No, the surge is not a success.

[Big Dakota]

Defining Victory Downward

No, the surge is not a success.

By Michael Kinsley
Posted Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008, at 2:59 PM ET
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123090/2180712/2183512/080221_RM_iraqsoldiersTN.jpg (http://www.slate.com/id/2184955/)U.S. soldiers in Iraq
Why was President Bush's decision a year ago to send another 30,000 troops to Iraq called the "surge"? I don't know who invented this label, but the word surge evokes images of the sea: a wave that sweeps in, and then sweeps back out again. The second part was crucial. What made the surge different from your ordinary troop deployment was that it was temporary. In fact, the surge was presented as part of a larger plan for troop withdrawal. It was also, implicitly, part of a deal between Bush and the majority of Americans who want out. The deal was: Just let me have a few more soldiers to get Baghdad under control, and then everybody, or almost everybody, can pack up and come home.
In other words: You have to increase the troops in order to reduce them. This is so perverse on its face that it begins to sound zenlike and brilliant, like something out of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. And in Gen. David Petraeus, the administration conjured up its own Sun Tzu, a brilliant military strategist.
It is now widely considered beyond dispute that Bush has won his gamble. The surge is a terrific success. Choose your metric: attacks on American soldiers, car bombs, civilian deaths, potholes. They're all down, down, down. Lattes sold by street vendors are up. Performances of Shakespeare by local repertory companies have tripled. Skepticism seems like sour grapes. If you opposed the surge, you have two choices. One is to admit that you were wrong, wrong, wrong. The other is to sound as if you resent all the good news and remain eager for disaster. Too many opponents of the war have chosen option No. 2.

But we needn't quarrel about all this, or deny the reality of the good news, to say that the surge has not worked yet. The test is simple, and built into the concept of a surge: Has it allowed us to reduce troop levels to below where they were when it started? The answer is no.
In fact, President Bush laid down the standard of success when he announced the surge more than a year ago: "If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home." At the time, there were about 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Bush proposed to add up to 20,000 more troops. Although Bush never made any official promises about a timetable, the surge was generally described as lasting six to eight months.
By last summer, the surge had actually added closer to 30,000 troops, making the total American troop count about 160,000. Today, there are still more than 150,000 American troops in Iraq. The official plan has been to get that number back down to 130,000 by July and then to keep going so that there would be about 100,000 American troops in Iraq by the time Bush leaves office. Lately, though, Gen. Petraeus has come up with another zenlike idea: He calls it a "pause (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003951_pf.html)." And the administration has signed on, meaning that the total number of American troops in Iraq will remain at 130,000 for an undetermined period.
So, the best that we can hope for, in terms of American troops risking their lives in Iraq, is that there will be just as many next July—and probably next January, when time runs out—as there were a year ago. The surge will have surged in and surged out, leaving us back where we started. Maybe the situation in Baghdad, or the whole country, will have improved. But apparently it won't have improved enough to risk an actual reduction in the American troop commitment.
And consider how modest the administration's standard of success has become. Can there be any doubt that they would go for a reduction to 100,000 troops—and claim victory—if they had any confidence at all that the gains they brag about would hold at that level of support? The proper comparison isn't to the situation a year ago. It's to the situation before we got there. Imagine that you had been told in 2003 that when George W. Bush finished his second term, dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis would be dying violently every month; that a major American goal would be getting the Iraqi government to temper its "de-Baathification" campaign so that Saddam Hussein's former henchmen could start running things again (because they know how); and "only" 100,000 American troops would be needed to sustain this equilibrium. You might have several words to describe this situation, but success would not be one of them.

[Danny White]

Kinsley is basing his analysis on one factor and one factor alone:

The test is simple, and built into the concept of a surge: Has it allowed us to reduce troop levels to below where they were when it started? The answer is no.

Is that really what we're basing success on? How quickly our troops are withdrawn? I guess for Kinsley and his ilk, that's all that matters.

Honestly, I'm not wild about the whole democracy building exercise that this administration is engaging in, myself.

But I think it's silly to say the surge is failing when your only criteria for judging it is troop withdrawal. By most other objective evaluations, the surge has been a modest success.

He's basically saying "the surge isn't working because what I want to happen isn't happening."

[zrinkill]

Is that really what we're basing success on? How quickly our troops are withdrawn?

Wow ..... we must not have been Victorious in Germany or Japan .... we had troops in both those places 50 years after the war.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Wow ..... we must not have been Victorious in Germany or Japan .... we had troops in both those places 50 years after the war.

