Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
END OF THE SURGE.
Spack has an article on how Sadr killed the surge (er, the US military strategy, not the small DC band):
The trend toward increased violence in early 2008 does not rise to the level of the bloodshed Iraq experienced in mid-to-late 2006, before the surge began. But it does underscore the limits of what the surge achieved, according to U.S. government officials and outside experts, even on the security front where the Bush administration argued it was most successful. "The fact is, the ISF [Iraqi security forces] couldn't fulfill a major campaign against an insurgent group on its own," said a U.S. intelligence analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I personally think that's the real story. The ISF , despite the surge, and despite the [rhetoric from the Bush administration that] 'they'll stand up as we stand down,' couldn't fulfill their core requirement."That shows the extent of our tactical failure. But the very fact of this operation underscores the surge's broader strategic failure: The surge was to create the security conditions that would allow for political reconciliation. Powerful Shiite politician Maliki launching a ground war against powerful Shiite nationalist leader Sadr is not what I would call "reconciliation." That Maliki then had to send emissaries to Iran in order to ask Sadr for a ceasefire further underscores how orthogonal we are to the conflict. On the bright side, we're spending billions to arm the players!
(Image used under a Creative Commons license from the Soldier Media Center.)
COMMENTS (8)
Hey Babyface,
Are you going to get booked on Hardball college tour? Since you're such a whippersnapper I figure their producers probably want someone like you on to show the kids that anybody can be a pundit.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | April 2, 2008 7:02 PM
That's right, Ezra: the Surge was supposed to be temporary support for the Iraqis in order for them to create space for political reconciliation. Except the Surge was almost exclusively in Bagdad, and was aimed almost entirely at suppressing Sunni vs. Shiite violence. Let's face it: the Iraqis may eventually work things out themselves, but it won't be on the tight timeline of our election cycles. Meanwhile we could have upgraded the economic infrastructure of the West Bank and Gaza for 5% of what the Occupation of Iraq costs in the first two years -- and had a much bigger and more positive impact on the entire region. But that would have involved much less "Shock and Awe," and that wouldn't have been any fun....
Posted by: Odquest | April 2, 2008 8:49 PM
Hey, Ezra. Sometimes I post harsh or snarky or, perhaps, reasonably informed commetns, but before even reading this post - and after a generous Saphire Gin martini - I just wanted to say that you run a hell of a worthy blog. Good work, kid.
Posted by: brucds | April 2, 2008 9:36 PM
Small band? No fair making fun of Spencer's height. I hear he's a great lover.
Posted by: Rick Perlstein | April 3, 2008 12:27 AM
I'm not sure 'orthogonal' is a word that anybody should regularly use when discussing policy and politics. If you mean 'independent', say independent. If you mean 'irrelevant', say irrelevant. If you mean 'at cross purposes', say that. But orthogonal is a fancy word like paradigm or meme that only serves to make simple concepts sound complicated. You're a brilliant guy but the point of writing is to shed light on these subjects, not make people who only got 1100 on their SATs to feel stupid.
Posted by: joejoejoe | April 3, 2008 4:26 AM
Maliki, the surge and the ISF "shortcomings" remind me of a military aphorism I read once: "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics."
Posted by: DB | April 3, 2008 8:15 AM
You're a brilliant guy but the point of writing is to shed light on these subjects, not make people who only got 1100 on their SATs to feel stupid.
For the record, I think Ezra's SATs were about the same.
"Orthogonal" is a perfectly good word to use when you're trying to say "referring to completely different issues than the ones we're discussing." It's a perfectly valid word to use in context, though I'm biased because a lot of my background is in math, and I use it when necessary. Language is best when it illuminates subtleties we're tying to convey.
Posted by: Tyro | April 3, 2008 8:32 AM
Can John McCain please tell me exactly what we're going to get out of another 100 years, or even 4 years, of staying in Iraq? How is sending in more troops going to help this situation? That strategy has failed. What else do you got Maverick?
Posted by: SN | April 3, 2008 5:07 PM