Bush’s surge policy — One year later

One year ago today, the president delivered a lengthy White House address on what was labeled the “surge” policy. It was delivered at a time when Bush had lost most of the country and a growing number of lawmakers, and when the nation learned that the president was sending more troops to Iraq, it was not well received. It looks no better in hindsight.

“[O]ver time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible. […]

“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.”

And lest anyone think that Bush didn’t take these Iraqi promises seriously, he vowed that “America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”

Exactly one year later, the results aren’t encouraging. The violence is slightly less devastating, but the promises about political reconciliation have been proven false. The surge policy was created to produce specific results, none of which came to fruition.

Bush, Lieberman, McCain, and the rest of the establishment that supports the administration’s policy have a response to all of this: ignore reality, label the policy a “success,” and hope no one looks to close at the promises or the results.

There’s an enormous amount of important news about the war in the media today, so I thought it best, particularly in light of the one year anniversary of the surge, to highlight some of the key developments:

* War supporters have a new catchphrase: “There’s a new catchphrase in town: ‘Iraqi solutions.’ And it means that while the Iraqis might have failed to accomplish just about all the goals the U.S. set, that’s OK, and you gotta just roll with it and let the Iraqis do their thing.”

* Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs Mark Kimmitt said 2008 will be “far more difficult” than 2007 for the U.S. strategy because “it depends far more on the Iraqis themselves to show progress on key legislation, on their economy, and reconciliation.” Kimmitt added that there is only a mild chance that “surge” security gains will last — “maybe it’s 50-50, if we play our cards right.”

* Philip Carter: “If your media diet for the last two weeks consisted exclusively of watching network news shows and reading the front pages of the major newspapers, you might have missed the fact that America is still at war. Although nearly every poll places Iraq at the top of voters’ minds, and nearly every presidential candidate makes references to Iraq on the campaign trail, the war no longer dominates the daily headlines or the American consciousness.
Recent dispatches from Iraq should change that.”

* McCain and Lieberman are quite pleased with themselves, boasting in a joint WSJ op-ed today that they were right about everything. As usual, they’re wrong.

* WHO: “The World Health Organization on Wednesday waded into the controversial subject of Iraqi civilian deaths, publishing a study that estimated that the number of deaths from the start of the war through June 2006 was at least twice as high as the oft-cited Iraq Body Count…. The World Health Organization said its study, based on interviews with families, indicated with a 95 percent degree of statistical certainty that between 104,000 and 223,000 civilians had died. It based its estimate of 151,000 deaths on that range.”

All for a war that should have never been launched, and which will continue indefinitely under a McCain administration.

“Iraqi solutions?” That reminds me a lot of “Vietnamization.”

Second verse, same as the first.

  • Joe and John to the American People:

    “You are too dumb to know when to leave Iraq. We are so smart we will know when we can leave (which is never). Trust us you dumb folk.”

    Sorry Joe and John. It’s time to declare victory (we’ve accomplished all our pre-war goals after all) and leave the Iraqis to find “Iraqi Solutions”. Which is short for ethnic cleansing but then they are partically there already.

    Joe and John, we can’t ever win by your rules because whenever we leave, someone in Iraq will still be ‘our enemy’ and they will still claim ‘they won’ so by your twisted logic, we will have lost.

    We don’t need to defeat this insurgency. They Are The Iraqi People. It’s Their Country (listen to Ron Paul sometime about other peoples actually having nationalistic feelings).

    And the Iraqis are NEVER going to sign an Oil Law that gives American Companies 74% of the Oil Revenue when France or Russia will do it for 48% and double the money to the Iraqis.

    Did I miss any point the war mongers are going to bring up?

  • since the november elections and subsequent inability of congress to cause any effect out of that mandate (for reasons everyone here understands) it strikes me that the american people have shifted their focus to the 08 presidential election, as evidenced by the huge turnouts in IA and NH, thereby relegating the iraq war to the back burner for the time being. i also think that the beforementioned inability to get significant change implemented post november will prove a waterloo for many incumbent dems and repubs alike.

