Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THAT SUCCESSFUL SURGE.
If David Brooks is going to write a column about the Surge and intellectual honesty, he should probably mention such events as Moqtada al-Sadr's strategic pause, the 2005-2006 ethnic cleansing in Baghdad which helped reduce ethnic tensions by ending ethnic diversity, and the Anbar Awakening which required arming Sunni tribes and thus entrenching decentralization. Pretending that Iraqi violence and instability is an output with one input -- in this case, the number of American troops -- is foolish.
That said, the argument over the surge was never an argument positing that more troops couldn't lead to less violence. Folks forget this, but the surge was actually part of Howard Dean's 2004 candidacy, when he was running as an anti-war candidate. In June 2003, on Meet the Press, he said, "I can tell you one thing, though. We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now." I disagreed with him, but that was the plan: More troops, leading to less violence, leading to withdrawal. It was a plan that Democrats, even liberal Democrats, supported. Would Brooks like to credit Dean as a military visionary?
The argument over Bush's surge was in fact an argument over whether we needed a strategy which continued the war indefinitely, or a strategy where success was defined in an achievable way, and an end was sought to the conflict. The former won out, and administration replaced political goals with security goals. But given sufficient manpower and treasure,
Leaving aside the fact that [the surge's] "victory" as Gerecht defines it, in addition to obviously representing a monumental climbdown from each and every one of the numerous justifications previously offered for the war, does not actually add up to "an Iraqi state" as much as to "a series of armed militia communities we're going to call Iraq," was this outcome really worth 4,000 American dead, over 28,000 wounded, and, by the end of 2008, some $600 billion in American treasure? Was it worth over half a million Iraqi dead, many times that maimed, and some 3 million displaced? Was it worth creating an open source laboratory for terrorists to develop and sharpen their tactics against the most technologically advanced military in the world, enabling them disseminate those tactics around the world via internet? Was it worth losing a thousand dollars at poker just to win twenty at blackjack?The war in Iraq should've been brought to a close, a phased withdrawal implemented, and the resulting pressure created by removing the American backstop used as leverage en route to a political settlement. Brooks quotes Vali Nasr saying Iraq has moved from a "failed state" to a "fragile state," but doesn't quote Nasr on what's missing: "The political basis for a state." Oh. This, we're supposed to believe, is success?
And that's been the broad criticism of the surge. We've sacrificed long-term strategy at the altar of short-term security. That made sense for the Bush administration, which didn't want to be judged a historic failure and so needed to wrestle the everyday metrics till they showed some semblance of an upward trajectory (fans of the Wire will recognize this strategy). But the political question -- which is, as it's always been, the central question -- remains unanswered. A few months ago, Maliki, the putative head of the government launched an assault on Sadr, who's arguably the most popular Shia leader in the country. CFR's Stephen Biddle, who's an optimist, thinks the military would overthrow Maliki if given the chance. And he sums up the situation saying, "What is achievable is sustainable stability, a sense of an end to large-scale violence that holds over a long period of time. That I think is potentially doable in Iraq if the United States expends the necessary effort. If we fail in that, there's a danger that this war could spread throughout the region. And that's a really powerful threat to U.S. interests." That's the universe of outcomes we went to war for? Defeat means catastrophic failure, and success means an absence of genocide?
Political reconciliation, in other words, looks a long way off. Real stability looks a long way off. And an end to the blood and treasure we're sinking into Iraq looks a long way off. Brooks wants to argue that the war's opponents were right on not going to war, but the President and his supporters were right on the surge. Can't we just call it even? Of course not. Victory is bringing the war to a close, and it will be in sight when we're implementing a strategy with a clearly defined, and actually achievable, vision of success. Simply adding enough troops that you can continue the war for a longer period of time, but with somewhat fewer deaths per day, is not the same thing.
COMMENTS (18)
Great post, Ezra. You hit the nail right on the head.
Posted by: signsanssignified | June 24, 2008 1:16 PM
Ok, if you do the cost-benefit analysis starting in '03, you are clearly right. No war=best policy.
But let's look instead at the end of '06. At that point, the 'phased withdrawal' would've clearly lead to chaos in Iraq, since the Iraqi government was disintegrating and powerless in the face of the insurgency. Now, it looks like Iraq can be made to be relatively stable. Is the input (the surge from '06 til now) worth the output (avoiding total genocide and chaos in Iraq that perhaps spills over regionally)? And if so, where do we go from here? Those are the questions we should be asking.
Posted by: jamie | June 24, 2008 1:28 PM
Ditto for me. Best response to Brooks to date. Yglesias and Sullivan, take note.
Posted by: BryklynLibrul | June 24, 2008 1:28 PM
Agree. Great takedown of Brook's argument. Has anybody counted how many times these people have declared victory?
Posted by: Kevin | June 24, 2008 1:37 PM
It's just as bad to believe that other actors' behavior was not changed by the news of a new surge and more troops.
Howard Dean was not in a position. Anyone can run their mouths in a campaign. I must also give President Bush credit for implementing this strategy. I believe it was politically risky.
Posted by: El Viajero | June 24, 2008 1:41 PM
The part about the single input explaining the output really captured the idiocy of this issue.
Posted by: Chris | June 24, 2008 2:06 PM
Politically risky? Bush doesn't have anything left to risk. His approval rating is stuck right around 30% and clearly not going anywhere. In just over 200 days he'll be gone for good.
Republicans in Congress, however, I'm sure thank him for his brave risk-taking that sacrifices them on the altar of indefinite war.
