Is the troop surge working?

[JaJae]

Shhhh... The Surge is Working
By Patrick Ruffini

A gloomy haze has settled over the nation's prosecution of the War on Terror as of late. It seems like we can only watch helplessly as Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha size up new angles of attack for undermining the war effort. The media is chomping at the bit the tell the story of an America, bruised and humbled and exhausted, heading for the exits in Iraq.

But something interesting is happening on the way to the "new direction." Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.

In Iraq, there's a sense that change is in the air -- literally. Omar of Iraq the Model spots a B-1 Bomber in the skies of Baghdad for the first time since the end of the major combat. On the ground, Omar writes that the signs that Iraqis are getting serious about security are more palbable. With the help of Compstat-like technology, security forces are cracking down at checkpoints (even ambulances are getting stopped) and getting nimbler about locating them strategically so the terrorists don't know what to expect.

This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media's near-deafening silence. If it seems like you've heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what's happening. Time magazine worries that it's "Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet." That's right -- a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.

It's too early to claim victory just yet; the operation is just two weeks old. But U.S. troops have been able to accomplish all of this with just one more brigade in-country, with four more on the way by May. These encouraging early returns show the potential for success when we apply concentrated military force to the security problem. When the Army and Marine Corps are on offense, carrying out combat operations and clearing out insurgent strongholds, we win. When we lay back, carrying out routine patrols and playing Baghdad beat cop, we lose.

The key to success is staying power. The always incisive Daffyd ab-Hugh has a good read on this dynamic. Counterinsurgency in Iraq has often been compared to a game of whack-a-mole -- secure an area, only to have the insurgents pop up somewhere else. But if we slammed a mallet into the hole, and kept it there, then picked up a new one... and did the same?

This is a new game called Seal-a-Hole , and it has a very different dynamic from Whack-a-Mole: the normal game is one of futility; the game continues until the player gets tired and quits or he runs out of money. But Seal-a-Hole actually has a victory point: when all the holes are sealed, the game is over -- and the player, America, has won.

Even though Seal-a-Hole is not futile, it nevertheless requires a great deal of patience; there are many, many holes, and each hole has a mole who must be whacked. Some of the holes, such as Sadr City, are very big and will require many mallets to properly seal. But if we have the courage and fortitude of our American forebears, we will seal those holes... and we will win.

On the political front, the White House also seems to have dislodged a major roadblock to victory: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's reluctance to allow U.S. troops to take the fight to Sadr and his militias. Returning American troops have expressed their frustration at having to walk on eggshells when it came to came to entering Shi'ite areas, a backbone of support for the government. Thankfully, the rules of engagement are changing. American troops are now freer to take on all comers, and the results are clear in both Sunni and Shi'ite areas.

In the coming days and weeks, these rules of engagement will face their ultimate test with the decision to enter Sadr City, the Mahdi Army's key stronghold. And enter we must. Those intent on turning Iraq into a breeding ground for al-Qaeda won't be convinced of our seriousness until we confront the key sources of violence on both sides of the sectarian divide.

When things don't go well in Iraq, we see the endless B-roll of chaos and carnage. When things are on the upswing, we tend to hear more about Anna Nicole Smith. The media will never acknowledge victories in Iraq, so we'll have to settle for an absence of bad coverage. But even in this relative lull in Iraq, it's important to understand and appreciate the short-term victories so we can create more of them. And finish the job.

The source is a conservative political analyst. Yet he brings up a lot of interesting points to debate. Interesting take on what's going on in Iraq. It is true that we are hearing less of the "civil war" in Iraq and some news outlets have described a lull in the violence. This surely isn't coincidence. Can there be a victory? I don't know, but I do think that this is a good thing in Iraq. Less violence and more stability is what we need.

[Diamond Cross]

Some would say he's a conservative hack with no credibility and therefore the information is unrteliable.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Some would say he's a conservative hack with no credibility and therefore the information is unrteliable.

People are free to fact-check his points. This is a debate forum...

In a news conference Saturday, a spokesman for the commander of the security plan said attacks had dropped by 80 percent.

and..

Not only official statements say so (Defense ministry officials said today that attacks are down by 80% in Baghdad).

We added men to Iraq and attacks have significantly dropped more than anyone would have imagined. Is that a sign it's working?

Here's some sources:
MercuryNews.com | 02/18/2007 | In Baghdad, Rice urges Iraqis to find consensus
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
People's Daily Online -- Roundup: Twin car bombs kill 10 in Iraq's Kirkuk
Rice urges reconciliation on Baghdad trip - Boston.com

[mididoctors]

way to early to tell

Boris
London

[Scrum]

If that was all that was needed to end this whole debacle, why did he bring those troops home to begin with?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

If that was all that was needed to end this whole debacle, why did he bring those troops home to begin with?

I don't think this is what was needed to end the debacle. But, Iraq is in a different political climate now than it was before. And Bush was responding to the 06 elections, the political climate back home, his approval ratings, etc. I can speculate all day why Bush did what he did in the past.

The reality though is we sent in more troops and in the past week we seem to have seen a radical decrease in violence. So the question is... is this working?

As of now it seems it is... There's no telling what the future will hold though.