Yes but they were not actively fighting in the streets.:cool:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Kinsley is basing his analysis on one factor and one factor alone:



Is that really what we're basing success on? How quickly our troops are withdrawn? I guess for Kinsley and his ilk, that's all that matters.

Honestly, I'm not wild about the whole democracy building exercise that this administration is engaging in, myself.

But I think it's silly to say the surge is failing when your only criteria for judging it is troop withdrawal. By most other objective evaluations, the surge has been a modest success.

He's basically saying "the surge isn't working because what I want to happen isn't happening."

You could also judge it by having the Iraqi Government and Military doing their jobs and taken over without needing our help as much. I think they get a big F for that but that is not our troops fault at all.

That it what irks me about the situation. We put our soldiers lives at risk waiting for these guys to get their act together. Sooner or later we will have to say stand up on your own or we will let you fall down on your own.

[Vintage]

Wow ..... we must not have been Victorious in Germany or Japan .... we had troops in both those places 50 years after the war.

Or Korea, although, technically, that is still an ongoing conflict, so perhaps we shouldn't consider that a victory.


However, remaining in Japan.... it would be nice if some of our troops would, you know, stop raping Japanese women over there.

[zrinkill]

However, remaining in Japan.... it would be nice if some of our troops would, you know, stop raping Japanese women over there.

You think all our troops Rape women over there? You do not think this is a case of one guy being a piece of crap (if he did it)?

Wow ..... love your opinion of the men who keep you free.

[zrinkill]

Yes but they were not actively fighting in the streets.:cool:

You do not think there was attacks on our military 5 years after WW2 in Japan and Germany?

Well they did not have internet and instant news back then. :cool:

[Danny White]

You could also judge it by having the Iraqi Government and Military doing their jobs and taken over without needing our help as much. I think they get a big F for that but that is not our troops fault at all.

That it what irks me about the situation. We put our soldiers lives at risk waiting for these guys to get their act together. Sooner or later we will have to say stand up on your own or we will let you fall down on your own.

I agree with you on that 100%.

I think we either shamefully underestimated transition times, or didn't have a fully-baked transition plan to begin with.

I don't know where exactly the blame lies for this. Some certainly with the administration, certainly some with Iraqis who convinced our brain trust that once Saddam was gone the new government would fall into place. And probably some blame with the American people who tend to lose interest in a cause and grow impatient when everything doesn't work out perfectly.

I, too, am weary of this whole thing. But at this point in the operation, I don't think it's wise to withdraw simply for withdrawal's sake as Kinsley, Obama and others suggest.

[Vintage]

You think all our troops Rape women over there? You do not think this is a case of one guy being a piece of crap (if he did it)?

Wow ..... love your opinion of the men who keep you free.

I said some. Re-read. Some does not equal all.

And my point of that is, keeping troops abroad, does also have negative consequences. As seen with us keeping troops in Japan...

[Vintage]

You do not think there was attacks on our military 5 years after WW2 in Japan and Germany?

Well they did not have internet and instant news back then. :cool:


Yeah, they still had to "fight" Nazis. There were some still some holed up, fighting/attacking US soldiers over there after the war had already been won.

[NewJCowboy]

I think we should send all the people who support this war to Iraq and let them fight.

[iceberg]

Yes but they were not actively fighting in the streets.:cool:

then the question becomes, how many years were they fighting in the streets and was it easier and less time consuming to fight a war where people played more or less by the rules and the enemy was kind enough to wear a uniform and be an obvious enemy vs. not knowing who the enemy is?

yes, i'm tired and frustrated also and do believe that clear goals need to be set for succes or spelled out for failure and get a move on. if iraq wants to stand up, stand up. if not, let them do what they will and at least they'll focus on that for a decade or so while we wean from oil and remove the mid-east power by doing so.

[zrinkill]

I think we should send all the people who support this war to Iraq and let them fight.

I was in Somalia and Kuwait

Where did you serve your Country at?

[iceberg]

I said some. Re-read. Some does not equal all.

And my point of that is, keeping troops abroad, does also have negative consequences. As seen with us keeping troops in Japan...

to be honest, in the roman times it was necessary to keep troops abroad.

why do we do it now? having a base in the phillipenes does what? japan? elsewhere? if no one was there, how less secure would we be?

[NewJCowboy]

I was in Somalia and Kuwait

Where did you serve your Country at?


