oh ... the surge, the surge ... i've had a long planned post on this subject, but it's a long weekend and i've better things to do. the only quick thing i'll say is that when you pay people not to kill you in a city that has already been effectively ethnically cleansed and barricaded, yes, violence does go down. but, as ever, it's far, far more complicated than that.
If Baghdad or any other Iraqi city has been ethnically cleansed, it would not have multiple ethnic groups still living within yards of each other. Good examples of what ethnically cleansing really is can be found by looking into the Bosnian conflict. The Iraq Study Groups report which criticized the administration specifically stated that the idea of partitioning Iraq was absurd and simply unworkable do to how mixed ethnically the country still was in provinces north and south as well as in Baghdad. That was in late 2006, just before the start of the surge.
More importantly though, Bosnia shows that even when real ethnic cleansing does occur, it does not reduce violence. Much of the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia occured durring the first year, yet the most deadly years of the conflict were the ones that followed that first year.
Most of the Sunni Awakening groups sprung up in the more rural area of Sunni majority Iraq. Such groups did not play a significant role in Baghdad like they did in Anbar province.
Secondly, nearly half of those in the Awakening groups have never been involved with any insurgent or Al Quada groups in the past.
Third, these groups, half of which are not former insurgents, are being payed to secure their neighborhoods, gain intelligence, fight insurgents and members of Al Quada. The intelligence they have provided has helped the US and Iraqi military to capture or destroy Iraqi insurgent groups and members of Al Quada. This is classic counterinsurgency strategy and the United States military has been trying to set up such Sunni groups since 2004. The challenge now is to start integrating many of these groups into formal military and police units.
what's hard is what this has done for McCain. as conditions "improve," how does he continue to justify staying? if conditions "worsen," then he was as wrong today as he was in 2005 as he was in 2003.
The rapidly improving conditions are what helped John McCain win the Republican nomination and why the general public trust him more on Iraq than they do Obama. Nation Building and counterinsurgency exercises take years to successfully complete and often involve unfortunate set backs. The goal is to develop the country's security, economic and political structures to the point that foreign military forces are no longer required to help out with most or all of these issues on the ground. Despite improving conditions, if you leave prematurely, the situation could start to reverse itself. If there is a setback and conditions worsen, then you have to adjust and try to stop the situation from sliding backwards, then push foward again. Setbacks are probably inevitable, but they don't signify that the overall policy has failed or that its time to leave. Afterall, the goal here is security and stability, and leaving because of a setback or when things get bad, certainly won't improve security or increases the chances of stability.
The Bush administration has always maintained that withdrawal will occur when the Iraqi's have developed the means to handle their own internal security on their own. Its not smart to remove a US brigade from Iraq that is providing a critical security need, if the Iraqi's have yet to develop something that can effectively replace the role that US brigade is currently providing in Iraq.
now, as for Obama, to say that he's anywhere near the Bush position is hilarious. i will say that since the 2006 election, which was a smack in the face of the president, Iraq Policy has fallen from the hands of Cheney and Rumsfeld and into the far, far smarter hands of Patraeus and Gates. i think people underestimate just what a moderating influence Gates has been, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Obama kept him as SecDef when he wins in November. it's laughable to make the comparison that the Bush of 2004 and the Bush of 2008 are somehow the same person. we have a defeated, smashed president dazed by a shocking 23% (!!!) approval rating, and he's rightly ceded power and control of Iraq to the adults in the room -- Gates and Patraeus. Obama has made a complete and sharp contrast with the Republicians and McCain on this issue, and it will be this contrast upon which much of the election will fall.
Do you know what Bush's fundamental position on Iraq has been? Its that as the Iraqi's stand up, US military forces will stand down and come home. In standing up, we mean Iraqi forces being able to perform the same functions as a particular US brigade does in a certain part of Iraq. It means political institutions and government being able to provide Iraqi's with the services they need. It means an economy that is able to grow and develop because the security situation has improved. Thats the same position that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gates, and Patraeus have had. The only places where they have disagreed are on specific tactics and troop levels at particular points in time. From fundamental strategic point of view, they are all firmly on the same page. If anything, Gates and Patraeus are further to the right than Rumsfeld on Iraq since Rumsfeld wanted to maintain troop levels while Gates and Patraeus wanted to increase those troop levels. Contrast with Barack Obama and the Democrats who in January 2007 wanted all US combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008!
Their collective view is opposite the Democratic view of the past few years which has wanted all US troops out of Iraq "NOW" regardless of the consequences. The debate among democrats is only about how fast to withdraw troops, 6 months vs. time periods as long as 16 months. No consideration was given to the consequences or a pre-mature withdrawal. No consideration as to whether the Iraqi military was ready to replace US forces. No consideration given to whether the Iraqi police force was ready. In fact Democrats would site their failure to be ready as another reason to get out as soon as possible. To Democrats, Iraq was a conflict that the US military would never be able to help solve. Iraq was a "Civil War", and we needed to get out as soon as possible. Just bring all the US troops home now, and the Iraqi's will have to sort or fight things out on their own. How to withdraw all US troops from Iraq before Bush left office was goal of the 2006 Democratic congress. Barack Obama's plan in January 2007 was to have them all out by March 31, 2008. Congress attempted to pass multiple spending bills with conditions that would force the President to begin withdrawal. Such a withdrawal was never tied to improvements on the ground or the growing capabilties of Iraqi forces. It was withdraw US forces now regardless of what the conditions were on the ground in Iraq.
