Is the Surge working?
I've been talking with john_of_arabia about the surge and whether it's a "success" or not. On one hand the "surge" has definitely reduced violence to 2004 levels according to the Brookings Institute. That's a commendable achievement and our armed forces should be proud of a job well done. On the other hand reducing violence has always been the means to the goal, not the goal itself.
When the Surge was proposed on January 10 2007 the President laid out a series of goals that the Surge would accomplish:
A few weeks later at the 2007 State of the Union the President laid out a similar 9 points benchmark for success, explaining "for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments":
That's the standard that George Bush proposed to determine whether the surge was "working". How many of those points have been achieved? There's been a limited amount of "reconciliation" as the Sunnis ended their boycott of Parliament and Baath members were allowed to participate in the new government, progress which was praised by the UN, but that's 2 points out of 9. Oil-sharing legislation has not passed. $10 billion Iraqi dollars have not been pledged or spent. Provincial elections have not been held. Shia radicals and death squads continue to be protected by the government. Necessary numbers of Iraqi troops have not been trained and deployed. Iraq has not "taken responsibility for for security in every Iraqi province". And Iraqis have voted with their feet, continuing to flee the country in greater numbers than they are returning.
These aren't even new goals. Bush has been saying "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" since November 2005. What progress has Iraq made toward these goals in more than two years? At the current rate of progress how many more years can we expect to keep 125,000 troops stationed in Iraq? Will our military be able to sustain a deployment of that size for that length?
As Time Magazine said more than a year ago when the Surge was announced, "The weakest link in Bush's plan is that [the surge] depends on the cooperation of Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki." Without the Iraqi repair crew showing up to finish the job we're just Hans Brinker with our finger in the dike. We're doing a really good job with that finger, but that doesn't mean the finger has "worked". That's not progress. That's not success.
When the Surge was proposed on January 10 2007 the President laid out a series of goals that the Surge would accomplish:
- "To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November."
- "To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis."
- "To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs."
- "To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year."
- "And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws"
- "and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution."
A few weeks later at the 2007 State of the Union the President laid out a similar 9 points benchmark for success, explaining "for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments":
- "They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so."
- "They pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party -- and they need to follow through"
- "and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad"
"Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks:" - "to achieve reconciliation"
- "to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens"
- "to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq"
- "to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life"
- "to hold local elections"
- "to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province"
That's the standard that George Bush proposed to determine whether the surge was "working". How many of those points have been achieved? There's been a limited amount of "reconciliation" as the Sunnis ended their boycott of Parliament and Baath members were allowed to participate in the new government, progress which was praised by the UN, but that's 2 points out of 9. Oil-sharing legislation has not passed. $10 billion Iraqi dollars have not been pledged or spent. Provincial elections have not been held. Shia radicals and death squads continue to be protected by the government. Necessary numbers of Iraqi troops have not been trained and deployed. Iraq has not "taken responsibility for for security in every Iraqi province". And Iraqis have voted with their feet, continuing to flee the country in greater numbers than they are returning.
These aren't even new goals. Bush has been saying "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" since November 2005. What progress has Iraq made toward these goals in more than two years? At the current rate of progress how many more years can we expect to keep 125,000 troops stationed in Iraq? Will our military be able to sustain a deployment of that size for that length?
As Time Magazine said more than a year ago when the Surge was announced, "The weakest link in Bush's plan is that [the surge] depends on the cooperation of Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki." Without the Iraqi repair crew showing up to finish the job we're just Hans Brinker with our finger in the dike. We're doing a really good job with that finger, but that doesn't mean the finger has "worked". That's not progress. That's not success.