I served in Saudi Arabia as apart of Operation Southern Watch in the mid 90's. I served 4 years in the Air Force and an additional 2 years in the reserves.

All of you guys that support this "war" need to go to Iraq and fight.

[sacase]

I think we should send all the people who support this war to Iraq and let them fight.

Been there, done that, will probably go back there again, have you?

[zrinkill]

I served in Saudi Arabia as apart of Operation Southern Watch in the mid 90's. I served 4 years in the Air Force and an additional 2 years in the reserves.

All of you guys that support this "war" need to go to Iraq and fight.

I would never tell a Veteran that he needs to go back ..... but then again I have actually been in battle.

[sacase]

I was in Somalia and Kuwait

Where did you serve your Country at?

10th mountain or Rangers Batt?

[NewJCowboy]

I would never tell a Veteran that he needs to go back ..... but then again I have actually been in battle.


Why wouldn't you tell a veteran to go back? Isn't that what they're doing now? Aren't a lot of our troops on their 4th and 5th tours in Iraq?

[zrinkill]

Why wouldn't you tell a veteran to go back? Isn't that what they're doing now? Aren't a lot of our troops on their 4th and 5th tours in Iraq?

By choice yes.

But hey at least you are safe huh?

[rbr651]

Why wouldn't you tell a veteran to go back? Isn't that what they're doing now? Aren't a lot of our troops on their 4th and 5th tours in Iraq?

No one forces anyone into the military, I'm deployed right now and have no one to blame but myself if I wanted to feel sorry for myself. Also Saudi was a joke, that was no deployment, neither was flying southern watch. Why would anyone in their right mind feel sorry for the military member? This is what we do. Why sit in the states and practice? Talking about the "poor soldiers" is a tactic that the liberals use. They couldn't care less about the soldiers, all they want to do is gain sympathy from the old mother and father living in the midwest somewhere.

[sacase]

By choice yes.

But hey at least you are safe huh?


Yeah you know the Air Force, for them going on deployment is being sent to a 3 star hotel with Air conditioning, cable and hot food for three meals.

(Always up for bashing the Army Air Corp):laugh2:

[Jon88]

Plans change. Most of the surge troops or the number of troops have been cut back since the surge. Too bad it wasn't exactly perfect.

The sectarian violence has slowed. Al Qaeda has proven to be the biggest probelem, and they're being crippled. Give it some time. We have to get them out of there.

[rbr651]

Yeah you know the Air Force, for them going on deployment is being sent to a 3 star hotel with Air conditioning, cable and hot food for three meals.

(Always up for bashing the Army Air Corp):laugh2:

Don't bash too hard, as of 2001 we are pulling true deployments, alongside Soldiers and Marines.

[sacase]

Why wouldn't you tell a veteran to go back? Isn't that what they're doing now? Aren't a lot of our troops on their 4th and 5th tours in Iraq?

Maybe because a lot of guys are seeing a lot of combat. Meaning they don't sit in saudi far from the front lines. They are kicking in doors, getting sniped and having road side bombs going off around them on a weekly, if not daily basis. Look up COIN and MOUNT then perhaps you will begin to understand.

[zrinkill]

Don't bash too hard, as of 2001 we are pulling true deployments, alongside Soldiers and Marines.

He was just ribbing you buddy ..... There was a few times in my life that I was as happy to see you birds swooping in, as I was to see my own mother.

[Jon88]

I served in Saudi Arabia as apart of Operation Southern Watch in the mid 90's. I served 4 years in the Air Force and an additional 2 years in the reserves.

All of you guys that support this "war" need to go to Iraq and fight.


Millions of people support the war. That's a great idea. Then what happens here in the US when they're all in Iraq?

[ConcordCowboy]

Yeah you know the Air Force, for them going on deployment is being sent to a 3 star hotel with Air conditioning, cable and hot food for three meals.

(Always up for bashing the Army Air Corp):laugh2:

Hey don't start Swiftboating the guy...:D :p:

[sacase]

Don't bash too hard, as of 2001 we are pulling true deployments, alongside Soldiers and Marines.

LOL actually I had the oppertunity to work with some Forward Air Controllers and some PJ's. Good guys who knew their stuff.

So no more AC, the hot meals and you have to live in tents?

[BrAinPaiNt]

You do not think there was attacks on our military 5 years after WW2 in Japan and Germany?

Well they did not have internet and instant news back then. :cool:

You are going to compare Iraq to that with a serious face?

[ConcordCowboy]

You are going to compare Iraq to that with a serious face?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/408672209_ac22849c30.jpg...Why?

