PDA

View Full Version : The Surge To No Where



Gayle in MD
01-21-2008, 11:15 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802873.html

wolfdancer
01-21-2008, 01:30 PM
need I remind you that only a seditionist would post something like that?
We won't be able to verify that author's opinions until our resident "expert" here checks in, and shares some of his "insider's take"

LWW
01-22-2008, 04:33 AM
The article doesn't support the title of this thread, or even claim to.

If either of you had read it you would know that.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-22-2008, 01:21 PM
<font color="blue">Since the article is being falsely portrayed, by a blind poster, (blind, or illiterate) I've pasted it in full. </font color>


Surge to Nowhere
Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, January 20, 2008; B01



As the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom nears, the fabulists are again trying to weave their own version of the war. The latest myth is that the "surge" is working.

In President Bush's pithy formulation, the United States is now "kicking ass" in Iraq. The gallant Gen. David Petraeus, having been given the right tools, has performed miracles, redeeming a situation that once appeared hopeless. Sen. John McCain has gone so far as to declare that "we are winning in Iraq." While few others express themselves quite so categorically, McCain's remark captures the essence of the emerging story line: Events have (yet again) reached a turning point. There, at the far end of the tunnel, light flickers. Despite the hand-wringing of the defeatists and naysayers, victory beckons.

From the hallowed halls of the American Enterprise Institute waft facile assurances that all will come out well. AEI's Reuel Marc Gerecht assures us that the moment to acknowledge "democracy's success in Iraq" has arrived. To his colleague Michael Ledeen, the explanation for the turnaround couldn't be clearer: "We were the stronger horse, and the Iraqis recognized it." In an essay entitled "Mission Accomplished" that is being touted by the AEI crowd, Bartle Bull, the foreign editor of the British magazine Prospect, instructs us that "Iraq's biggest questions have been resolved." Violence there "has ceased being political." As a result, whatever mayhem still lingers is "no longer nearly as important as it was." Meanwhile, Frederick W. Kagan, an AEI resident scholar and the arch-advocate of the surge, announces that the "credibility of the prophets of doom" has reached "a low ebb."

Presumably Kagan and his comrades would have us believe that recent events vindicate the prophets who in 2002-03 were promoting preventive war as a key instrument of U.S. policy. By shifting the conversation to tactics, they seek to divert attention from flagrant failures of basic strategy. Yet what exactly has the surge wrought? In substantive terms, the answer is: not much.

As the violence in Baghdad and Anbar province abates, the political and economic dysfunction enveloping Iraq has become all the more apparent. The recent agreement to rehabilitate some former Baathists notwithstand ing, signs of lasting Sunni-Shiite reconciliation are scant. The United States has acquired a ramshackle, ungovernable and unresponsive dependency that is incapable of securing its own borders or managing its own affairs. More than three years after then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice handed President Bush a note announcing that "Iraq is sovereign," that sovereignty remains a fiction.

A nation-building project launched in the confident expectation that the United States would repeat in Iraq the successes it had achieved in Germany and Japan after 1945 instead compares unfavorably with the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina. Even today, Iraqi electrical generation meets barely half the daily national requirements. Baghdad households now receive power an average of 12 hours each day -- six hours fewer than when Saddam Hussein ruled. Oil production still has not returned to pre-invasion levels. Reports of widespread fraud, waste and sheer ineptitude in the administration of U.S. aid have become so commonplace that they barely last a news cycle. (Recall, for example, the 110,000 AK-47s, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets intended for Iraqi security forces that, according to the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon cannot account for.) U.S. officials repeatedly complain, to little avail, about the paralyzing squabbling inside the Iraqi parliament and the rampant corruption within Iraqi ministries. If a primary function of government is to provide services, then the government of Iraq can hardly be said to exist.

Moreover, recent evidence suggests that the United States is tacitly abandoning its efforts to create a truly functional government in Baghdad. By offering arms and bribes to Sunni insurgents -- an initiative that has been far more important to the temporary reduction in the level of violence than the influx of additional American troops -- U.S. forces have affirmed the fundamental irrelevance of the political apparatus bunkered inside the Green Zone.

Rather than fostering political reconciliation, accommodating Sunni tribal leaders ratifies the ethnic cleansing that resulted from the civil war touched off by the February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a Shiite shrine. That conflict has shredded the fragile connective tissue linking the various elements of Iraqi society; the deals being cut with insurgent factions serve only to ratify that dismal outcome. First Sgt. Richard Meiers of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division got it exactly right: "We're paying them not to blow us up. It looks good right now, but what happens when the money stops?"

