The surge isn’t working

There’s a perfectly good reason that war supporters, from McCain to Patraeus, are scrambling to lower expectations for September — the surge policy isn’t working.

Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.

According to the NYT report, much of this is due to the shortcomings of Iraqi security forces, which were supposed to help make the policy effective. Since the start of the surge, these forces, promised by the Maliki government, either haven’t shown up or haven’t been able to do anything. Basic tasks, such as manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have proven too challenging for Iraqi police and army units. (“That is forcing American commanders to conduct operations to remove insurgents from some areas multiple times,” the NYT added.)

As for the politics of all of this, when the White House unveiled its surge policy in January, they raised expectations. Lawmakers (and the nation) were told that we’d start to see progress quickly. Benchmarks were laid out, highlighting what we could expect to see. Creating a stable security environment in Baghdad, for example, was supposed to be complete in July. Then it was September. Now, it’s nowhere in sight.

The NYT highlighted western Baghdad, where the First Infantry Division has been working on a security push since March.

When the battalion, commanded by Lt. Col. Patrick Frank, moved in, it was replacing a lone American Army company of 125 soldiers. Yet even with three times as many soldiers patrolling the area, violence has worsened. Last month, 249 bodies were found in the sector, up from 98 the month Colonel Frank arrived, according to statistics compiled by the battalion.

Lately, his troops have been hit by a wave of roadside bomb attacks that have killed five of them and wounded 13 others. “We have a tough fight ahead of us,” he said.

The district includes Ameel, Baya, Jihad and Furat, mostly mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods abutting the road to the Baghdad airport where his troops have established three patrol bases. Before the new strategy, there were none.

The area, a mixture of poorer urban slums and middle-class dwellings, once home to many retired professionals, has been troubled for years. Violence dipped there and across the city in the first months of the year, but has since worsened.

Militants, many associated with the Mahdi Army of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, have resumed a push to drive Sunnis from their few enclaves, American commanders said. One of the area’s last Sunni mosques was bombed Wednesday.

“This area used to be primarily Sunni, but in the last six months Jaish al-Mahdi has conducted essentially a cleansing campaign,” said Colonel Frank, using the Arabic name for the Mahdi Army.

In addition to carrying out sectarian killings, the Mahdi Army controls two of the area’s three gas stations, which refuse to sell to most Sunnis. Gunmen regularly attacked trash trucks when they entered Sunni areas until the American military began providing security. Sunni homes are also the targets of arson attacks if their occupants fail to heed warnings to leave, he said.

Sunni insurgents have fought back as well, with two large car bomb attacks in largely Shiite sections of Baya and Ameel that killed more than 60 people, officers said.

Time to go.

We need 250,000 troops in Bagdad and another 250,000 troops in the rest of the country.

Since we don’t have 500,000 troops then we need to go to plan B.

I suppose plan B could be a draft but I don’t think that President Bush is in favor of the draft. after all, he wasn’t in favor of the draft in the 60’s either.

So plan B is eventually going to be some sort of withdrawl.

Does anyone else have a better idea?

  • As G.I Joe Lieberman and Baghdad John McCain have observed, these are all “signs of progress.”

    See, half-glass-full.

  • Creating a stable security environment in Baghdad, for example, was supposed to be complete in July. Then it was September. Now, it’s nowhere in sight.

    That’s because you’re not looking in the right direction.

    It’s in the rear view mirror, rapidly being left behind as we replace it with some other, more achievable goal. Which will, of course, turn out to have been the goal all along.

  • Hey media people:

    This is what happens when you help an idiot become president. This is what happens when you act like intelligence is no more important than whether someone is “likable”. This is what you did.

    Yes, you.

  • No matter what decisions are made, they all will have risks and rewards, and after four full years of dealing with the consequences of the decisions to undertake this folly and then keep pouring money and lives into the black hole it has become, it is time to make different decisions.

    Going into this boondoggle, we were asked to take on faith that all the things the government was telling us were true, that we could count on them. We were going to find and destroy the WMD, we were going to depose Saddam, it was going to happen quickly, the Iraqis would be ever-so-grateful, oil was going to pay for everything, and the rest of the region would be so impressed that democracy would flourish.

