The surge is working?

[sunken]

There has been a lot of positive talk lately of how well the surge is working. All the neocons are gloating at how Bush's strategy was correct, but is it really? Sure, if you put enough soldiers somewhere, there is going to be less violence. Just as a convenience store isn't going to get robbed with four cop cars in the parking lot. The question is will that translate into stability when those troops have to leave? That is what will define whether we have won anything or not. What do you think?

[bizwiz]

Well there is no denying that the violence has somewhat subsided in Iraq these days. But there still has to be a concrete plan in place for the Iraqis to manage themselves so we can bring or troops home.

[Taopoet]

But is an American plan for peace going to translate into an Iraqi plan for its own peace? I'm reminded of the PAX ROMANUS. The Roman Empire famously brought peace to the nations it conquered. How? By conquering them: If only you'll believe in us and do what we say (and we'll feed you to the lions if you don't, by the way), the world will be a peaceful place.

I came across a horrific site recently called Religion of Peace (.com). Horrific. It went on and on about how Islamic people create "peace" and "harmony" by shackling their women and beating their children. It was filled with horrible images of public beatings and familial humiliation, and its point seemed to be that anyone can create "peace" through domination, but that doesn't make it Peace. ... And then it went on to say that the US is right and good and just to fill Iraq with soldiers armed to the teeth with weapons that will bring a lasting peace to Iraq.

Yeah, the surge is working. Yeah. Uh huh. Because we can create peace through domination.

[sunken]

Actually it was Saddam who was ruling based on the peace through domination theory. In order to keep the opposing group in line, he would torture and kill people and made sure that everyone knew what fate would become them if they disobeyed.

America is like a gatekeeper between two warring factions that have hated eachother for thousands of years. As long as they can remain in the middle, there will be relative peace. However, America can't afford to leave that gate up forever and it would seem that once it's gone, the peace would end. I have yet to see anything that indicates that this would not be the case. Unfortunately, whether it's now or five years from now, the civil war will happen and someone like Saddam will most likely rise back to power after a coup of the government. The only other way is for people to forget their entire heritage and religion and see things eye to eye. Don't hold your breath.

[SeekingClarity]

Is there agreement on what the question means? In particular, what do we mean by "working".

If violence has decreased in the target area, does that mean the surge is working? A decrease in violence is surely key to what we mean by "working" here.

But even the military leaders have said that no military solution is possible in Iraq. My understanding was that the point of the surge was to reduce violence *so that* political progress toward peace could be made and to some significant degree cemented in place as something to build on going forward.

Has violence decreased? Statistics, to the degree that they are credible, can answer this part of the question. Has there been political progress during the surge? Less factionalism? Sturdy alliances formed? Good, enforceable laws passed? Reduction in corruption? I'm not sure what the main indicators of political progress would be, nor do I have good information about progress in areas like these.

If another poster can provide clear evidence of political progress during the surge--or a lack thereof--then I think we make progress toward deciding whether the surge is working.

My own suspicion is that some insurgents will have simply pulled back or retargetted their efforts. But even if this is true, enough political progress during the surge could make if difficult or impossible to re-engage in areas they may have intended to leave only temporarily.

Can anyone provide evidence of sustainable political progress happening in Iraq as a result of the surge/

[Easy Does It]

sunken Wrote:There has been a lot of positive talk lately of how well the surge is working. All the neocons are gloating at how Bush's strategy was correct, but is it really? Sure, if you put enough soldiers somewhere, there is going to be less violence. Just as a convenience store isn't going to get robbed with four cop cars in the parking lot. The question is will that translate into stability when those troops have to leave? That is what will define whether we have won anything or not. What do you think?

Working to accomplish what? The official mission of going into Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people from Sadaam Hussein, which happened within a month of the moment we crossed the Kuwaiti border. Let us not get deceived into thinking somehow it is possible to "stabilize" a country that has had a recent governmental overhaul in anything less than fifty years (e.g. Japan, India, et al).

Violence has decreased since the surge began, but keep in mind that our government is literally paying for it! Iraqis are being paid up to $2500 each by our government to reopen their shops as a show of stability. Militia leaders have been paid off to keep the peace. Our increased troop presence is doing little more than to fatten up the War Industry.

Dick Cheney shoe-horned this war upon us (PBS has an interesting documentary ironically called "Bush's War" that is quite clear on this: http://www.pbs.org). He also has deep ties to the military industry - the only people who benefit from war.

It is my belief that the true mission of the Iraq War is and has always been to establish a permanent US military presence in the Middle East - something that would nearly guarantee an ongoing military buildup without any end in sight.

If I am right, then the surge has been a great success.

Point of note: I fought during the initial offensive as a Rifle Team Leader with the US Marines, and looking back on that time, I can clearly see that we were being prepped to go into Iraq for at least two years before the war began! They made the decision to go to war BEFORE they had the mandate of the people or Congress then sold it to us like a subprime mortgage.

  070711-war.gif (Size: 5.17 KB / Downloads: 0)

[JonUK]

SeekingClarity Wrote:If another poster can provide clear evidence of political progress during the surge--or a lack thereof--then I think we make progress toward deciding whether the surge is working.

Well the Iraqi Governement took on the Mahdi Army (of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ) in Basra last week. You could see it as sucess (The Iraqis are fighting on their own without US or British help - things are getting better!) or a lack of sucess (Still bloody fighting after five bloody years! Surge didn't change anything!)

But while perusing this article by the Baltimore Sun I Noticed this little gem:

Quote: American officials had long credited al-Sadr's truce for having helped reduce sectarian violence in Iraq since September, a period coinciding with the increased U.S. troop presence in Iraq that began in early 2007.

So the guy they are fighting now was responsible for the reduction in violence that we thought was due to the surge? Is it just me or does that sound counter-productive?

I offer this as proof that the surge failed - they needed the help of one of the 'enemy' Militas to reduce the violence.

Easy Does It Wrote:It is my belief that the true mission of the Iraq War is and has always been to establish a permanent US military presence in the Middle East - something that would nearly guarantee an ongoing military buildup without any end in sight.

If I am right, then the surge has been a great success.

What annoys me regarding the definition of the sucess or failure of the surge is that the Hawks always seem to define sucess as 'the reduction in violence' Without mentioning whether the violence that is reduced is violence against other Iraqi sects, the Iraqi Government or the US troops stationed there. So if people are gunning down their neighbours in the streets, Iraqi Police stations are firebombed but none of the US troops got snipered today, then they would count it as a sucess of the surge!

[thebrokenbox]

The surge is working! It can be seen in lower deaths and casualties. Of course there will probably never be complete peace but while we have had this troop surge it definitely has lowered the violence. I just wish people would accept that it is just a matter of time before we really get some progress made in Iraq.

[hidden]

No Democrat will accept the fact that we can win the war. They just prefer to have us defeated and humiliated. The surge has been working and still is. May was the lowest American death count in several years and Iraqi forces began taking control of situations.

[lihen]

Yes the surge is definitely working, but have you ever thought what can be the situation after the troops leave the nation... According to me major concern should be desolve the resistance by development and not by power. The more they are crushed, the more new people join them.