Posted by Damozel | Though this report from the Government Accountability Office has made me a bit of skeptic about any news out of Iraq, recent developments indicate that the surge has succeeded in bringing stability to some areas of the country. Or at least that's what the 3000 Iraqis who have returned to Baghdad believe. According to this article by Steven R. Hurst of the Associated Press: "In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped."(Yahoo)
I don't mean to sound credulous in expressing a sense of renewed hope that we can soon bring home the troops. As will become apparent, I have reservations about the scope and significance of any advances and after reading the aforesaid GAO report, I assure you that I read all data with a jaded eye. But you can't argue---or can you?---with results?
On average, 56 Iraqis — civilians and security forces — have died each day so far in this very bloody year. Last month, however, the toll fell to just under 30 Iraqis killed daily in sectarian violence.
More than four months after U.S. forces completed a 30,000-strong force buildup, the death toll for both Iraqis and Americans has fallen dramatically for two months running.
Across Iraq Saturday, 18 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence, well below the year's daily average. (Yahoo)
So: are we there yet, Mr. Bush? Can we bring the troops home now?
After all, according to this article, there was---or might have been---at least one day, maybe more, when no British or US troops died in Iraq. There might even have been some days when no Iraqis died (though not the same days; Iraqi security forces and civilians aren't counted together with our own people when they're adding up the score). Still, this is progress:
“The day nobody died from violence in Iraq” is a date that has been much anticipated in the White House — where President Bush is desperate to hail the success of his surge of 30,000 troops this year. But no one can quite say when this event, longed for by most, if not all, people on the street corners of Baghdad, occurred....
Such foggy vagueness may be concealing a truly significant transformation on the ground in Iraq.
There have certainly been several days in the past month when no US or British soldiers were killed.
During a five-day stretch between October 19 and 23, there were no deaths among coalition forces. Although three US servicemen died from “non-hostile causes”, this was the longest period without combat deaths for nearly four years. And, between October 27 and 29, there were three more days without coalition deaths.
Such statistics do not take account of deaths among the Iraqi security forces or civilians. But Iraqis, too, have had days when no one in their ranks has died. On October 13, for instance, neither the coalition nor the Iraqi military suffered any deaths. But one Iraqi policeman was killed, along with four reported civilian deaths in Baghdad. (Times of London; emphasis added)
So why am I not giving credit where credit was due and acknowledging that the success, if it success, of the surge vindicates Bush?
Another article in the same publication asks why the "current achievements, and they are achievements," are not being recognized as they should be. (Times of London) The author speculates that Democrats, having banked on Iraq being a complete disaster, are too "embarrassed" to acknowledge any progress resulting from the surge. Think so?
Not this Democrat. I am longing for credible evidence of progress and the return of the 3000 and the drop in the death rate are certainly cause for rejoicing. But if the author wants to know why I haven't yet broken out the champagne and the party hats, she supplied the answer herself a few paragraphs into the article:
None of this means that all the past difficulties have become history. A weakened al-Qaeda will be tempted to attempt more spectacular attacks to inflict substantial loss of life in an effort to prove that it remains in business. Although the tally of car bombings and improvised explosive devices has fallen back sharply, it would only take one blast directed at an especially large crowd or a holy site of unusual reverence for the headlines about impending civil war to be allowed another outing. (Times of London)
Show me that these serious successes mean the troops can come home and I'll be the first one out on the sidewalk for the victory parade. But it's a bit previous to be gearing up for the celebration. I'm satisfied to know that there has been some progress and that maybe, maybe we can start bringing some of those kids back home.
And all my praise will go to those whose feet wore the boots that the Bush Administration put on the ground. I am not going to get past the fact that the country was tricked into war, then tricked into believing it could be over in a matter of weeks, then tricked into believing that we could wrap things up their speedily, and on, and on, and on. All I want at this point is for it to be over.
I don't expect the right wing nutjobs and even ordinary intelligent right wingers to understand this, but the MINIMUM I was expecting of General Petraeus is that he'd make the surge work. I wanted Bush to send more troops years ago, when the generals were pleading for them. It doesn't change in the slightest how I feel about W, the Iraq war, or the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. I have been personally opposed to immediate troop withdrawals on the theory of "You broke it---you bought it." As soon as Iraq is stabilized, or as near it as it can get, I want the troops out.