[zrinkill]

You are going to compare Iraq to that with a serious face?

How is that any more silly than Comparing Iraq and Vietnam? Yet I see it all the time.

[zrinkill]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/408672209_ac22849c30.jpg

:lmao2:

[Jon88]

How is that any more silly than Comparing Iraq and Vietnam? Yet I see it all the time.


It's called Iraq-Nam. Somehow, they too fight us in jungles and sneak up on us with karate moves.

They plant roadside bombs and hide behind women and children.

[NewJCowboy]

No one forces anyone into the military, I'm deployed right now and have no one to blame but myself if I wanted to feel sorry for myself. Also Saudi was a joke, that was no deployment, neither was flying southern watch. Why would anyone in their right mind feel sorry for the military member? This is what we do. Why sit in the states and practice? Talking about the "poor soldiers" is a tactic that the liberals use. They couldn't care less about the soldiers, all they want to do is gain sympathy from the old mother and father living in the midwest somewhere.

Of course no one forces anyone into the military. But a lot of people join the military because they don't have too many other alternatives. They see it as an opportunity to get an education and job skills. That is why many in my family have joined and some are in Iraq now. I graduated with a B.S. degree 1991 and I could not find a job, so I had to join.

Saudi was joke!? LOL!!! Thank goodness it was. I only mentioned it because I was asked if I served. I wasn't trying to tout it as some badge of honor.

Anyway, if you are in Iraq right now, you do have someone else to blame! If you are fighting in the real and some what forgotten war in Afghanistan, you will find that most so-called "liberals" support going after the people who attacked us! The so-called "liberals" are against invading a country that did no harm to the US. :thumbup:

[ConcordCowboy]

:lmao2:

You know just to break the tension. :p:

[NewJCowboy]

Been there, done that, will probably go back there again, have you?

Congratulations! No I haven't been there. Hopefully, you won't have to go back!

[NewJCowboy]

By choice yes.

But hey at least you are safe huh?


Are you saying that the troops are doing mulitple tours in Iraq by choice?


I'm about as safe as I was prior to invading Iraq.

[big dog cowboy]

You could also judge it by having the Iraqi Government and Military doing their jobs and taken over without needing our help as much. I think they get a big F for that but that is not our troops fault at all.

That it what irks me about the situation. We put our soldiers lives at risk waiting for these guys to get their act together. Sooner or later we will have to say stand up on your own or we will let you fall down on your own.
Stop making so much sense.

[Jon88]

"You could also judge it by having the Iraqi Government and Military doing their jobs and taken over without needing our help as much. I think they get a big F for that but that is not our troops fault at all.

That it what irks me about the situation. We put our soldiers lives at risk waiting for these guys to get their act together. Sooner or later we will have to say stand up on your own or we will let you fall down on your own."

I agree with that. They're acting like a bunch of welfare recipients who've been in the system for 8 years. Once we get Al Qaeda out of there, our arch enemy who is extremely dangerous, I say we leave.

[NewJCowboy]

Maybe because a lot of guys are seeing a lot of combat. Meaning they don't sit in saudi far from the front lines. They are kicking in doors, getting sniped and having road side bombs going off around them on a weekly, if not daily basis. Look up COIN and MOUNT then perhaps you will begin to understand.


I know all too well about what is happening to our troops. I pray everyday that nothing happens to my family members, any of our troops or the innocent people of Iraq.

[ConcordCowboy]

Anyway, if you are in Iraq right now, you do have someone else to blame! If you are fighting in the real and some what forgotten war in Afghanistan, you will find that most so-called "liberals" support going after the people who attacked us! The so-called "liberals" are against invading a country that did no harm to the US. :thumbup:

Who's in Afghanistan that attacked us?

Oh..you mean bin-Laden...the man responsible for 9/11.

Didn't you know...he's been marginalized...he's not a priority...it's bigger than him...what can he do in a cave...he's dragging a dialysis machine around...it's pretty hard looking for him in the mountains because he has all kinds of friends there protecting him...no need to make it a priority to go after the man who actually caused 9/11 to happen...

Silly boy!

[rbr651]

Of course no one forces anyone into the military. But a lot of people join the military because they don't have too many other alternatives. They see it as an opportunity to get an education and job skills. That is why many in my family have joined and some are in Iraq now. I graduated with a B.S. degree 1991 and I could not find a job, so I had to join.

Saudi was joke!? LOL!!! Thank goodness it was. I only mentioned it because I was asked if I served. I wasn't trying to tout it as some badge of honor.

