The centerpiece of John McCain's campaign is that "the surge is working" in Iraq. He has repeated this lie hundreds of times on the trail, and in doing so, he has rarely been challenged. The press has largely reported his contention as fact, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The surge, the president's "New Way Forward," was supposed to provide stability, promote political progress, and otherwise assist the Iraqi government in meeting certain benchmarks. As to those expressed goals, the surge has, by any measure, failed.
Yet John McCain, this administration, and members of the press who dutifully repeated their spin as fact maintain that the surge "worked" because of there has been, in the last several months, a sharp decline in violence. The reality presents a much more complex situation. Ilan Goldberg summarizes:
The drop in violence in Iraq has generally been attributed to four elements 1) More American forces and the change in tactics to counterinsurgency; 2) The Awakening movement; 3) The Sadr ceasefire; and 4) The ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides.
Goldberg goes on to explain that which the media and McCain refuse to acknowledge: the drop in violence is more attributable to the Sadr ceasefire than the escalation.
It's hard to say for sure, which of these factors was the most important. The Bush administration will tell you it's all about the troop levels. I've tended to believe it's more of a mix and was most inclined towards the Anbar Awakening and the sectarian cleansing as the important factors. But when you look at the data it really seems to indicate that the Sadr ceasefire may have been the key.
If you look at the graph that the military has been using on civilian casualties it looks to tell a pretty clear story. The first major drop in violence came in early 2007 before the troop surge. It looks like it was mostly based on the fact that the worst of the sectarian cleansing in Baghdad had been completed (I outlined this argument more thoroughly a few months back).
The second drop in violence came in September. By that time the full surge had already been in effect for 2-3 months and the Awakening had been going on for a year. The Sadr ceasefire occurred on August 28 and suddenly boom a big drop in violence. That could be a coincidence and it could be that all four factors came together. But the data seems to point to the fact that the Sadr Ceasefire more then anything else is what caused the drop in violence in the early fall.
That fragile ceasefire may be on the verge of being broken:
Iraq's leaders faced their gravest challenge in months Tuesday as Shiite militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr battled government forces for control of the southern oil capital, fought U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad and unleashed rockets on the Green Zone.
Armed Mahdi Army militiamen appeared on some Baghdad streets for the first time in more than six months, as al-Sadr's followers announced a nationwide campaign of strikes and demonstrations to protest a government crackdown on their movement. Merchants shuttered their shops in commercial districts in several Baghdad neighborhoods. [...]
The burgeoning crisis — part of an intense power struggle among Shiite political factions — has major implications for the United States. An escalation could unravel the cease-fire which al-Sadr proclaimed last August. A resumption of fighting by his militia could kill more U.S. soldiers and threaten — at least in the short run — the security gains Washington has hailed as a sign that Iraq is on the road to recovery.
Measured against the goals established by both the president when he sent more troops into Iraq and by McCain when he vociferously argued for escalation of that conflict, the surge has failed. But even when measured against the post-hoc and truncated "goal" of only reducing violence -- which is what McCain and others point to when they claim the surge is "working" -- the surge has failed.
Simply put, if the surge had worked, Iraq would not find itself in today's precarious situation, relying upon a radical cleric's fragile ceasefire for relatively stability.
If what we wish never happens occurs -- that is, if the violence in Iraq continues to rise after such a positive downtrend -- will the media finally report that the surge has failed? Regardless of the level of violence, will the press admit that the escalation has failed to bring about the promised political progress? Or will they, in typical, stenographic fashion, allow John McCain to repeat the lie that has become the cornerstone of his candidacy?