My reluctant support for "stay the course" and for the surge doesn't mean that I'm prepared to see the war stretch out indefinitely or to see a great deal more money committed to it. In this context, success just means "not as bad as I feared."
In the meantime, the glee and gloating among some of the nastier customers on the other side of the Great Divide merely makes me roll my eyes. The best you can say for any success now is "Better late than never."
As a Democrat, how do I feel about this news or 'news'? Exactly the same as before: fed up with the war and willing to take any success Bush can wring out of it. It doesn't make me think Bush might have been right all along or anything.
But the author of this article in the Times of London thinks that success in Iraq---however defined---will undermine the Democratic contenders for the presidency. Further, the author thinks---and this is really farfetched----that success resulting from the surge will undercut the push to bring home the troops.
I doubt it. Opinions vary. But I'm guessing that the news of a successful surge is going to increase pressure to bring home the troops, not diminish it.
And even if the surge succeeds, a very large number of Americans resent, and will go on resenting, the time wasted and the blood spilled in the interim between "Mission Accomplished" and whatever achievements the Administration can wring out of the surge.
The Times says:
The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed. Democrats who voted for the war have either repudiated their past support completely (John Edwards) or engaged in a convoluted partial retraction (Hillary Clinton). Congressional Democrats have spent most of this year trying (and failing) to impose a timetable for an outright exit.(Times of London; emphasis added)
Iraq is "not an absolute disaster"? [tosses confetti/] Wheeeeeeee! [/tosses confetti]
Whether you call a development an "achievement" depends on what you're aiming for.
(photo by Damon D'Amato) | Even many conservatives---even including my 79 year old mother, who voted for Bush---are cynically aware that whatever achievements we achieve there, we've only achieved them by moving the goalposts. They aren't the achievements the Bush Administration started out promising to achieve. Even if it has indeed achieved success or provisional success in Iraq (assuming this is true), the Bush Administration has conspicuously failed to achieve quite a number of achievements that people were expecting them to achieve.
After all, it's not as if Iraq is the only problem. What price Afghanistan? What price New Orleans? What price---speaking of immediate dangers--Pakistan?
In the meantime, I will happily acknowledge any development in Iraq that shows that the situation may be less bad than the past performance of this administration led me to believe would be possible. So here's to progress, a continuing drop in the number of deaths and the level of sectarian violence, and the hope of lasting stability.
Memeorandum round up here and here and here
RELATED POSTS
Talk of Bombing: is Iran the New Iraq?
DynCorp Joins Blackwater as Probe Target, State Department Stonewalls Congress
Jon Stewart to Gen. Ricardo Sanchez: "Now You Tell Us"
Is al Qaeda in Iraq Crippled? Officials Disagree
Aussie Contractors Shoot Two Iraqi Women; P.W. Singer on Blackwater et al.
Iraqi Leaders: Key Benchmark Not Attainable.
Blackwater to Blame for Shootings, State Dept. Plans to Start Monitoring Blackwater?
While Burma Bleeds, the Administration's Still Shuffling Toward Iran.
GAO Says Administration Should Give Congress Accurate & Timely Info on Iraq Violence (Duh)
Republicans Opposed Troop-Friendly Proposal
Inspector General Blocked Investigations re: Waste & Fraud?
It Wasn't All About the Oil = It Was About the Oil.
The French Foreign Minister Tells the World to Prepare for War Against Iran.
Greenspan Admits Iraq War was About Oil [Updated and Clarified]
Chuck Hagel on Bill Maher: This is What a Republican is Supposed to Look Like.
Troop-Drawdown Dates Change Again
Petraeus & Crocker Report (Day 2): Even Republicans are Skeptical
London Times: U.S. Paid Sunnis to Fight in Iraq
Petraeus Report Compels Skepticism re: Iraq
9/11: Six Years Later, American Sentiments Vary
Majority of Public Expects Petraeus Report to be Inaccurate (and other poll results)
Why Do they Keep Changing the Deadline; is Leaving Iraq Really Irresponsible? [Updated]
Two More ex-CIA Officers Say There Were No WMDs and Bush Knew it
How Accurate are Statistics re: Iraq War?
Iraq War Funding: How Much Goes to the Troops?
Powerful Republican Urges Troop Pull-Out
LINKED
The Petraeus Curve (Times of London)
Iraq surge brings hope for a day without death (Times of London)
Comments