Celebrating "success" in Iraq is so silly

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

We are witnessing "Mission Accomplished" part 2, only this time it may be calculated to be politically helpful.

No one can be surprised that adding more troops has helped quell violence. Sure, it wasn't guaranteed, but that it happened isn't surprising either. But here's the real question that determines success or failure-- What happens AFTER the troops leave?

The US has been playing whack-a-mole in Iraq for several years now, and we all know insurgents have an amazing ability to retreat and regroup once the troops leave. For the Right to act like things are finally wrapping up in their favor is retarded. The most likely scenario is that as soon as the US troops leave, the chaos starts again.

Even so, it doesn't matter. The surge of troops will likely stay in place until the '08 election, which means the Republicans can accuse the Democrats of being wrong, claim victory, and then allow the shit to hit the fan after they've gotten through the election.

But seriously, politics aside, Republicans cannot possibly this stupid to think a short term downswing in deaths after an increase in troops indicates long term success.

[DosEquis]

Yep. The only people who can fix Iraq are the Iraqi's. We "surge" and their government takes an extended vacation.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

No one can be surprised that adding more troops has helped quell violence. Sure, it wasn't guaranteed, but that it happened isn't surprising either. But here's the real question that determines success or failure-- What happens AFTER the troops leave?

Of course people are "surprised." Many people on this forum felt that adding more troops would increase violence because "they" want us over there. The more troops we add the more will we give them to fight.

When I first started saying we were making military progress in Iraq half the forum attacked me and the notion with ridicule. They swore up and down that I was wrong, my sources were "biased" and such an unconceivable thing wasn't happening.

The reality is that it is happening, and with military success comes the foundations for political gains. The Democrats want to pull out now with no regard to what happens next and with no regard to any progress that is being made. Republicans want to wait it out and see, which has been their policy all along, even if things are going poorly so one can assume they want to stay indefinitely much like Korea. This is also the driving question which leads Republicans to say Democrats are voting for failure. They feel the Democrats are trying to pull us out of Iraq while things are on the upturn and trying to force failure.

So yes, success will ultimately be measured by the final result. The real question is how much effort are we willing to put into it in order to have a positive result and if we give up and leave.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Of course people are "surprised." Many people on this forum felt that adding more troops would increase violence because "they" want us over there. The more troops we add the more will we give them to fight.

Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll agree with you. That the surge worked was surprising. But even with the surge working, who cares?! It has no impact on the ultimate success in Iraq, if we define success in Iraq as being able to withdraw US troops, and Iraqi troops take over. If anything, it's evidence that we'll fail because Iraqi troops proved themselves completely incapable of providing for their own security, and the only thing that has managed to quell the insurgency is increasing numbers of US troops.

All the surge working proves is that we'll need to occupy Iraq and waste trillions in perpetuity to keep the country from merely not falling apart, forget about actually becoming a successful beacon of democracy.

The Right wants to use this temporary downswing in violence to accuse the ddemocrats of playing politics and being wrong. But premature declaration of victory part 2 is an even worse example of playing politics-- at least a perhaps exaggerated pessimism by democrats addresses the real problems we will face in Iraq going forward. An exaggerated optimism by republicans, ground hog day style, says nothing of addressing wtf we'll do when the troops leave. It's simply more burying their heads in the sand.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Also, everyone keeps talking about the political liability for democrats for being pessimistic about the war. But does no one else see a huge potential liability in Republicans making a big talking point of-- "See! The Democrats were wrong! Things are finally improving in Iraq"?

Part of what got America so jaded with Republicans in the first place was their incessant Baghdad Bob false declarations of victory. Now, after a short downswing in violence after years of shit, they're declaring victory again?

If you ask me, there's equal liability on both sides now. If the Republicans were smart, they'd shut up and let this thing play out until '08. That way, if things turned out well, they could hammer democrats late and reap the rewards. By (possibly) jumping the gun once again, they're setting themselves up for more accusations of "mission accomplished."

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll agree with you. That the surge worked was surprising. But even with the surge working, who cares?! It has no impact on the ultimate success in Iraq, if we define success in Iraq as being able to withdraw US troops, and Iraqi troops take over. If anything, it's evidence that we'll fail because Iraqi troops proved themselves completely incapable of providing for their own security, and the only thing that has managed to quell the insurgency is increasing numbers of US troops.

