The surge is not working

[partypooper]

I noticed that dr Paul said several times that the surge was not working. I don't know whether this is true, but I think it commits him to defending a claim that he doesn't need to defend. And it might come as especially off-putting to those pro-war Republicans that we are trying to convert.

I think the point should be that the war is not worth the cost - not that there is no way in which it can "work". Perhaps it is possible to lower the violance in Iraq significantly - but at what cost? So even if it is true that surge had some positive effects (as they pointed out to dr Paul today and he said that we should look at the trends from the beggining of the year and not just the last few months - a very weak argument in my opinion) I think he should not deny those effects but rather say that these effects are not worth the costs: in lives, money, reputation etc.

[jmdrake]

Every 6 to 8 months we have some "news" out of Iraq that's supposedly making everything "better". Really it comes down to serendipity and selective readings of the statistics. You have a 2 month spike in casualties, some want to pawn that off as a fluke, others a trend. You have a 2 month drop in casualties, the same things apply. A lot of what's going on in Iraq right now is the normal ebb and flow of guerrilla warfare. There have been a couple of fundamental changes that had NOTHING to do with the surge but are helping the numbers. Even general Petraus admitted that they had nothing to do with the surge, but that's not stopping him from taking credit for what happened.

1) Is the Sunnis finally getting tired of getting blown up by their Al Qaeda "allies".
2) Is Muqtada Al Sadr reining in his militia after they killed over 50 peaceful Shiite pilgrims in a shootout with security forces.

Both of these situations involved enemies overplaying their hands and ticking off their own constituencies. Will the lulls last? Who knows. I doubt it.

In the meantime:

1) Northern Iraq is STILL under threat of invasion from Turkey
2) Afghanistan is STILL getting worse
3) Pakistan is STILL getting worse and our puppet is acting more and more like Saddam
4) The political sides in Iraq are STILL no closer to any agreements

When Howard Dean said in 2004 that Saddam's capture didn't make us any safer I knew he was telling the truth but it did hurt his campaign. I think the dynamics are different now though. We've been through SOOOO many scenarios where the political and media leaders told us "this time we're going to turn the corner" (remember the "blue fingers"?) that Americans aren't likely to automagically become bullish on the war anymore. Also when Dean said that he was pretty much on his own and viciously attacked by all sides and almost all the other candidates from both parties. Now Paul has company (democratic anyway) in his assessment. Plus even though the media has been (mindlessly) cheerleading the latest developments as usually, they are being a bit more cautious.

I do think it would be helpful for Dr. Paul to flesh out his position some I suppose. "Success" with the surge doesn't mean "we're doing so good that we can stay longer" as Fred Thompson implied yesterday. Instead success means "reaching the point where we can pull OUT!" Force the opposition to explain the endgame. And force them to explain how threatening Iran which is closely allied with the Shiites in Iraq that we NEED to remain calm, helps our troops.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[sugaki]

I am your much-aligned "Neocon" (because we all love simplistic labeling).

That said, I think the dip in casualties is going to be counterbalanced with the Iraqi people's increasing frustration not only with the US (and the Blackwater debacle) but also the corruption rampant in the infant Iraqi govt. Sunni's were starting to push away Al Qaeda's help, but they're still frustrated by the inability of the govt to meet basic needs.

[1000-points-of-fright]

It really doesn't matter whether the surge is working or not. We had no business going into Iraq in the first place. If Iraq became a 1st world democratic paradise tomorrow, it would not change the ethics of the situation.

[partypooper]

I am your much-aligned "Neocon" (because we all love simplistic labeling).

that's ok - i am non-judgmental :)


That said, I think the dip in casualties is going to be counterbalanced with the Iraqi people's increasing frustration not only with the US (and the Blackwater debacle) but also the corruption rampant in the infant Iraqi govt. Sunni's were starting to push away Al Qaeda's help, but they're still frustrated by the inability of the govt to meet basic needs.

that's possible, but i think it makes the argument more complicated than it needs to be. i think the best argument is still that war in iraq cannot be cost-effective anymore no matter what the outcome.


It really doesn't matter whether the surge is working or not. We had no business going into Iraq in the first place. If Iraq became a 1st world democratic paradise tomorrow, it would not change the ethics of the situation.

you can argue for non-interventionism for moral and for pragmatic reasons. i think pragmatic reasons are much stronger and in any case much more likely to have an effect on people who disagree with you. people who already support the war will perhaps be persuaded by the argument that it is not in the american interest - but they are unlikely to be persuaded by the purely moral argument that it is not right to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations (it is not even clear where this 'rigtness' comes from - you can easily argue that is it not right for utilitarian reasons which brings you back to discussion of the actual consequences).

[pcosmar]

Is the surge working/not working.
What was the purpose again?

I would say not working, from it's inception.

[dmitchell]

I noticed that dr Paul said several times that the surge was not working. I don't know whether this is true, but I think it commits him to defending a claim that he doesn't need to defend. And it might come as especially off-putting to those pro-war Republicans that we are trying to convert.

I think the point should be that the war is not worth the cost - not that there is no way in which it can "work". Perhaps it is possible to lower the violance in Iraq significantly - but at what cost? So even if it is true that surge had some positive effects (as they pointed out to dr Paul today and he said that we should look at the trends from the beggining of the year and not just the last few months - a very weak argument in my opinion) I think he should not deny those effects but rather say that these effects are not worth the costs: in lives, money, reputation etc.
Strongly agree.

[jmdrake]

It's really simple. Look at this chart.

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

Notice the other months that have casualties as low as October's. (March 2006, March 2005, March 2004). Really the only thing remarkable about the latest numbers is that it's the lowest for an October month. Personally I'd love nothing better than a sustained drop in casualties. I have a friend that's about to be sent to Iraq for a third time. (And no, he does NOT want to go.) And of course that brings us to the real story. When casualties were higher the argument was "We can't leave. We need more troops." Now that casualties have dropped (really only for ONE MONTH) the is an argument to stay longer? What's the "benchmark" that let's us leave?

Regards,

John M. Drake

[mrd]

These numbers will also correspond to how much troop activity there is.

Say Bush was concerned about how Iraq was viewed prior to elections. He ensures a consistent decrease in operations in the months prior to the elections, through policy orders to his generals. This directly translates to decreasing casualties.

Now, this is just hypothetical. Anyone know if there are statistics concerning troop activity in hot areas?