In short, the surge has done nothing to overturn former secretary of state Colin Powell's now-famous "Pottery Barn" rule: Iraq is irretrievably broken, and we own it. To say that any amount of "kicking ass" will make Iraq whole once again is pure fantasy. The U.S. dilemma remains unchanged: continue to pour lives and money into Iraq with no end in sight, or cut our losses and deal with the consequences of failure.

In only one respect has the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won't be coming home anytime soon. This was one of the main points of the exercise in the first place. As AEI military analyst Thomas Donnelly has acknowledged with admirable candor, "part of the purpose of the surge was to redefine the Washington narrative," thereby deflecting calls for a complete withdrawal of U.S. combat forces. Hawks who had pooh-poohed the risks of invasion now portrayed the risks of withdrawal as too awful to contemplate. But a prerequisite to perpetuating the war -- and leaving it to the next president -- was to get Iraq off the front pages and out of the nightly news. At least in this context, the surge qualifies as a masterstroke. From his new perch as a New York Times columnist, William Kristol has worried that feckless politicians just might "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory." Not to worry: The "victory" gained in recent months all but guarantees that the United States will remain caught in the jaws of Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Such success comes at a cost. U.S. casualties in Iraq have recently declined. Yet since Petraeus famously testified before Congress last September, Iraqi insurgents have still managed to kill more than 100 Americans. Meanwhile, to fund the war, the Pentagon is burning through somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion per week. Given that further changes in U.S. policy are unlikely between now and the time that the next administration can take office and get its bearings, the lavish expenditure of American lives and treasure is almost certain to continue indefinitely.

But how exactly do these sacrifices serve the national interest? What has the loss of nearly 4,000 U.S. troops and the commitment of about $1 trillion -- with more to come -- actually gained the United States?

Bush had once counted on the U.S. invasion of Iraq to pay massive dividends. Iraq was central to his administration's game plan for eliminating jihadist terrorism. It would demonstrate how U.S. power and beneficence could transform the Muslim world. Just months after the fall of Baghdad, the president declared, "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Democracy's triumph in Baghdad, he announced, "will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation." In short, the administration saw Baghdad not as a final destination but as a way station en route to even greater successes.

In reality, the war's effects are precisely the inverse of those that Bush and his lieutenants expected. Baghdad has become a strategic cul-de-sac. Only the truly blinkered will imagine at this late date that Iraq has shown the United States to be the "stronger horse." In fact, the war has revealed the very real limits of U.S. power. And for good measure, it has boosted anti-Americanism to record levels, recruited untold numbers of new jihadists, enhanced the standing of adversaries such as Iran and diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan, a theater of war far more directly relevant to the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Instead of draining the jihadist swamp, the Iraq war is continuously replenishing it.

Look beyond the spin, the wishful thinking, the intellectual bullying and the myth-making. The real legacy of the surge is that it will enable Bush to bequeath the Iraq war to his successor -- no doubt cause for celebration at AEI, although perhaps less so for the families of U.S. troops. Yet the stubborn insistence that the war must continue also ensures that Bush's successor will, upon taking office, discover that the post-9/11 United States is strategically adrift. Washington no longer has a coherent approach to dealing with Islamic radicalism. Certainly, the next president will not find in Iraq a useful template to be applied in Iran or Syria or Pakistan.

According to the war's most fervent proponents, Bush's critics have become so "invested in defeat" that they cannot see the progress being made on the ground. Yet something similar might be said of those who remain so passionately invested in a futile war's perpetuation. They are unable to see that, surge or no surge, the Iraq war remains an egregious strategic blunder that persistence will only compound.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book, "The Limits of Power," will be published later this year.

wolfdancer
01-22-2008, 01:27 PM
Gayle, someone here, has a reading comprehension problem...and it ain't me, and it ain'ts you...
"....They are unable to see that, surge or no surge, the Iraq war remains an egregious strategic blunder that persistence will only compound."

LWW
01-22-2008, 01:30 PM
You didn't need to do that.

I read it.

I already knew it didn't support your thread's title.

You did to.

LWW

LWW
01-22-2008, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Gayle, someone here, has a reading comprehension problem...and it ain't me, and it ain'ts you...
"....They are unable to see that, surge or no surge, the Iraq war remains an egregious strategic blunder that persistence will only compound." <hr /></blockquote>
Why, in your own words, do you feel this way?

LWW

bsmutz
01-22-2008, 01:48 PM
And you have the gonads to call someone else a troll. Unbelievable.