Posted by: Chris O. | June 24, 2008 2:22 PM
I recomend this type of divorce with all my heart. It's simple, relatively fast and lest cumbersome than an full blown legal separation. Mediation is available in all US states and it can greatly improve your quality of life during a divorce process.
Posted by: quick divorce | June 24, 2008 2:51 PM
CLOSE THE ITALICS TAG!!!1!
Posted by: Thlayli | June 24, 2008 5:37 PM
This post strikes me as disingenuous. It merges argument as to whether we should have invaded Iraq in the first place with an insinuation that the surge has not created an opportunity for withdrawal with a better outcome, per Dean's prescription in 2003. It suggests that Bush, aiming to tamp down violence, was something like Nixon doing everything he could to juice the economy prior to the '72 election at the cost of stoking inflation. But surely Bush clings to the hope that Iraq can be put on a path to stable self-government (unlike, again, Nixon, who stated early in his presidency that we could not win in Vietnam, then continued fighting for four more years).
Surely the surge has created the opportunity for a better outcome in Iraq now -- if, say, Obama meets his goal of withdrawing the bulk of forces in sixteen months -- than we would have had beginning a withdrawal in early 2007.
I don't think anyone pretends that reduced violence in Iraq is an output with one input. But the surge enabled and made it possible to capitalize on the Sunni Awakening and the Mahdi rope-a-dope.
Those who (reasonably, it seems to me) opposed the surge continue to "protest too much"
that its gains are likely to be ephemeral, even if they acknowledge those gains.
Posted by: Asp | June 24, 2008 9:19 PM
Count me as one of those who is willing to exit (intelligently) and no longer debate this issue. That is what November is all about.
In November, I am voting to exit Iraq and prioritize America's vast but limited treasure toward creating a post-carbon based economy.
Its strikes me that Brooks is still in denial which he is projecting, and that we are entering into year two of "the surge is working". That would be the 2nd generation of post-invasion justification for remaining.
We have replaced a non-overlapping, non-coherent multi-generationasl group of explanations for going in with an non-overlapping, non-coherent multi-generatioal group of explanations for not getting out.
Posted by: PaulC | June 25, 2008 11:32 AM
Klein writes: "That said, the argument over the surge was never an argument positing that more troops couldn't lead to less violence."
...except that Barack Obama himself said that more troops wouldn't lead to less violence.
January 10, 2007: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now, this kinda undercuts your point, no?
Posted by: David A B | June 25, 2008 3:23 PM
"That said, the argument over the surge was never an argument positing that more troops couldn't lead to less violence."
I see the goalposts are being shifted again in lefty land to try to make logical sense out of taking a side which today would have Saddam and his two demented sons still running havoc over 25 million people in Iraq.
Let me save you the effort, youngster. Simply stay quiet and simply claimed you supported their liberation all along. After all, that is what all your Democratic pals did when the UN asked President Bush's father to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. Or didn't you know that Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy and all your other liberals tools opposed that action, also. I suppose you believed them today when they proclaim that was a "war" they could support because it was called for by the UN. Wrong, they were every bit the traitors then as when we finally had to go back and finish the job this time.
There only contribution was convincing Bush Sr. that they were serious now and would diplomatically make sure that Iraq was rid of Saddam. He was naive enough to listen to their advice but thankfully his son learned from history. Leftist never do seem to.
And as posted above, you didn't seem to check with your messiah. His vast judgement argued your exact reason and he was WRONG!
Shocking huh?
Posted by: LogicalUS | June 25, 2008 8:33 PM
It's hard to take anyone who claims that al Sadr is "arguably the most popular Shia leader in the country" seriously.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 26, 2008 1:19 AM
I predicted quite a while ago that the best benchmark for declaring victory in Iraq will be when the Democrats start trying to take credit for it.
Posted by: tbrosz | June 26, 2008 6:58 PM
John Kerry was sure that the surge would be a military failure too. Written in December 2006: "We sent 15,000 more troops to Baghdad last summer, and today the escalating civil war is even worse. You could put 100,000 more troops in tomorrow and you're only going to add to the number of casualties until Iraqis sit down together at a bargaining table and compromise."
Posted by: Floyd | June 27, 2008 12:53 AM
...now that it a laughable post. Ezra, did your father teach you pretzel logic? No? Well, don't worry, I'm sure he's still proud of you. Hopefully you'll get some real life experience.
Posted by: DJ | June 27, 2008 11:14 AM
There's a lot of Orwellian fact-flipping here. I don't even know where to begin.
>Pretending that Iraqi violence and instability is an output with one input -- in this case, the number of American troops -- is foolish.
Nice straw man. The surge proponents believed that the overriding strategy in Iraq-- Donald Rumsfeld's 'light footprint' theory which keep troops in the bases-- was wrong. They based the surge off the counter-insurgency programs in Northern Ireland and elsewhere: 1) Establish military-run community policing, 3) Clear/hold/build areas block by block using local civilian leaders for support, 4)Do military-run humanatartian assistence (sewer digging, etc). This black-and-white change in strategy caused the Anbar Awakening-- the shieks had wanted to cooperate with us before but Rumsfeld's ideology got in the way.
>A few months ago, Maliki, the putative head of the government launched an assault on Sadr, who's arguably the most popular Shia leader in the country. CFR's Stephen Biddle, who's an optimist, thinks the military would overthrow Maliki if given the chance.
Wrong. Dead wrong. Sadr's extreme religious purtianism-- people with mullets are considered an 'abomination'-- is unpopular. Maliki's toppling of Sadr raised his popularity immensely. And I laughed when I saw that you labeled embittered anti-war critic Stephen Biddle as an 'optimist'.
Posted by: David | June 28, 2008 1:40 AM