The surge working does have an impact. As was pointed out previously and what adds to the "surprised" factor for many people is that previous surges didn't work. That was used as evidence that this surge didn't work and couldn't/wouldn't work as well. But as we've seen, or been forced to see against our will, the surge has worked. You can't have political progress unless the country itself is stable. It would be niave to think the nation could better itself politically without a large progress in the the overall stability. With enough time and with enough progress, it could be possible to train the Iraqis to sustain Iraq.

All the surge working proves is that we'll need to occupy Iraq and waste trillions in perpetuity to keep the country from merely not falling apart, forget about actually becoming a successful beacon of democracy.

Well that's the notion that Iraq will always be a failure no matter what. That's an opinion and one I think most Democrats in Congress believe which is why they don't want to sacrifice anymore.

The Right wants to use this temporary downswing in violence to accuse the ddemocrats of playing politics and being wrong. But premature declaration of victory part 2 is an even worse example of playing politics-- at least a perhaps exaggerated pessimism by democrats addresses the real problems we will face in Iraq going forward. An exaggerated optimism by republicans, ground hog day style, says nothing of addressing wtf we'll do when the troops leave. It's simply more burying their heads in the sand.

Both sides are equally niave I think.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The surge working does have an impact. As was pointed out previously and what adds to the "surprised" factor for many people is that previous surges didn't work. That was used as evidence that this surge didn't work and couldn't/wouldn't work as well. But as we've seen, or been forced to see against our will, the surge has worked. You can't have political progress unless the country itself is stable. It would be niave to think the nation could better itself politically without a large progress in the the overall stability. With enough time and with enough progress, it could be possible to train the Iraqis to sustain Iraq.

I don't agree that short term military success from a surge has any bearing on the long-term political outlook. I think the political problems are a symptom of the same root causes of the insurgency. The two are inextricably tied together. And even if you argue that the insurgents are a fringe minority, they're perfectly capable of causing enough chaos to bring down a stable democracy for the rest of Iraq once the US troops leave...stirring up mass tit-for-tat sectarian violence is too easy there. As a result, I don't think political stability there is possible without self-sustaining security there. And self sustaining security is a distant fantasy so long as it's American troops are controlling violence.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I don't agree that short term military success from a surge has any bearing on the long-term political outlook.

This isn't short term. It's been getting better for a while now.

[motivez]

The surge has been a failure, since its stated goal was to give room to the Iraqi parliament to pass important legislation that would begin the process to allow our troops to come home

Have they accomplished that? Of course not.

As far as violence and deaths being down, well thankfully, of course they have.

If you ignore the fact that Sadr, who's militia has been responsible for a great portion of the attacks and deaths, called a 6 month truce with the Badr Brigade (a rival Shi'ite faction), you might think that the surge has had something to do with it.

Probably most of the people who have claimed the surge is a success didn't even know about this little tidbit, which is why it's been absent from all of their rehashed and simplified analysis. You certainly haven't seen it reported on TV, because it's a complicated issue that can't fit into a our standard 15 second soundbyte politics.

But in reality, it's two Shi'ite factions standing down to avoid a conflict between Shi'ites that threatened to fraction the country on an even larger scale that has caused the downturn.

If it keeps up, it has a better chance of doing more to end the obscene levels of violence than anything else we've done in Iraq since the start of the war, since Al Sadr and the guy who leads the Badr Brigade have essentially been in control of the Iraqi Shi'ite militias, which in turn have really been running the country.

Here's a great article from a guy from Syria (who I'm sure some will spend their time trying to attack instead of having to deal with the information) at the Asia Times for anyone who's really interested in understanding why violence is down instead of keeping their heads in the sand and wishing it was because of some US military success: Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - At last, some good news from Iraq

[JaJae]

I believe I made a thread about the truce. It really is a fascinating thing. However, it doesn't account for the fact that before the truce murders in Baghdad were down 70%, attacks were down 80%. Much of Iraq was seeing a downfall in violence.

It didn't take long before the surge drove Shia militant leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr to flee into Iran. With the organizations in disarray and seeing minimal results, they decided to call a truce out of frustration and as a means to regroup their networks. They still haven't been able to regroup. In many ways this is the product of the surge.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I believe I made a thread about the truce. It really is a fascinating thing. However, it doesn't account for the fact that before the truce murders in Baghdad were down 70%, attacks were down 80%. Much of Iraq was seeing a downfall in violence.

It didn't take long before the surge drove Shia militant leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr to flee into Iran. With the organizations in disarray and seeing minimal results, they decided to call a truce out of frustration and as a means to regroup their networks. They still haven't been able to regroup. In many ways this is the product of the surge.

