Of course, we Americans wouldn’t know about this not so recent development because the media in this country has come to the overwhelming conclusion that the so-called "surge" is indeed working, and whatever evidence comes out to the contrary is simply naysayer nonsense.
The surge is working in at least one capacity; it’s provided cover for the Bush regime’s continued troop presence in a place where no presence at all is warranted. That is, unless keeping troops in Iraq is solely for holding the Iraq people hostage until they feel desperate enough to sign their futures away for the next thirty-years or so.
Although the Bush regime would never admit it, if there’s one thing they didn’t count on when planning the Iraqi invasion back in 2000, (in part at Cheney’s secret energy policy meeting) it’s the fact that the Iraqi people weren’t and to this day are still not willing to play the neocon’s board game of oil expropriation and neocon hegemony.
Primarily, there are two reasons why the 30,000-strong troop "surge" is perceived as working, and neither have been stated by the Bush regime.
• Muqtada al-Sadr called for a ceasefire months ago. The reasons for this strategic move are unclear but you can be sure that it’s not to help out U.S. forces, and likewise not to make the Maliki government look good.
• Iraq’s main Sunni-led resistance groups have been holding back attacks on U.S. forces in Baghdad and parts of Anbar province as well. This strategy is aimed at three things in particular: retraining, regrouping and waiting out the "surge." Or so a key insurgent leader has told the U.K's Guardian:
US officials recently reported a 55% drop in attacks across Iraq. One explanation they give is the presence of 30,000 extra US troops deployed this summer. The other is the decision by dozens of Sunni tribal leaders to accept money and weapons from the Americans in return for confronting al-Qaida militants who attack civilians. They call their movement al-Sahwa (the Awakening).
The resistance groups are another factor in the complex equation in Iraq's Sunni areas. "We oppose al-Qaida as well as al-Sahwa," the director of the political department of the 1920 Revolution Brigades told the Guardian in Damascus in a rare interview with a western reporter.
Using the nom de guerre Dr Abdallah Suleiman Omary, he went on: "Al-Sahwa has made a deal with the US to take charge of their local areas and not hit US troops, while the resistance's purpose is to drive the occupiers out of Iraq. We are waiting in al-Sahwa areas. We disagree with them but do not fight them. We have shifted our operations to other areas".
Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, has seen some of the heaviest fighting since the 2003 invasion but has become conspicuously calmer in recent months. "There is no resistance at the moment in Ramadi," Omary said. He described the tribal Awakening movement as "good for pushing al-Qaida out but negative for the resistance". "There are no armed clashes between us and them but they prevent us working in their areas," he added.
The 1920 Revolution Brigades, named after a Sunni uprising against British occupation forces back in 1920, has recently joined seven other Sunni-led armed resistance organizations to form what’s known as the Front for Struggle and Transformation. The purpose of the organization is to lay the foundation for a program of national unity, and bringing about a much anticipated U.S. withdrawal.
According to Omary, the Awakening’s range of movement has in the past comprised of Ramadi and Sunni-majority districts in Baghdad such as Ameriya, Adhamiya, and parts of Ghazaliya and Jihad. He warned that the present moratorium is likely to last only a few more months, pointing out that the deal made with the U.S. was temporary, and that the groups would begin splintering off again as more and more Iraqis discover "... the American’s true intentions."
He cited last week's announcement that the Bush administration plans to work with the Shia-led government of Nuri al-Maliki on arrangements for long-term US military bases and an open-ended occupation in Iraq.
Operating in small cells, Sunni resistance groups have been responsible for most of the roadside bomb attacks on US vehicles in western Iraq. While they are starting to unite at the political level, their suspicion of Iraq's Shia militias shows no sign of abating. "We helped [Shia cleric] Moqtada al-Sadr in 2004 when the Americans attacked Najaf, but see no point in dialogue with him now," Omary said.
Although Sadr presented himself as a nationalist and was unusual among Shia politicians in calling for an early end to the US occupation, Omary added: "He's still supporting this sectarian government in Baghdad. When his militias attack the United States they do it for their own political reasons and not to liberate Iraq".
Sadr's militia, the Jaish al-Mahdi, had killed too many innocent Sunni civilians, he went on.
Despite Omary’s claims, Sadr has yet to admit his control of most of the militant groups who’ve abducted and murdered Sunni civilians during the four plus years of the occupation, and especially since the bombing of the golden-domed shrine in Samarra in 2006. That shrine was sacred to Shi'ites.
"He never says they are not under his control, so we have to assume they are, said Omary. "He should denounce them. Every Sunni family in Baghdad has had someone killed by Jaish al-Mahdi. They have destroyed around 300 mosques in Baghdad. If you want us to negotiate with al-Sadr, you have to ask us to negotiate with al-Qaida. We consider al-Qaida is closer to us than Jaish al-Mahdi."
The White House is playing a dangerous game here. After nearly five years of occupation and years of planning before that, they’ve yet to fully understand the complexities of the Iraqi people. Right now, they’re willing to throw all caution to the wind by paying millions of dollars [of American taxpayer's money] to Sunni groups in exchange for the façade of progress, which in turn is used to lull the American people into a false sense of security.
But, what’s going to happen after a few months? What happens when the Sunnis and Shi'ites begin earnest talks of national unity? You know... like when they decide that the money isn’t worth it any longer and the Americans must leave their country. Will our troops be hurled back into an untenable situation in which every Iraqi is out to kill them? The violence is bound to spike again, and fairly soon, I suspect.
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to keep on blaming the Iranians, who incidentally, are looking more and more credible every day; thanks to their continued denials of fomenting sectarian violence [and lack of proof otherwise] and reports like today’s NIE that discounts Bush regime inspired fears of an ongoing Iranian nuclear weapon program.
In short, the "surge" is not working. Nor has it ever. It’s been a ruse; a cover for continued troop presence when no stated reason exists. Here’s a surprise...
It’s all about the oil.
Stop the lies.
Bring the troops home.
Peace