Barrack Obama and the Democrats all opposed Bush, Gates and Patraeus on the Surge. Their policy on Iraq for most of the past 18 months has been directly opposite of the policy supported and being implemented by Bush,Gates and Patraeus. But if because of the huge success of the Surge, Barrack Obama is now willing to withdraw US troops from Iraq based on conditions on the ground rather than to simply just withdraw as he and his Democratic colleagues in congress so vigorously tried to do for 18 months by trying to attach withdrawal timetables(with nothing to do with conditions on the ground) to every single spending bill, then this will signify a sinificant change in Barrack Obama's views and move toward Bush administration policy.
as far as Obama goes, he is maintaining his commitment to a prudent, cautious, orderly withdrawal strategy that does not jeapordize whatever small and highly reversable gains that have been made in the reduction of violence over the past year. he will not stick to a game plan irregardless of empirical evidence. this is what Bush has done, this is what "last throes" Cheney has done, this is what "stuff happens" Rumsfeld has done. do we really want Obama to be the anti-war version of these walking disasters?
The gains that have been made in Iraq are anything but small. Talk to any US military forces or diplomatic personal that have been on the ground in Iraq the past 18 months and they will tell you that the changes have been unbelievably dramatic. Look at the casualty figures for both US troops and Iraqi troops and civilians. Casualty figures for both have been reduced by 80% to 90% in just the past 18 months. The military reports that violence is down to 2003 levels. Iraqi per capita GDP is nearly as large now as neighboring Syria. Iraqi oil production is about to surpass pre-war levels. The Iraqi's have an elected government that is making substantial progress on nearly all of the 18 political, economic, and security Benchmarks. The progress has been so rapid and substantial, that even someone like Murtha who was even more anti-surge than Barrack Obama now admits that its working.
Barrack Obama's game plan in January 2007 when Iraqi sectarian violence was near its peak in Baghdad was to withdraw all US combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 and he supported all of congress's attempts to force the President to withdraw without any regard for the consequences or conditions on the ground in Iraq. His plans and idea's on Iraq were the direct opposite of Bush, Gates and Patraeus plans for Iraq. He was a strong opponent of the surge which has helped to bring about very rapid progress in Iraq, more rapid than was previously thought possible.
Bush's initial plans for withdrawal from Iraq prior to the invasion were to have more than half of US troops out of Iraq by the summer of 2004. That plan of course changed with the rise of the insurgency. In changed again after the Shia Mosque bombing in 2006 increased sectarian violence in Baghdad, which brought about the surge. Now because of the success of the Surge, Bush may withdraw 1 non-Surge combat brigade by the end of 2008. Bush has constantly changed troop levels on the ground in Iraq over the past 5 years to respond to properly respond to the situation on the ground. Bush more than any other Democrat has been analysing the emperical evidence and making sound decisions based on that. Its the Democrats and Barrack Obama who have been wedded to "Out Of Iraq Now" for so long and finally might be coming around to the Bush strategy of withdrawal only has conditions on the ground permit.
the goal remains withdrawal as soon as is prudent and possible. the goal is not the creation of 60 permanent bases in Iraq and the continued American presence -- and empire by any other names -- in the middle of the most volatile region in the world.
The goal of Barrack Obama and the Democratic congress in January 2007 was not only to prevent the Surge from happening, but to force President Bush to withdraw all US combat Brigades by March 31, 2008. Prudent and possible were not part of their formula, at least not when it relates to conditions on the ground. They wanted US troops out of Iraq yesterday, but now they might be moving towards the Presidents and the military's position that pre-mature withdrawal is a mistake and withdrawal should only occur when the Iraqi's are ready to start handling their own security in various parts of the country on their own. No one has ever been interested in creating an "Empire" and the United States has not created any bases in Iraq that can't be removed or given to the Iraqi military. The Bush administration and McCain only want a continued American presence in Iraq based on the Iraqi's need for such a presence. Barrack Obama and the Democrats have wanted withdrawal now regardless of Iraqi needs siting the conflict as a "Civil War" that the United States military needed to be removed from as soon as possible.
so all we can fault Obama for is a bit of election year cynicism (or just realism?). shocking. and he's yet outflanked McCain on another position. what STING and his irrational ilk kept screaming about was "precipitous" withdrawal and the chaos that may or may not follow. Obama has said he won't do this, but he has said he is commited to withdrawal. he does not want an indefinite occupation.
Obama in January 2007 when Iraqi sectarian violence was at its near peak, and the Iraqi military and security forces were much less developed than they are today, wanted to withdraw all US combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. He never backed off from that position during that time nor did he ever suggest that such a timetable would ever be tied to conditions on the ground in Iraq. Just about everyone though has picked up on what might be changes on Obama's position on this over the past few weeks.
Bush has never been interested in an indefinite occupation. The initial plans for Iraq called for a sharply reduced US presence in Iraq by the summer of 2004, but that changed when the insurgency started to grow.
he has now shrewedly framed the Iraq question: do you want to prudently withdraw, or do you want indefinite occupation?
Actually, he is lying about the position that Bush, the Republicans, and the US military have had since the start of the war, and appears to be in fact adopting their true position on Iraq. Barrack Obama has never been closer to "As they stand up, we'll stand down" as he is now.
what reason is there, then, to vote for McCain?
Well, he has his current opponent abandoning his former opposition to the withdrawal only as conditions on the ground permit, and appearing to join him in supporting US military operations in Iraq for as long as they are needed and necessary for security and stability there.
and you thought Bill Clinton was a master strategist?
Bill Clinton had no problem abandoning the left wing of his party when it suited him and moving to right. If Barrack Obama wants to do the same so he has a better shot at winning in November, thats a smart move, and the country will be better off if he sticks to some of the positions that are indeed to the right of the views of his most loyal supporters and far to the right of Senator Obama's voting record in the Senate if he should win in November.