will conceed it was a failure. Until that time though violience is down and the government does have breathing room.

Statement of assumptions of fact without any evidence to support it and running counter to arguments already expressed that have supporting evidence. Were you born that stupid or did you have to practice?

[/quote]

Are you disputing the Surge's success in reducing violence, or disputing the ability of the Iraqi government's ability to take advantage of a reduction in violence? Clarity is a virtue.

[Jadeite]

What's all this celebration about Anbar? This is the same region which was a hotbed of violence against US troops a few years ago, and the people who we're so proud of there are the same people who were committing those attacks. This is just another example of the US switching from one set of allies to another: they waded into the country all shit-hot to free the Shiites from the yoke of Sunni oppression, and now they've changed their minds and decided that they're actually friends of the Sunnis against the dangerous Shiites, so they're going to befriend the same people who were planting IEDs to blow up US patrols in 2004. And when those people manage to assert firm control over their territory, the US gets to pat itself on the back for doing such a good job in this one province? While Baghdad has been successfully ethnically cleansed in the meantime? What a clusterfuck.

On the other hand, we should have sided with the Sunnis to begin with. As a group, Iraqi Sunnis tend to be more progressive (by Middle Eastern standards), wealthier, and better educated. The majority of doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, etc. in Iraq are Sunni. In addition, its smarter in terms of foreign relations as well. Saudi Arabia and the other GCC states are majority Sunni, while Iran is Shi'ite. Continuing to support the Shi'ites would be a mistake since it would almost inevitably result in Iraq becoming an Iranian satellite.

It also gives us a useful tool for keeping the Shi'ites under control. If they get uppity, we can threaten to give the Sunni militias more weapons and funding, and then turn a blind eye to Cleansing Round II: Sunni Revenge, and vice versa, threaten to let the Shi'ites finish the job if the Sunnis don't play along.

As far as reconciliation, the fact that former insurgents are now fighting alongside US troops to root out the remaining insurgents in Anbar is a good step.

[Darth Wong]

On the other hand, we should have sided with the Sunnis to begin with. As a group, Iraqi Sunnis tend to be more progressive (by Middle Eastern standards), wealthier, and better educated. The majority of doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, etc. in Iraq are Sunni. In addition, its smarter in terms of foreign relations as well. Saudi Arabia and the other GCC states are majority Sunni, while Iran is Shi'ite. Continuing to support the Shi'ites would be a mistake since it would almost inevitably result in Iraq becoming an Iranian satellite.

You went against the Sunnis because Hussein was a Sunni, and this war was played as a quest to rid the world of Saddam and destroy his legacy and everything he stood for. The elimination of Saddam is still used as a justification for the entire boondoggle by politicians.

It also gives us a useful tool for keeping the Shi'ites under control. If they get uppity, we can threaten to give the Sunni militias more weapons and funding, and then turn a blind eye to Cleansing Round II: Sunni Revenge, and vice versa, threaten to let the Shi'ites finish the job if the Sunnis don't play along.

The US has been playing this game for decades. That's a large part of why most of the Middle East hates you; do you really think they aren't wise to what you're doing?

As far as reconciliation, the fact that former insurgents are now fighting alongside US troops to root out the remaining insurgents in Anbar is a good step.

The US is trying to manipulate local militias to serve its long-term goals. The local militias, for their part, are trying to use the US to serve their long-term goals. And since they're going to be there longer, I think their long-term goals are the ones that are truly going to be served here.

[Edi]

Are you disputing the Surge's success in reducing violence, or disputing the ability of the Iraqi government's ability to take advantage of a reduction in violence? Clarity is a virtue.

I'm disputing the claim about direct cause-effect as attributed mainly to the surge in Sam or I's post, as well as the Iraqi government's ability to do anything. But hardly think there is much point in making the distinction. Clarity of argument is a two-way street and I'm certainly not going to indulge the other side if they decide to start off with unclear, generalizing arguments themselves, which was the case with what I was replying to.