  • Some paper you quoted yesterday did a slick move of calling a 6-casualty attack on U.S. troops “the most deadly attack on U.S. forces this year” or something like that. Uh, not the most deadly attack in the past 365 days, but the most deadly one since the date Jan. 1, 2008. But, no reason to be clear for their readers. It’s not as if it’s important to make sure everyone’s on the same page about matters of public concern. That was really slick move to pull, and I wonder if we did a Nexis search, if one of us could find newspaper stories fom the other years since 2003 when a small attack in January was call “the most deadly attack on U.S. forces this year.”

  • In the United States of Amnesia, it doesn’t matter what happened, it matters what the teevee bobbleheads say happened. And if someone they interview lies their ass off, that doesn’t mean anyone should call them on it. They might quit returning your calls, and that wouldn’t be good for business.

    Just once I’d like to see the media roll a few clips of the warmongers’ earlier rosy predictions, and then read their latest one, so that the idiots would get a clue.

    What’s maddening is a story that accurately reports that “None of [the] political goals have been met in the past year.” but the headline is “Tide of blood subsides in Iraq”

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/10/iraq.surge/index.html?section=cnn_latest

  • Victory? We won huh? What exactly did we win? We aide in the ethnic cleansing by bombing their neighborhoods (250 bombs dropped in ’06…over900 in ’07). Then we walled off neighborhoods to segregate Shiites and Sunnis, and violence decreased but what did we win? There is no winning for us, there is only continuing to police a civil war. Until there is political reconciliation we just have a recess. Victory for us means we no longer have to be in Iraq. That is Victory, anything else is just a circle jerk.

  • While we conduct “massive air raids” in Iraq, and while McCain win in NH and declares victory in Iraq, why aren’t the Dems making Iraq the centerpiece of their speeches?

    The way to win the Dem primaries is real easy – the formula is right there in Tom Hayden’s article in The Nation – Talk about friggin’ Iraq.

  • A doctor tells you, “Now that I’ve treated you, the poison will only kill you half as quickly.”

    How does the mainstream media report this? “Huge tide of bloodshed stemmed.”

    Seriously, though, maybe we’ve killed so many combatants that things will get better once the surge is over– or basically stay the same, but not flare up too much at any point.

    We’ll just have to see how it goes.

  • Also, it’s important to keep in mind that Iraq is still a very dangerous and violent place.

    Even if during each of the past 3 or 4 months we’ve only had 2-4 dozen American casualties, it’s not as if that means there were only 2 or 3 attacks against U.S. troops through the whole country during each of those 3 or 4 months.

    There still have to have been a lot of pot-shots and attacks from the kooky Iraqi irregular forces to sucessfully produce those kinds of casualties of our guys. And if we had three dozen deaths, maybe we had 238 serious injuries that month, or whatever.

    We’ve just got to see how things go before newspapers start headlining stories “Huge tide of bloodshed stemmed.”

  • 20-30 non-combatants are killed by a suicide bomber. How many times that number were killed in the 38 bombs in 10 minutes yesterday?

  • By the way you probably won’t see the latest huge Bush gaffe in our media:

    He apparently “joked” about checkpoints… this man does not surprise me anymore…

    “You’ll be happy to know, my whole motorcade of a mere 45 cars was able to make it through without being stopped,” Bush said after being asked about the 30-minute journey from Jerusalem and Ramallah. “I’m not so exactly sure that’s what happens to the average person.”

    An Al Jazeera reporter in response: “I remember once in Hawara, one of the checkpoints outside Nablus, and I was doing the story of a family who lost their main loved one … he was a cancer patient and he was told to get out of his car and walk across the checkpoint, and that killed him,” he said. “That’s the experience that most Palestinians have of these humiliating checkpoints … it was very much in bad taste and was a joke that will not have gone down well with anyone in Gaza or the occupied West Bank.”

  • #11 Dale – exactly, “over here” we will never hear how many people died from the 38 bombs…

    “A local Sunni tribal leader told Al Jazeera that many civilians were feared dead and 300 families had fled after the offensive began earlier in the week.