So is there any reason to think that the surge is not only temporarily quelling violence, but permanently impairing insurgents' ability to regroup and/or somehow making it less likely that violence will worsen in the future?

Are the Iraqi troops, for example, seriously increasing their ability and numbers in the meantime? Are there any real political solutions being reached? If the answer is no, then why are people getting all excited about plugging a leak with a slightly larger piece of chewing gum?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So is there any reason to think that the surge is not only temporarily quelling violence, but permanently impairing insurgents' ability to regroup and/or somehow making it less likely that violence will worsen in the future?

Are the Iraqi troops, for example, seriously increasing their ability and numbers in the meantime? Are there any real political solutions being reached? If the answer is no, then why are people getting all excited about plugging a leak with a slightly larger piece of chewing gum?

The Iraqi security forces are up to roughly 350k strong and they are now leading the efforts in many areas with US forces backing them up. The shift has been going well with a decrease in violence and less lives lost.

Politically, still down the tubes.

And it's not plugging a leak with chewing gum. That's not a good analogy, or perhaps I don't understand what you're getting at. Also keep in mind the Shieks and militant leaders are also businessmen and they're growing tired of the fighting and the loss of their business. The American will to fight is dying, but in many ways so is theirs.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I believe I made a thread about the truce. It really is a fascinating thing. However, it doesn't account for the fact that before the truce murders in Baghdad were down 70%, attacks were down 80%. Much of Iraq was seeing a downfall in violence.

It didn't take long before the surge drove Shia militant leaders like Moqtada al-Sadr to flee into Iran. With the organizations in disarray and seeing minimal results, they decided to call a truce out of frustration and as a means to regroup their networks. They still haven't been able to regroup. In many ways this is the product of the surge.

I am really suprised at the level of denial in this thread. A good case can be made that political progress is slow and weak, that the long term stability is not clear. There is not much room to celebrate the current state of the Iraq government. But don't miss the political change in the streets. The cooperation of hostile groups in defeat of insurgents and Al Qaeda is also politcal progress, not just less violence. The simple realization that the people promoting violence have nothing to offer but more of the same.

But to retreat into tired cliche's about "wack a mole" when we have plugged up the holes faster than expected is just less than clever talking points. And the whole notion that all will spill into a massive bloodbath and Civil War the minute we pull back is a rather dismal outlook. If it is so certain I would like to see more than opinion as to why? I need more than grasping at possible outcomes when the progress in Iraq is factual and clear in spite of all the repeated denials that a "military Surge" could work. Redefine your definitions and terms if you will, but you cannot get around that. Our men and women in uniform have done good work. I am not afraid to say I am proud of that!

[SVTman]

may i put in that you can now walk down the streets in downtown bagdad really worring about getting blown up. i have a freind i work with that just came back and they went out into the city every weekend and had fun going to the shops and resturants without have to worry about being killed. just thought you would like to hear it.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by SVTman

may i put in that you can now walk down the streets in downtown bagdad really worring about getting blown up. i have a freind i work with that just came back and they went out into the city every weekend and had fun going to the shops and resturants without have to worry about being killed. just thought you would like to hear it.

I can buy that security has been increased with more soldiers being there. However, I refuse to believe you can just wander about downtown baghdad with no fear of being fired upon or driving up on an IED. This has still been the most deadly year for our soldiers and there has been no real political progress. We have won everything we can militarily.

If what you say is truly the case, and goes beyond a few anecdotal stories, I would think that would further the justification to remove our soldiers from this occupation.

[Joe_Cool]

I love how the liberal spin has so smoothly glided from "it won't work! It can't ever work!" to making excuses to explain how the decrease in violence was either totally expected or else due to other causes.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I love how the liberal spin has so smoothly glided from "it won't work! It can't ever work!" to making excuses to explain how the decrease in violence was either totally expected or else due to other causes.

Because everything in Iraq is happening in a vacuum where only our actions have an impact.

[SVTman]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I can buy that security has been increased with more soldiers being there. However, I refuse to believe you can just wander about downtown baghdad with no fear of being fired upon or driving up on an IED. This has still been the most deadly year for our soldiers and there has been no real political progress. We have won everything we can militarily.

If what you say is truly the case, and goes beyond a few anecdotal stories, I would think that would further the justification to remove our soldiers from this occupation.

you are right when you say that it would mean that we should leave but it is still the precence of our forces that have brought this peace if you take them away it will all fall apart. i say that we stay there until the Iraqis have a large force capable of taking care of there own. don't get me wrong they are nearly there with an army of about 350,000 men at arms now.