[Setzer]

If violence stays at low levels after the troops pull out, the Surge might be considered a success. Of course, it could just be the whole "homicidal fanatics ran out of people to kill" thing.

[Surlethe]

The surge has not failed, and the Surge is working.

For the Surge to fail violience is going to have to break out making it impossible for reconciliation to take place. Until that time the Surge is did what it was ment to do, buy time.

By your broken logic, if Iraqi political reconciliation occurs in ten years then the surge will have worked. You're diluting the surge's objectives to nothing by equating them to any political reconciliation -- i.e., the surge is unsuccessful iff at some point violence breaks out making reconciliation impossible -- rather than the original goals -- i.e., the surge is successful iff political reconciliation occurs during it.

[Darth Wong]

Someday, Fidel Castro will die. On that day, we will declare that the Bay of Pigs was a success

[Adrian Laguna]

The US has been playing this game for decades. That's a large part of why most of the Middle East hates you; do you really think they aren't wise to what you're doing?

Another part is that they play it ineffectively and amateurishly. Great Britain did it to half the world for two centuries, leading to the observation that, "The British Empire has no permanent friends, only permanent interests". Yet they played it masterfully, appropriately mixing negotiation and war, subtlety and ruthlessness, brutality and benevolence. The United States, on the other hand, has a nasty tendency to back what it shouldn't, dump what it should stick to, throw its weight to solve every problem, and then not throw enough weight to solve it.

Someday, Fidel Castro will die. On that day, we will declare that the Bay of Pigs was a success

Along with the embargo, without it Castro might still be in power when 2026 rolls around.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

As far as reconciliation, the fact that former insurgents are now fighting alongside US troops to root out the remaining insurgents in Anbar is a good step.

The US is trying to manipulate local militias to serve its long-term goals. The local militias, for their part, are trying to use the US to serve their long-term goals. And since they're going to be there longer, I think their long-term goals are the ones that are truly going to be served here.

In terms of a counter-insurgency campaign, the surge may have had some degree of success since an important successful condition in a counter-insurgency operation is getting the majority of the population to support the host nation instead of the insurgency. But that's obviously not looking at the big picture and I doubt living conditions in Iraq have seriously improved at all.

[Guardsman Bass]

If violence stays at low levels after the troops pull out, the Surge might be considered a success. Of course, it could just be the whole "homicidal fanatics ran out of people to kill" thing.

That's part of it. What they are also (probably) hoping on the US side is that (presuming they don't seriously piss off the Sunnis) if they can get the outside and Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia types down to low enough numbers before the Surge is gone, a combination of US military and financial aid and co-operative Sunni sheik-led forces will be able to hold down said groups after the Surge leaves.

[Chris OFarrell]

The entire surge can basically be summed as as 'Limited tactical successes for various reasons, utter strategic failure'.


You can guess which is more important to succeed in...

[Sam Or I]

You have yet to establish that such reconciliation is possible, that there is some common ground that can be used to base it on.

The Sunnis have rejoined the government, and their party signed the de-baathification law. I am not going to debate how good or bad an untested law is, but BOTH sunni and shiites signed it. Shiite groups have acknowledged, and praised the roll the "Awakening" groups have played in the stablization for Iraq.

Evidence? The violence has been winding down and lessening because the ethnic cleansing has been completed and there are no more mixed ethnicity neighborhoods, not because the surge has prevented the ethnic cleansing.

Resorting to LIES to back up your argument. There are still mixed neighborhoods all through out Iraq, examples are Zayouna, Karrada and Kudam neighborhhood to name a few in Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country. The Diyala province is has many ethnically mixed neighborhoods.

Now that we cut through your Fabulist Bullshit. There has been ethnic cleansing in many neighborhoods, and Baghdad is more segragated than ever. This has been slowed down drastically in the remaining mixed neighborhoods since August of last year, after the offensive portion of the Surge ended. (Which the U.S. is in another mini offensive as we speak, but thats a different point completely.)

