RE-EVALUATING THE SURGE
From Ayad Allawi, former Prime Minister and
current cabinet member in Iraq: " . . . if you
measure the surge from a military point of view,
it has succeeded. But I don't think this was the
[prime] objective, because soon you will see
reversals. Security has not prevailed, and the
key element in security is reconciliation, and
building national institutions for the country.
If this does not happen, then the surge will go
in vain."
And this from Marina Ottaway, Middle East
Program Director, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, referring to the surge:
"The formation of the Awakening councils and
Muqtada al-Sadr's decision to stand down were
the most important factors. This is reflected in
the constant refrain by U. S. military comman-
ders and the administration that progress re-
mains fragile. If progress was the result of a
military victory resulting from the surge, it
would not easily be reversed. Muqtada's de-
cision to stand down and even the decision of
the members of the awakening councils to
fight al-Qaeda rather than the U. S. are emi-
nently reversible."
And from Thomas E. Ricks, military reporter
for The Washington Post, and author of Fiasco:
The American Military Adventure in Iraq:
"The surge has worked tactically (this is Obama's
point also), but hasn't succeeded strategically, at
least not yet. Remember that the stated purpose
was not just to improve security, but to lead to a
breakthrough in Iraqi politics. That hasn't yet
happened. That is, the basic questions about the
future of Iraq haven't been addressed -- the
sharing of oil revenue, the political place of the
Sunnis, who holds power in the Shiite com-
munity, and the future of Kirkuk."
Here's the big question: Did Obama and
the "cut and run" Dems insure "success"
for the surge? As major Niel Smith, the opera-
tions officer at the Counterinsurgency Center,
and Col. Sean McFarland, the commander of
U. S. forces in Ramadi wrote recently in Military
Review, "a growing concern that the U. S. would
leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless
against AQI and Iranian-supported militias made
these younger [tribal] leaders (in Anbar) [who
led the Awakening] open to overtures (for co-
operation). . . The surge and the threat of with-
drawal interacted synergistically: the threat of
withdrawal made clear that the U. S. commit-
ment was not open-ended, and the surge made
clear that U. S. forces would be around for a
while."
From William E. Odom, retired Lt. Gen. who, in
my opinion, has offered the most prescient and
best informed analysis of Iraq's political realities,
past and present, effecting the U. S. occupation:
". . .most media reporting has wholly ignored the
political dynamics of the new "surge" tactic. And
peripatetic experts in Washington regularly re-
turn from their brief visits to Iraq to assure the
public that it is lowering violence but fail to ex-
plain why. They presume that progress toward
political consolidation has also been occurring,
or soon will be. Instead, political regression has
resulted, a "retribalization" of the same nature
as that which both the British colonial rulers and
the Baathist Party tried to overcome in order to
create a modern state in Iraq. . . just as happened
with regard to the war in Vietnam, the mainstream
discussion has focused on tactics, "nation build-
ing" through elections, and diplomacy aimed at
reconciling irreconcilable Iraqi elites. . . Serious
discussion today must be about how to deal with
the repercussions of the tragic error of the in-
vasion. The key to thinking clearly about it is to
give regional stability higher priority than some
fantasy victory in Iraq. The first step toward re-
storing that stability in the complete withdrawal
of U. S. forces from Iraq. Only then will promi-
sing next steps be possible."
In closing, I would be remiss if I failed to men-
tion the consistently brilliant analyses of the
whole Middle East situation by Helena Cobban.
Her extremely valuable blog is: Just World News.
The 7/28/08 issue is entitled Bush's "Surge":
How Successful? She opens it with this, from
Reuters in Baghdad, on that date:
"Three female suicide bombers killed 28 people
and wounded 92 when they blew themselves up
among Shi'ites walking through the streets of
Baghdad on a religious pilgrimage on Monday,
Iraqi police said.
In the northern oil city of Kirkuk a suicide bomb-
er killed 22 people and wounded 150 at a protest
against a disputed local elections law, Iraqi health
and security officials said. One security official
said the bomber may also have been a woman."
Helena goes on to say, ". . . the situation in Iraq
remains very difficult for Iraqis, very politically
fragile, and heavy with the threat of new waves
of violence. The latest spikes of violence. . .
undercut the claims of those who have been
crowing 'the surge succeeded.'"
What is your take on this?