    Abdallah el-Jbouri, who was on a visit to Syria, said that at least 40 houses and the main road out of the village were destroyed.

    He said that residents had told him that people were believed to be trapped under the rubble of the ruined buildings and the injured were unable to reach hospital because of the damage to the road.

    The noise of the bombing was greater than anything the villagers had heard before, even during the US-led invasion, el-Jbouri said.”

  • Dale wrote:

    20-30 non-combatants are killed by a suicide bomber. How many times that number were killed in the 38 bombs in 10 minutes yesterday?

    Well, I’ve just got to police our own backyard, here, and of course unreliable-commenter Dale will provide an opportunity. Not every bomb kills as many as 20-30 people- even suicide bombs, as some of them go off in the wrong place- and many bombs kill no one.

    That said, if you’re trying to weaken my earlier point- if you’re trying to make all the readers think that U.S. forces got hit by only one bombs a month for the past three or four months- not only will some Google research quickly prove you wrong, but the general character of the anti-U.S. violence has been that there have been plenty of attacks during which only one guy gets killed, or one killed one wounded, or a bunch wounded and only one killed. Attacks on our troops that kill as many as 20 or 30 of our troops at once are much more rare, and are given a lot of special attention by our media. So, even if you haven’t been reading the news, one can assume that the casualties we had over the past few months were the results of a great many attacks, and especially if you don’t remember hearing any news reports of very-high casualty attacks on our troops over the past few months.

  • The surge worked perfectly, just as intended.

    It kept the war going, kept our soldiers returning in (unphotographed) body bags. Bush wanted a bloodbath and he continues to get it…all from the comfort of his desk in the Oval Office.

  • We stopped fighting the Sunni insurgents in Anbar, started arming and paying them as long as they don’t shoot at us, and will withdraw all of our troops sometime in the Spring…yet Anbar is being labeled a resounding success by the generals and administration?! It’s damn surrender if you ask me! And how did Al Qaeda become such a huge force in Iraq? They have always made up a small portion of the insurgency. Now every single attack, bombing, shooting, engagement is “Al Qaeda.” Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that…a slick way of our administration trying to drumb up support for this stupid war by labeling everything “Al Qaeda.” Well, this tactic appears to have worked; just read every news report out of Iraq.

  • What does it say when we have to go to UK and Al Jazeera for REAL news?

    All I can say is that our country is doomed because of greed and ignorance. And at this point, I don’t know which is worse!

  • The violence in Iraq is down because they are running out of people to kill. So many are dead or have fled that the numbers just aren’t there now.

  • Like I wrote after the ABC debate on Saturday, the R’s (except for Ron Paul) were stepping all over each other to be the most in favor of the surge, while the Dems all pointed out that it is a failure since it did not produce the results that were originally intended.

    The Dems need to hammer this home because it’s not getting through. Please use bush’s own words that CB has printed here against him.

  • Here is my take on the surge. Say you were being held captive, and each day, several times a day, you were brutally raped. Your captor used and abused you in unspeakable ways, leaving you a shell of a person. Then, after a few years, you were only raped once or twice a day, and only a few days a week. Makes you feel better about your situation, right? That is what I feel the surge is like: getting brutalized a little less harshly then your used to. Innocent Iraqi’s (and to a lesser extant, the anti-war American public) are the victims. I know that this is an extreme example, but this is an extreme situation. With or without the surge, you are still getting raped, but with the surge, it is a little less degrading.

    Of course there was going to be a drop in violence when you add 30,000 more troops to Iraq. It was the same reason violence dropped all over the U.S. when Clinton used federal dollars to add thousands of new policeman to cities all over the country. More soldiers to patrol Iraq means more security. But it is and can only be a temporary measure (unless you’re like McCain, and believe the troops will be in Iraq for a 100 years). But it only lessend the violence, and didn’t even come close to achiving the primary goal of the surge: to get the Iraq politicans to work together so they can solve their own problems.

  • Comments are closed.