Civil strife is down through out the country. Local alliance are being made which would not have been possible with out the Counter Insurgentcy strategy taking place by General Petraeus (Which the surge is only part of.) General Casey's strategy of attacking the insurgents and dealing very little through the local leaders would not have secured the "Awakening" groups as General Petraeus's strategy has.

The two Generals have had significantly different strategies in Iraq with different results.

Why would it shoot back up because the reason has diminished along with ethnic diversity in areas? You are assuming that reconciliation is possible in the first place. This is not given.

Damn, you are ignorant. Have you not listened to all the talking points, that the Sunni's are now armed by the U.S. It is a huge gamble on Petraeus's part. There is obviously now a greater chance of a real civil war than any other time. Ethnic Cleansing is far from complete, as stated and proven.

None of it is a given. But as above, there have been slow signs of progress. Not as fast as everyone would like them to be.

The rest of your arguement would be repetition, since you keep asking about the same points.

[Edi]

You have yet to establish that such reconciliation is possible, that there is some common ground that can be used to base it on.

The Sunnis have rejoined the government, and their party signed the de-baathification law. I am not going to debate how good or bad an untested law is, but BOTH sunni and shiites signed it. Shiite groups have acknowledged, and praised the roll the "Awakening" groups have played in the stablization for Iraq.

Which still doesn't mean fuck all as of yet. So at best it's wait and see what happens.

Evidence? The violence has been winding down and lessening because the ethnic cleansing has been completed and there are no more mixed ethnicity neighborhoods, not because the surge has prevented the ethnic cleansing.

Resorting to LIES to back up your argument. There are still mixed neighborhoods all through out Iraq, examples are Zayouna, Karrada and Kudam neighborhhood to name a few in Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country. The Diyala province is has many ethnically mixed neighborhoods.

Right, so I made a mistake in using a bit too absolute language that you can latch on to. Fine, let's clarify that: The largest mixed neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and there is no trust between the ethnic groups still living in mixed neighborhoods. You still have no argument and your previous post amounted to nothing but "Because I say so" in the justification department. If you had bothered to make the points you did in this one, you might have been a useful addition to this discussion.

Now that we cut through your Fabulist Bullshit. There has been ethnic cleansing in many neighborhoods, and Baghdad is more segragated than ever. This has been slowed down drastically in the remaining mixed neighborhoods since August of last year, after the offensive portion of the Surge ended. (Which the U.S. is in another mini offensive as we speak, but thats a different point completely.)

Still no cause-effect relationship here, as there have been other developments that also have significance.

Civil strife is down through out the country. Local alliance are being made which would not have been possible with out the Counter Insurgentcy strategy taking place by General Petraeus (Which the surge is only part of.) General Casey's strategy of attacking the insurgents and dealing very little through the local leaders would not have secured the "Awakening" groups as General Petraeus's strategy has.

The two Generals have had significantly different strategies in Iraq with different results.

And? Do you have a responbse to what Mike said earlier about the Sunnis?

Why would it shoot back up because the reason has diminished along with ethnic diversity in areas? You are assuming that reconciliation is possible in the first place. This is not given.

Damn, you are ignorant. Have you not listened to all the talking points,

I'm not interested in "talking points", unlike stupid motherfuckers like you.

that the Sunni's are now armed by the U.S. It is a huge gamble on Petraeus's part. There is obviously now a greater chance of a real civil war than any other time. Ethnic Cleansing is far from complete, as stated and proven.

So, risk of civil war has gone up, you're funding the people who used to shoot at you and who are now biding their time, using the US as a shield and who will turn on you as soon as it is convenient. How is this praiseworthy?

None of it is a given. But as above, there have been slow signs of progress. Not as fast as everyone would like them to be.

A more accurate description would be that there have been minuscule steps of progress after years of backsliding and getting things fucked up, so I do not see why you and the other pro-surge people are celebrating it as if it's some major accomplishment. By all reasonable standards of analysis, it's still been too little, too late to accomplish any of the stated goals. All it has done is facilitate moving the goalposts by the Bush administration.

The rest of your arguement would be repetition, since you keep asking about the same points.[/quote]