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
From Ayad Allawi, former Prime Minister and
current cabinet member in Iraq: " . . . if you
measure the surge from a military point of view,
it has succeeded. But I don't think this was the
[prime] objective, because soon you will see
reversals. Security has not prevailed, and the
key element in security is reconciliation, and
building national institutions for the country.
If this does not happen, then the surge will go
in vain."
And this from Marina Ottaway, Middle East
Program Director, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, referring to the surge:
"The formation of the Awakening councils and
Muqtada al-Sadr's decision to stand down were
the most important factors. This is reflected in
the constant refrain by U. S. military comman-
ders and the administration that progress re-
mains fragile. If progress was the result of a
military victory resulting from the surge, it
would not easily be reversed. Muqtada's de-
cision to stand down and even the decision of
the members of the awakening councils to
fight al-Qaeda rather than the U. S. are emi-
nently reversible."
And from Thomas E. Ricks, military reporter
for The Washington Post, and author of Fiasco:
The American Military Adventure in Iraq:
"The surge has worked tactically (this is Obama's
point also), but hasn't succeeded strategically, at
least not yet. Remember that the stated purpose
was not just to improve security, but to lead to a
breakthrough in Iraqi politics. That hasn't yet
happened. That is, the basic questions about the
future of Iraq haven't been addressed -- the
sharing of oil revenue, the political place of the
Sunnis, who holds power in the Shiite com-
munity, and the future of Kirkuk."
Here's the big question: Did Obama and
the "cut and run" Dems insure "success"
for the surge? As major Niel Smith, the opera-
tions officer at the Counterinsurgency Center,
and Col. Sean McFarland, the commander of
U. S. forces in Ramadi wrote recently in Military
Review, "a growing concern that the U. S. would
leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless
against AQI and Iranian-supported militias made
these younger [tribal] leaders (in Anbar) [who
led the Awakening] open to overtures (for co-
operation). . . The surge and the threat of with-
drawal interacted synergistically: the threat of
withdrawal made clear that the U. S. commit-
ment was not open-ended, and the surge made
clear that U. S. forces would be around for a
while."
From William E. Odom, retired Lt. Gen. who, in
my opinion, has offered the most prescient and
best informed analysis of Iraq's political realities,
past and present, effecting the U. S. occupation:
". . .most media reporting has wholly ignored the
political dynamics of the new "surge" tactic. And
peripatetic experts in Washington regularly re-
turn from their brief visits to Iraq to assure the
public that it is lowering violence but fail to ex-
plain why. They presume that progress toward
political consolidation has also been occurring,
or soon will be. Instead, political regression has
resulted, a "retribalization" of the same nature
as that which both the British colonial rulers and
the Baathist Party tried to overcome in order to
create a modern state in Iraq. . . just as happened
with regard to the war in Vietnam, the mainstream
discussion has focused on tactics, "nation build-
ing" through elections, and diplomacy aimed at
reconciling irreconcilable Iraqi elites. . . Serious
discussion today must be about how to deal with
the repercussions of the tragic error of the in-
vasion. The key to thinking clearly about it is to
give regional stability higher priority than some
fantasy victory in Iraq. The first step toward re-
storing that stability in the complete withdrawal
of U. S. forces from Iraq. Only then will promi-
sing next steps be possible."
In closing, I would be remiss if I failed to men-
tion the consistently brilliant analyses of the
whole Middle East situation by Helena Cobban.
Her extremely valuable blog is: Just World News.
The 7/28/08 issue is entitled Bush's "Surge":
How Successful? She opens it with this, from
Reuters in Baghdad, on that date:
"Three female suicide bombers killed 28 people
and wounded 92 when they blew themselves up
among Shi'ites walking through the streets of
Baghdad on a religious pilgrimage on Monday,
Iraqi police said.
In the northern oil city of Kirkuk a suicide bomb-
er killed 22 people and wounded 150 at a protest
against a disputed local elections law, Iraqi health
and security officials said. One security official
said the bomber may also have been a woman."
Helena goes on to say, ". . . the situation in Iraq
remains very difficult for Iraqis, very politically
fragile, and heavy with the threat of new waves
of violence. The latest spikes of violence. . .
undercut the claims of those who have been
crowing 'the surge succeeded.'"
What is your take on this?
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
posted by John Goodwin at
12:07 PM
|
0 comments