    Perhaps our major mistake in trying to change course is that we are saying we really don’t know what will happen if we leave. Imagine if, in the run-up to the war, Bush had been saying, “Yeah, I think it’s a good idea – don’t know how it will all turn out, but it’s what I’ve decided to do.” Would it have ever happened? Would anyone have said – “Okay, sure – let’s just do it and see that happens!”

    Of course not. But isn’t that how we’re framing the argument for getting out? “Yeah, we have to bring the troops home, but we can’t tell you what will happen when we do – just trust us that it’s the right decision.”

    Our problem is that we are trying to play this with a level of honesty and reality that we didn’t get going in. So, what do we do?

    I think we have to lay out what we think are the best- and worst-case scenarios, and I think we have to have plans for what the consequences of withdrawal actually are. It may be that even the best-case scenario is pretty bad, but I think it’s time for some honesty. Maybe we have to deploy American and Iraqi troops to the borders, to stop the influx of foreign fighters and weapons. Maybe we have to pull back to outlying areas to see how the Iraqis respond to our absence. Do they “follow us” to wherever we go, or do they remain locked in sectarian fighting?

    I am no expert on any of this, but I think we have to stress that it was dishonesty that got us into Iraq, and we cannot perpetuate that as we try to get out.

    Sorry this is so long…

  • Don’t forget……it will be the fault of the NYT for publishing this, which I’m sure “threatens our national security”. Not watching tv, but assuming that will be the push, at least from the Cult of Hannity.

  • Remember as the surge was initially drawn up – 80K additional US troops were called for to control Baghdad (along with Iraqi troops). This would put US and Iraqi troops in each mixed sunni-shia neighboorhood block by block, theoretically this would controll violence, reprisal attacks would go down and Malicki’s govt would have breathing room to establish the flower of democracy in Iraq and eventually throughout the region. It would take 18-24 months for the surge to yeild these effects.

    GWB however decided, initially, that a surge of 17.5K troops would do the job and that we have the proof in about 6 months.

    McCain then whined in the media that the surge was not robust enough.

    McCain reluctantly supported this surge (Rev-GWB), knowing deep down, that just like everything else he touches, GWB would Eff it up. And he McCain would be stuck holding the bag as the cheif defender of the war.

    And now approaching GWBs surge evaluation date, the surge has not achieved what it could not achieve, so McCain and others are left with:

    “The surge has not worked as well as we want but at least the Iraqi parliment get to go on vacation this summer.”

  • I’m just sick and tired of the main stream media NOT doing their jobs (yeah, I know, where’ve you been?) and pointing out, very clearly–with pretty graphics and jingles as is their wont–the things that Bush has said with respect to ‘X will happen by Y,’ the actual conditions at Y, and the next thing that Bush said. All lined up, all briefly explained (“it failed; it didn’t happen by Y”). This would demonstrate how often the goal line has been moved–indeed, it’s grown legs–and how often the populace has been told of a ‘goal’ and how said goal has never, ever been met to date.

    But sheeple don’t want to see that. They know, deep inside, that they’ve been supporting a fool and his sandbox games, yet they always look ahead, always ‘give them another 6 months.’ Where are all of the headlines “The most recent timeline for X to happen has come and passed, with the goal not met?” Followed by the headlines that say “Bush asks for another 6 months, after the last 6 months, and the 6 months before that,” etc. No one appears to care to point this out, continually. Thanks, fourth estate. The Blogs now own that title.

  • I’d like to know what the definition of “vacation” is. Is it like the Aerosmith record?

  • Anne is on to something that’s been bothering me for a long time: many talk about withdrawing from Iraq but we don’t really know that would look like. The same contingency planning that the WH has lacked proponents of withdrawing seem to lack as well.

    For example, if some unknown number of troops are brought home and another unknown number stationed in remote areas or outside of major cities, under what conditions would they re-engage? Obviously, things would have to get worse than they are now to re-engage (otherwise, one couldn’t withdraw in the first place). So how is a smaller force operating in a worse situation likely to do what a larger force can’t accomplish now?

