Did the Surge Work?
Satellite Images Provide New Evidence
Can't remember who it was that sent me this--sorry!
I was a weakish advocate of the surge, and also a weakish advocate of the claim that the surge had worked. The arguments on the other side are well-known:
1. It didn't work. Reason: it was intended to make space for a political solution. This solution did not manifest itself.
2. It didn't work. Reason: other factors were actually responsible for the decrease in violence--e.g. the completion of the project of "sectarian cleansing."
I think that argument 1 is bad, but argument 2 may be good--though we're not sure. The satellite images provide some evidence in support of the premises of argument 2.
One response to this: the surge was only one causal factor responsible for the decrease in violence, but a necessary one.
My current position, FWIW: I still reject argument 1, and am somewhat more weakly inclined to accept argument 2.
Satellite Images Provide New Evidence
Can't remember who it was that sent me this--sorry!
I was a weakish advocate of the surge, and also a weakish advocate of the claim that the surge had worked. The arguments on the other side are well-known:
1. It didn't work. Reason: it was intended to make space for a political solution. This solution did not manifest itself.
2. It didn't work. Reason: other factors were actually responsible for the decrease in violence--e.g. the completion of the project of "sectarian cleansing."
I think that argument 1 is bad, but argument 2 may be good--though we're not sure. The satellite images provide some evidence in support of the premises of argument 2.
One response to this: the surge was only one causal factor responsible for the decrease in violence, but a necessary one.
My current position, FWIW: I still reject argument 1, and am somewhat more weakly inclined to accept argument 2.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:11 AM
4 Comments:
Actually, it was me who sent you that, Winston. And I think the center of gravity in terms of likelihoods is your statement:
"One response to this: the surge was only one causal factor responsible for the decrease in violence, but a necessary one."
Then again, there's this:
"McCaffrey and other former officers say that a surge of 30,000 additional troops into a country of 30 million could never have enough of an impact alone to turn things around.
"The least important aspect of the so-called change in strategy was the surge," McCaffrey says."
from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17899543
Thanks LC.
Right--"the least important aspect" is an important point. Though, of course, it still might have been a roughly necessary condition.
Though the plausibility of that claim is significantly diminished by this information, I'll certainly admit.
Yeah, I'm starting to have my doubts about it too. Gary Kamiya kind of sums it all up here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/09/30/surge/index.html
There are two other factors here as well, beyond the fact that the reign of terror of ethnic clensing had killed, mutilated, or frightened away millions. Both are covered in the Salon piece Lewis Carroll cites.
1) We have been paying off our enemies, the Sunni insurgents. The payments are scheduled to end today (1 Oct). Will the insurgents stay bought? I find that hard to believe.
2) Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army has been intentionally staying out of the fight. The Salon piece notes: "That stand-down, which can be reversed at any time, was brokered by -- Iran. But Iran is playing all sides: It supports both Maliki and Sadr. The U.S. simply cannot compete in this kind of deep game, at which Iran has excelled for centuries, without diplomatic engagement."
In other words, the surge was a success only to the degree that:
a) It was necessary to buy the modest reduction in violence we have seen, and
b) We limit our definition of its goal to "mak[ing] space for a political solution," ignoring the status of that political solution.
"b)" is not unreasonable, as the political solution was out of the scope of the military commander.
However, the success that matters is the politcal one. The complete answer is, I believe, "The surge appears to have been a limited success, but America has once again failed in Iraq."
I would recast #1, and would include a change to the active voice, to:
"The surge did not lead to an American success in Iraq. Reason: it was intended to make space for a political solution, but the Bush administration did not make a serious effort to find that solution."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home