[motivez]

Err, no it's not working. Look at the types of attacks that have been happening. Ballz just the other day made a thread about the chlorine truck "WMD" and how their weaponry is becoming more powerful.

Violence continued in Baghdad today, as a bomb in a truck carrying chlorine gas killed at least five people and injured many more, including many women and children poisoned by the gas, police said.

A car bomb near a food market in southeast Baghdad killed 5 and wounded 20. And another car bomb in southeast Baghdad killed 3 and wounded 14, near a gas station hit by a car bomb two weeks ago.

Insurgents have been able to shoot down more helicopters through coordinated assaults, captured documents suggest, and American and Iraqi military officials say they are concerned that militants are moving to areas where the American troop presence remains thin.

Like the previous times we increased troop levels, it's becoming a game of wack-a-mole. Attacks in Baghdad proper may decrease in frequency in the short term, but they'll increase elsewhere that our efforts aren't focused.


In Baghdad, Rice Acknowledges Frustrations in U.S. - washingtonpost.com

Although killings have decreased since the start of the operation in Baghdad three days ago, a double car bombing in the northern city of Kirkuk killed at least 10 people and wounded 60 Saturday in a crowded market. Police reported that a suicide bomber detonated his explosives-laden vehicle moments after a booby-trapped car exploded in a predominantly Kurdish area of the ethnically mixed city....

Her visit came amid a relative lull in violence, which the Iraqi government held up as a promising sign that the new Baghdad security plan is off to a good start. A top U.S. military official sounded a more cautionary note, saying the capital might be experiencing a temporary respite as militant organizations assess the new measures and gear up to fight back.

and:

White House Watch -- News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration - washingtonpost.com

It seems almost inconceivable: The White House actually invites the press corps to hold it accountable -- but when the time comes, and a key benchmark is missed, the press is silent.

And yet that's exactly what has happened.

Back in January, when President Bush announced that in spite of the public opinion against the war in Iraq he was going to send in more troops, he repeatedly insisted that what was different this time was that the Iraqis were finally serious about stepping up.

"You're going to have to -- you're going to have some opportunities to judge very quickly," one senior administration official said at an official background briefing on January 10, a few hours before Bush's prime-time announcement.

"The Iraqis are going to have three brigades within Baghdad within a little more than a month. They have committed to trying to get one brigade in, I think, by the first of February, and two more by the 15th," the official said.

"So people are going to be able to see pretty quickly that the Iraqis are or are not stepping up. And that provides the ability to judge."

But at a Pentagon press conference yesterday, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace acknowledged that only two of those three Iraqi brigades are there: "You've got two of the Iraqi brigades in -- that were going to plussed up in Baghdad in Baghdad now. The third one is moving this month," Pace said.

Other press reports suggest that even those two brigades are not anywhere near full strength.

And action in Baghdad seems thus far to be almost entirely led by Americans, in stark contrast to what was promised.

So, once again while violence may decrease short term, it's not moving Iraq any closer to a political solution because American forces are, once again taking over completely in the absence of the Iraqi desire / ability to stand up and take control and work on a solution.

6 months from now, how does this get us any closer to a political solution (which everyone acknowledges is the ONLY way something is going to change)? It's not. That's the problem with this "plan," it's more of the same.. and the same hasn't been working very well for us now.

[7th Ninjai]

At least 39 people died in a car bomb in Iraq today amoung other killings. I don't understand how anyone can correlate that a few less people died today than a week ago and somehow the surge is working and it's going to be Mission Accomplished for real this time. It won't work long term.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

Err, no it's not working. Look at the types of attacks that have been happening. Ballz just the other day made a thread about the chlorine truck "WMD" and how their weaponry is becoming more powerful.

You change tactics in war for a reason. That reason being the other tactics are not working like they did. How many chlorine trucks do they have anyway?

With that said I am all for caution. There is never any clear victory in a situation like this. That is something the American people have a hard time understanding. But thank God only a small number of Americans get excited over every defeat. And those people on the left do exists despite all the flag waving denials.

[motivez]

The problem, RMNIXON, is that this isn't a change of tactics. This isn't a new strategy.

This is a repeat of a plan that has been tried at least 5 times before and failed every time. This has resulted in a higher level of violence every other time it's been tried, and because we're once again taking over for the Iraqi's instead of giving them more responsibility, this time will fail too.

We do need a change of tactics, and an actual strategy.. but this isn't it.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

The problem, RMNIXON, is that this isn't a change of tactics. This isn't a new strategy.

This is a repeat of a plan that has been tried at least 5 times before and failed every time. This has resulted in a higher level of violence every other time it's been tried, and because we're once again taking over for the Iraqi's instead of giving them more responsibility, this time will fail too.

We do need a change of tactics, and an actual strategy.. but this isn't it.

Actually when I posted change of tactics I meant how the insurgents were responding. In that sense it may be working? But I am not ready to say this is working or not working.

There is not going to be a magical day of "mission acomplished" and violence in Iraq will not stop whenever we leave. That is a reality. The best that can be done is to make sure the elected government can remain in power and that Iraqi's will not be drawn into a real civil war by the insurgency.

[motivez]

Yeah, and never forcing the Iraqi's to take responsibility helps accomplish that how exactly?