Anyway, if you are in Iraq right now, you do have someone else to blame! If you are fighting in the real and some what forgotten war in Afghanistan, you will find that most so-called "liberals" support going after the people who attacked us! The so-called "liberals" are against invading a country that did no harm to the US. :thumbup:

Well my friend that education doesn't come free, everyone knows that if you join your first responsiblity is to go kill people in far off lands. I will agree that some youth are nieve enough to believe this might not happen, but that's on them. It is never someones only option. There are plenty of ways to get through school. Anyone that believes that there werent terrorists in Iraq prior to 2001 is sorely mistaken, and I'm sure there is nothing I can say or do that will change their mind. When we went into this we weren't told that we were going to ONLY go get the guys responsible for the towers. We WERE told that we would be fighting terrorist where ever they might be. Guess what they are in Iraq. And just becuase you don't see us on the news in other places of interest doesn't mean we don't have a hand in hunting these people in other countries. The American public will never know the entire story and rightfully so.

[jrumann59]

Millions of people support the war. That's a great idea. Then what happens here in the US when they're all in Iraq?

Technically the only part of the military allowed to act as an arm of the gov't is the National guard and they are paid by their states. IIRC the constitution prohibits the US military, excluding national guard, to be used as a military on US soil unless the Emergency War Powers have been granted. If the Emergency War Powers have been granted something really f'ing bad happened in the country and pretty much most of you Constitutional rights get suspended for a I think 60 or 90 days when the president has to go before congress again and have them grant him Emergency War Powers again.

[jrumann59]

Well my friend that education doesn't come free, everyone knows that if you join your first responsiblity is to go kill people in far off lands. I will agree that some youth are nieve enough to believe this might not happen, but that's on them. It is never someones only option. There are plenty of ways to get through school. Anyone that believes that there werent terrorists in Iraq prior to 2001 is sorely mistaken, and I'm sure there is nothing I can say or do that will change their mind. When we went into this we weren't told that we were going to ONLY go get the guys responsible for the towers. We WERE told that we would be fighting terrorist where ever they might be. Guess what they are in Iraq. And just becuase you don't see us on the news in other places of interest doesn't mean we don't have a hand in hunting these people in other countries. The American public will never know the entire story and rightfully so.

My wife gives me very general details that her clearance prohibits anything more specific but the media over here does want you guys to fail even FOX, who is run by Murdoch who is contributing to the Clintonistas, for every bad thing the media sensationalizes they disregard and ignore at least 10 good things. I wish to thank all those over there for their service and if wasn't for the RIFs at the end of Billy's administration I would probably be there but in 97 when I re-injured my shoulder they were looking for reasons to throw guys out on their butt.

[Cajuncowboy]

Wait, there's less violence and fewer Americnas are getting killed but the surge isn't working because this dopes idea of working is how fast we can get out?

OMG, these people are some of the stupidest people on the planet.

[Doomsday101]

Yes but they were not actively fighting in the streets.:cool:

When John McCain has talked of Troops being there for many years he is not talking about fighting in the streets. By most accounts from many who have gone to Iraq since the surge they do see improvement. Some complain the improvements are not enough but things have moved into the right direction and slowly even the Iraq Government is starting to work together on reconciliation agreements.

[BrAinPaiNt]

When John McCain has talked of Troops being there for many years he is not talking about fighting in the streets. By most accounts from many who have gone to Iraq since the surge they do see improvement. Some complain the improvements are not enough but things have moved into the right direction and slowly even the Iraq Government is starting to work together on reconciliation agreements.

Of course they want bases there. However there will probably always be fighting there when you are considering the extremist religious enemy.

Another thing...I seen recently where McCain has basically taken back his "100 years" quote and changed it up a little. Smart move on his part.

[Doomsday101]

Of course they want bases there. However there will probably always be fighting there when you are considering the extremist religious enemy.

Another thing...I seen recently where McCain has basically taken back his "100 years" quote and changed it up a little. Smart move on his part.

He has asserted that his comments are being taken out of context. 1st off the Iraq Government would have to agree on any such base and as for extremist don't forget we have people in Kuwait and it is important to have a presences in this volatile region, we can't allow the extremist to dictate to the US or allies in that region so just because they don't like it should not change anything.

[theogt]

The test is simple, and built into the concept of a surge: Has it allowed us to reduce troop levels to below where they were when it started? The answer is no.That's a pretty narrow definition of success.