  • I couldn’t possibly say it any better than Anne, and the sad thing is, there are people who run these scenarios for a living.

    They could have told the president that removing Saddam would lead to chaos. Maybe they did and he didn’t listen. But someone, some where has a carefully weighted list of various scenarios, outcomes, consequences going forward. The Administration doesn’t want to talk about that because it will “embolden the enemy.” (Or make them look stubborn and stupid.)

    Call me a pessimist but I think the only thing that’s going to get the soldiers out of there before January 2009 is: a) Democrats becoming vertebrates; b) Bush making a last minute bid to save his Legacy by issuing orders to get the hell out.

    There are some other things that would get us out but they’re even less likely than the two I gave.

  • “…Forward, he cried from the rear, and the front rank died…”

    Pink Floyd, from, “Dark Side of the Moon”

  • The latest spiel is that we are protecting Iraq’s sovereignity, hence blaming Iran and Syria for EFP’s and that is why we will have a long-term military presence in Iraq. We don’t want to mention we are there for Iraqi oil. Will we become involved when Turkey goes to war with the Kurds in northern Iraq? The Kurds are Iraqis and if we are defending Iraq’s sovereignity, that would mean that we will be fighting Turkey or will we stand by with our hands in our pockets because we only want to confront Iran and Syria. No wonder the world sees us as hypocrites. The reason I put this rant here is because the linked article mentions conditions in Baghdad such as “hours of mortar barrages”. Doesn’t sound like it is getting better to me. Turkish troops mass at border for possible strike on Kurds. Description of violence in Baghdad makes it difficult to believe anything is getting better in Baghdad. and Turkey shells border area in north Iraq.

  • Tom Ricks (WaPo’s military correspondent, who has a little column ion the Sunday Outlook section) reported yesterday, quoting “an Army officer who has just returned from a working trip to Iraq”:
    […] The phrase “Inshallah”, or “God willing” has permeateedall ranks ofthe Army. When you talk to U.S. soldiers about the possible success of “the surge”, you’d be surprised how many responded with “Inshallah”. Same goes with some of the higher-ranking leaders […]

    In other words, the plan B is: “it’s all in God’s hands”. Whether the right wing will be happpy with the version of God our soldiers seem to be accepting, may be a different story. I wonder… Would “let’s get them out of there before they all turn Muslim” work as an argument with Bush &Co?

  • Get yourselves an empty bucket. Cut the bottom out of that bucket. Pour water into that bucket until it is full and overflowing. When you have accomplished that, let me know—and I will tell you the day, the hour, and the minute that “The Surge” will succeed.

  • Once again , withdrawing our forces comes down to what should have been happening all along…a diplomatic solution and not a military one. Bring in the peace-keepers. Get Iran, Syria, and Turkey and Saudi/Arabia involved along with the United Nation’s peace keeping troops. They all must be involved in the US withdrawal to maintain stability.

    Bush just ignored all of these players when he ordered the invasion of Iraq and totally excluded them as if America didn’t need their input.

    I don’t believe this president, especially with Rice and Cheney aboard, can get it done. He doesn’t know how to ask for help much less cooperate in a diplomatic solution to protect the GIs safe return that might go against his corporate handlers. His angel would not be what was good for Iraq or the troops or the region or the world, but only for the war profiteers and the oil barons and the politics of his neocon party.

    What Anne says above is true about the lies and lack of planning going into the invasion of Iraq but she didn’t mention how we also excluded the offers of support from the very countries immediately affected by such a move.(Iran’s offer to help at the beginning of the invasion which Condi Rice ignored and didn’t even admit receiving till it was proven she did).

    Anne is right about an honest appraisal of withdrawal scenarios but what should also be mentioned is that America does not need and should not try to accomplish this alone There is a diplomatic solution to the withdrawal just like there was to the invasion.

    The powers that can help the US accomplish this should not be excluded or ignored this time. There is a diplomatic solution.

  • Comments are closed.