Obama is Right on the "Surge"

Greg Mitchell had a great diary up yesterday highlighting the fact that Maliki does not credit the surge with the reduction in violence in Iraq, but rather a combination of factors. From Spiegel Online:

SPIEGEL: In your opinion, which factor has contributed most to bringing calm to the situation in the country?

Maliki: There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery.

Here is what Obama had to say about the "Surge" today:

In an interview with ABC's Terry Moran, Obama said that he "did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

The statement by Maliki (which Obama's statement mirrors) has gotten little, if no attention in the MSM. Instead we keep hearing McCain's screeching about how Obama is not crediting the Surge with the reduction in violence and how "naive" Obama is for not seeing how the "Surge" is the reason he's able to visit there today.

Well, Kevin Drum over at Washington Monthly lists a timeline of events leading up to the "Surge" and draws the same conclusion as Barack Obama.

 

• February 2006: Muqtada al-Sadr orders an end to execution-style killings by Mahdi Army death squads.
• August 2006: Sadr announces a broad ceasefire, which he has maintained ever since.
• September 2006: The Sunni Awakening begins. Tribal leaders, first in Anbar and later in other provinces, start fighting back against al-Qaeda insurgents.
• March 2007: The surge begins.

Say what you will about the surge, which does indeed deserve a share of the credit for reducing violence and increasing security in Baghdad. But it pretty obviously wasn't related to either the Shia militia stand-down or the Sunni Awakening, since both those things began before Petraeus took over in Iraq and before the surge was even a gleam in George Bush's eye. American troops played a role in the Sadr ceasefire and (especially) the Awakening, but the surge itself didn't — and without them, the surge would certainly have failed. Obama has it exactly right.

Calling Keith Olberman!! Will these facts ever filter in to the MSM? I'd like to see Obama and his surrogates push this narrative a little (ok, a LOT) more when he returns to the US. It's a great way to counter McCain's only foreign policy card.

•  Tips/Flames

  by DJShay on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM PDT

  •  Agree, but the violence is only down compared to

    increased violence in the previous year.  Check out this recent piece by Juan Cole:

    Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.

    That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday). The hype around last year's troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now!

    http://www.juancole.com/...

    I think it's time for us to say: gee, it's wonderful that our brave troops and events in Iraq have brought the violence level in Iraq down to where it was two years ago!

    by Tamar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM PDT

    •  So Tamar what happens when we leave?

      The violence disappears? How does that work?  Or don't you care as long as it's not our soldiers being killed?

      by The Third Way on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:20:59 PM PDT

      •  Here's how it works

        First, al-Qaeda gets crushed. They make up a very small minority, and everyone despises them. That will reduce long term violence by creating some short term violence.

        Second, the Shiites and Sunnis will basically continue to do what they've done in Baghdad - ethnically cleanse their neighborhoods so that Shiites and Sunnis remain relatively on their sides of the boundaries. Due to our supplying of both sides with weapons, this will be a lot more bloody that it likely would have been. Still, staying in Iraq doesn't help. They were perfectly capable of ethnically cleansing Baghdad under our watch. It just took longer and killed a lot more US soldiers in the crossfire.

        Third, with the sides separated, either they form their own countries, or learn how to get along on a high level. There could be full scale war between the sides. Regional talks need to take place to contain the problem.

        The bottom line is that the warring factions are going to have it out. They're already having it out. And our presence isn't doing anything to quash it - to the countrary, it enlongates this period of conflict. At the cost of our troops. I don't want our troops dying, but I don't want their people dying either. Unfortunatly, we've made this mess, and it's going to be painful getting out of it. But when you're in a hole, the first step to getting out is to stop digging. Our continued presence is digging.

        by bbrown8370 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:34:09 PM PDT

      •  Now why would you accuse me of not caring

        or argue with me about a subject I wasn't addressing?  Very peculiar.  I guess you must be very angry with someone and have mistaken me for that person.

        by Tamar on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:20:05 PM PDT

    •  I'm so friicking sick of the $urge

      when the main reason the violence is down is because we are PAYING everybody not to shoot at us.

      I swear, if mcCane has his way, there would be a line on your IRS form asking if you want to send your tax dollars to the sunni or the shia. Please check the appropriate box.

      by logsol on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM PDT

•  I was thinking this too

  The Repbulicans have aligned behind one message today and I have only seen a couple of surrogates for Obama defending him.  When the GOP goes on a roll, they repeat their lies until the press covers it as fact.

  The way I see it, quelling the violence, while important, was only about 30% of the goal.  So if we want to call 30% a success, we are setting our bar very low.

  by mouser68 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:07:43 PM PDT

•  Of course he was right...

  The costs of this war was, and is, too great for this country to bear. The war in Iraq was, and is, undermining this country. We have too many other needs to squander all our resources in Iraq.

  We should have begun withdrawing when we started the surge. Nobody has any evidence that the Iraqi Government wouldn't be as far or even further along if we had begun withdrawing when we surged (all this inadvertent sexual inuendo really is unintended!).

  The goal should have been, and should be, to end the war in Iraq, not continue it. Obama had it right, Bush McCain had it wrong.

  by Sarge in Seattle on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:28:23 PM PDT

•  The Foreign Affairs blog has a lengthy piece on

  "The Price of the Surge." Among the background and analysis, I found this paragraph significant:

  Given the current trajectory, significant Sunni segments of the postsurge Iraqi state will continue to be funded by the United States, but they will remain beyond the control of either Baghdad or Washington. They will also be in a position to establish ties with neighboring countries. All of this may well accelerate the centrifugal forces unleashed by the bottom-up strategy. When it withdraws from Iraq, the United States will be leaving a country more divided than the one it invaded -- thanks to a strategy that has systematically nourished domestic rivalries in order to maintain an illusory short-term stability.

  by 1BQ on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:32:41 PM PDT

•  and the only time the conservatives...

  have aknowledged the approximatly 4.2 million refugees is when they where (tone deafly) cheering the misguided belief that Anjelina Jolie supports their dirty little war.

  By definition insurgencies are weak.  There were at least 3 different factions fighting against a vastly stronger American army.  After enough people are killed, maimed and displaced; after enough homes are destroyed, it is inevitable that eventually the violence will subside.

  That doesn't mean that a stable Iraq can be created while a foreign occupying force is still on the ground.

  Bring 'em home!

  by gooners on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:34:44 PM PDT

•  What they aren't saying...

  which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda

  Awakening? Or opening their checkbooks? We put the tribal leaders on the payroll, and they rolled over...

  And Al Sadr decided on a truce...

  AND our military did the work of the Iraqi police force (very well, thank you) while our nation went bankrupt.

  by MrMichaelMT on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:36:07 PM PDT

  •  I think that they were

    already growing tired of their aliance with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was trying to enfore Sharia law in the places where they were strong and there was a backlash. I think our policy of providing support to the Sunni militias came after the militias had already started to think twice. We just took advantage of the situation to get the most benefit.

    by NMDad on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM PDT

    •  All of the above

      It was never a natural alliance, the Sunni being relatively secular in Iraq. It's a testament to the information-adverse American voters that they can be sold the idea that this is all part of "the surge."

      by MrMichaelMT on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:32:25 PM PDT