LWW
01-22-2008, 01:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> And you have the gonads to call someone else a troll. Unbelievable. <hr /></blockquote>
I already knew you couldn't answer why.

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-22-2008, 01:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
signs of lasting Sunni-Shiite reconciliation are scant. The United States has acquired a ramshackle, ungovernable and unresponsive dependency that is incapable of securing its own borders or managing its own affairs. <hr /></blockquote>

Jack,
As time goes on, it becomes more evident, the degree to which these neoconned sheep must go, in order to deny their original stupidity, when they voted for George Bush.

Their only hope now, is to promote their fantasy, that not only is Bush not responsible for anything he has done these last seven years, but that his disasterous decisions, were good decisions.

The degree of illogical and false analysis which they seek to claim as truth, can only be embraced by the kind of people who claim such fantasies as believing that the reason why twenty new hi-jkackers haven't yet blown up more buildings, is because they're all distracted with the War In Iraq, or that we are now protected by Bush total refusal to close the borders, protect our ports, and deport the illegals.

I have come to realize that it is not only ego protection which drives their passion for denial, but worse yet, pure stupidity. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.
So Proud That I never Voted For George Bush!

LWW
01-22-2008, 02:09 PM
So, you don't know the answer either?

LWW

bsmutz
01-22-2008, 04:34 PM
I cannot believe that someone could be so retarded and still know how to write as well as you! You should be commended for beating the odds.

I'm doing this for your self-edification as I'm sure everyone else here is smart enough to figure this out on their own. The thread title that Gayle picked is taken from...


The Article! You know, the one she linked to and then copied and pasted for you since she knew you were too mentally challenged to go look at it.

And you'll never guess who came up with the title, so I'll tell you. It was...

The Author! You know, the professor that did the research and wrote The Article so we could all enjoy it (until you came along and ruined it like you always do). And guess what? He probably thought that it was a good title for his article since that is what the article is about and pretty much all it is about.

If you don't agree with him, that's just too bad. Now go be a good boy and finish up your coloring book. We'll spend the next couple of months teaching you what 1+1 equals so you can get up to speed with your counterpart on the pool forum side.

LWW
01-22-2008, 04:48 PM
And none of that changes the fact that the article doesn't support the claim, that and you are too blinded by partisan politics to tell.

Or, maybe, it just doesn't matter to you as long as the title sounds appealing.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are zombieized by bumper sticker politics.

LWW

wolfdancer
01-22-2008, 05:01 PM
Bill, you just expressed my thoughts, more eloguently then I could have.

LWW
01-22-2008, 05:06 PM
Being that you admit you can't understand complex things ... I'd say that's a true statement.

Now, see if he has any more Haterade in the fridge for you.

LWW

bsmutz
01-22-2008, 05:21 PM
I'm about as apolitical as anyone can be. I judged the article on what was written in the article. Just like I judge you by the lack of thought and lack of ability to derive meaning from the written word evident in most every one of your posts. I would not be a bit surprised if I were to state that the color of the text in this post is black that you would state that it was some other color. I'm beginning to wonder if your sole purpose is just to be contrary. Nobody could be as stupid as you seem to be.

LWW
01-22-2008, 05:30 PM
You seem to hate quite a bit.

Have you considered angger management?

LWW

bsmutz
01-22-2008, 05:41 PM
Au contraire, my little toadie. I've not a hateful bone in my body. I am all about love, peace, and tolerance. I have to say, though, that I am not particularly fond of people who make bold statements and then don't have the manhood/brains to discuss what they have said in a meaningful, coherent manner. You claim to be a liberal myth buster (but appear instead to be a bumbling fool incapable of normal thought processes). You can just label me as a rectal itch for self-proclaimed liberal myth busters. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif What's an angger, by the way? Is it something I need to manage or will it go away all by itself some day?

LWW
01-22-2008, 06:10 PM
So, you are a hater who is also in denial over it.

I've helped many neolibs reform.

I'm pulling for you.

LWW

bsmutz
01-22-2008, 06:14 PM
What's a neolib? Like I said, I'm apolitical and don't keep up with all this political labeling babble you seem to be into. Why don't you spend some of your vast wealth to get laid instead of sitting at the computer "pulling for me"? It might help with that key bounce problem you seem to have.

LWW
01-22-2008, 06:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> What's a neolib? Like I said, I'm apolitical and don't keep up with all this political labeling babble you seem to be into. Why don't you spend some of your vast wealth to get laid instead of sitting at the computer "pulling for me"? It might help with that key bounce problem you seem to have. <hr /></blockquote>
It's a word I started using after years of liberals thowing "NEOCON" around.

LWW