The Surge is Working!
by tgirschJuly 25th, 2008
According to former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, not so much:
When it comes to Iraq, the surge is a great success, right? Well, according to Ayad Allawi, Iraq’s former prime minister, that depends on what you mean by “success”.
In a briefing before members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, Allawi answered questions from members of he subcommittee on international organizations, human rights, and oversight. When asked by Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the subcommittee’s ranking member, for Allawi’s “assessment of of what’s come of the surge,” Allawi all but said, not much.
Reminding Rohrabacher that the original objective of the surge was to create a safe environment for a process of national reconciliation, Allawi said, “Now, militarily, the surge has achieved some of its goals. Politically, I don’t think so.”
Allawi rattled off a laundry list of perils that still confront the Iraqi people: internal displacement of large numbers of people, millions of refugees outside Iraq, security forces he described as sectarian militias dressed in national uniforms, no enforcement of the national constitution, which he described as a “divisive” document.
The former prime minister, who is now a member of the Iraqi parliament, also alleged that the process known as “deBaathification” is “being used to punish people.” Originally designed to purge Saddam Hussein’s loyalists from the military and security forces, Allawi said the process has become politicized and can be used against virtually anybody, since Saddam Hussein’s “Baath party ruled for 35 years, and every individual had to join…”
“So, if you measure the surge from a military point of view, it has succeeded,” Allawi said. “But I don’t think this was the [prime] objective, because soon you will have reversals. Security has not prevailed, and the key element in security is reconciliation, and building national institutions for the country. If this does not happen, then the surge will go in vain.”
Which is what most of us who opposed the surge have been saying all along. The surge is only “succeeding” according to a definition of “success” that dramatically moves the goal posts from its originally stated objectives.
Link via Eric Martin at Obsidian Wings.
Categories: Foreign Policy, Iraq, News & Current Events, Politics |
I’ll second - or I guess maybe third - the sentiment, having said the same thing earlier today.
Right, we should try to lose in Iraq. How dare we try to win? The surge didn’t work. Everyone with any intelligence knows that. Who cares what those in Iraq say. Obama is right. The wonderful Europeans know that. Let’s try to be like the Europeans.
Once again, you prove that you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. If you read the story, you’ll see that it is an Iraqi saying that the surge isn’t working. And nobody’s saying we should “try to lose” in Iraq. All we’re saying is that it’s delusional to think that we’re winning there now. You can buy all the rah-rah-rah spin you want to, but that doesn’t make it true.
Of course, I’m sure you’d rather stay in Iraq for 100 years with McCain than admit you were wrong about anything.
If by “lose”, you mean “no longer being running the government”, then yes, we should be trying to lose Iraq.
If by “lose”, you mean “kill a progressively smaller number of Iraqis”, then yes, we should be trying to lose Iraq.
If by “lose”, you mean “fail to win the hearts and minds of the people”, you might want to reconsider your support for having started the war, and yes, we should be trying to lose Iraq sooner rather than later.
“All we’re saying is that it’s delusional to think that we’re winning there now.”
Yeah, right. And you say I am delusional.
Without a definition of what our goals are, it is difficult to determine if we are winning. Fred, can you define the goals by which you measure winning and losing in Iraq? And is your definition a stable one? IE, would you have defined the goals the same way in 02, 04, and 06?
“you might want to reconsider your support for having started the war,”
You must not be talking to me because I don’t think we should have started the war. I’m with the liberals on this. Let them fight their own fights.
BTW, there is a difference between losing “in” Iraq and losing Iraq.
Okay, I admit I misread that. I thought you said “lose Iraq”, not “lose in Iraq”, and I guess those could mean different things in some contexts. What substantive difference is there in this case?