We interrupt this financial crisis to point out that things really are going
much, much better in Iraq. I used to check the Iraq Index like one of those rats in a lab experiment that gets cocaine every time they press a button. But recently, I've been a little distracted. So it's worth pointing out that so far, the gains from the Surge seem pretty durable.
They really do. With the continued noise from the Iraqi government that it's time for us to draw down-- you know, the legitimate government of the country, the one we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to create?-- and this newfound security, it's time to begin getting out. It's time.
Yay...does that mean we can leave now?
Actually, Freddie, Le Bush was ahead of you by about two months:
cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/us.iraq.military/index.html
While this is certainly good news, I'd be more interested in seeing if the violence manages to stay at a lower level after we return to "normal" force levels. Lets not forget that the surge is still somewhat in place, as General Petraeus has slowed the pace of withdrawals to avoid giving up security gains. If violence increases as we leave, then it would be clear that the goals of the surge were not achieved, since the main goal of the surge was to put in place structures to permanently reduce violence.
Quanticle is correct. The goals of the surge were a reduction of violence that is durable upon the withdrawl of US forces. This will be tested in the coming year. I expect most US forces (75%of them) to be withdrawn within the next 16 months. The question then will be, what is be our response if the violence overtakes Iraq again?
"While this is certainly good news, I'd be more interested in seeing if the violence manages to stay at a lower level after we return to "normal" force levels. Lets not forget that the surge is still somewhat in place, as General Petraeus has slowed the pace of withdrawals to avoid giving up security gains. If violence increases as we leave, then it would be clear that the goals of the surge were not achieved, since the main goal of the surge was to put in place structures to permanently reduce violence."
Last time I checked we are already at pre surge troop levels
Sorry for the double post, but another thing occurred to me. It seems to me that a lot of the decrease in violence has been attributable to our turning the Sunni tribes into allies rather than enemies. However, this raises the question, "Who are they allied with?" Are they allied with the US, or with the (Shia) Iraqi government? Will they simply revert to their old hostilities against the national government when we leave?
Important questions, to be sure. It does seem that the Sunni groups have joined the Iraqi payroll now. Still certainly bears watching.
The civilian death graph is impressive. Especially because it shows such a dramatic decline yet is actually a graph with the x-axis at zero. I'm so used to graphs that chop off the bottom to make the change seem more dramatic. But Brookings is taking the responsible route on all their graphs here. Here, here!
And indeed, yet more troops are being drawn down, ahead of schedule.
Well, we are below pre-surge levels. The surge topped out at 20 brigades. At the end of July, we were already back down to pre-surge levels. We're currently at 15 brigades, and the announced withdrawal (of 2 brigades of Screaming Eagles, but with replacement by only 1 new brigade) will bring us down to 14.
It's a long and careful process, but what commenters seem to be calling for is already happening.
Of course, they're saying that the brigades need to go to Afghanistan now. Since President-elect Obama was all for that, that should be no problem, correct?
I would be surprised to find any additional troops are sent to Afghanistan after January. I think Obama was blowing smoke on that one, but it is a lie that had my support- I think the troops in Afghanistan should be drawn down as well since the case for keeping them there was far weaker than the one for keeping them in Iraq.
If everything's going so great, how come The One is going to leave troops in Iraq indefnitely.....what, he hasn't said that?
Not yet........but he will.
Ever notice how the word "quagmire" is suddenly much harder to pronounce these days?
So that's how Obama's going to find the troops to invade Pakistan!
A bit less awful, and a good deal more hope. But would any of us want to go and live there?
//But would any of us want to go and live there?//
Sure. See also: reenlistment levels for combat troops; international contractors; investment by petroleum conglomerates.
"But would any of us want to go and live there?"
My first choice is the US. But if it was a choice between living in Iraq now and living there under Saddam, I'd pick now.
Sure bribing the sides not to create a chaos is a grand strategy.
At least stop writing like a major imbecile.
Can we just skip ahead to the part where we leave, Iraq descends into a Shiite theocracy, and Republicans blame it all on the Democrats?
When you say that the gains of the surge are stable, I worry that you're conflating the objectives of the surge with the objectives of our efforts there in general. I'm not going to rehash this argument though, rather I'll point out one thing I think is being missed: Al-Maliki, the guy we're getting ready to hand things off to, is a partisan Shia. I worry very, very much about what he starts doing once we leave. I would bet cash money that he changes his tune once we're gone, and the violence against Sunnis rises sharply. Just because the guy (and the government he runs) says "we're ready for you to go", doesn't mean that our actual objectives have been achieved, because it's not clear that our objectives were the same in the first place.
To me it smacks of a subtle and dangerous sort of racism, by which I mean the tendency of Americans, particularly our leaders, to underestimate the ability of Arabs to dissemble. I first noticed this when John McCain touted Hamas' "endorsement" or Obama as a reason not to vote for him. I thought, has McCain never heard of reverse psychology?
Now America, and particularly Liberals (of which I am one), seem to be making the same mistake about Al-Maliki, and the Iraqi government in general. Just because he has a brown face and talks funny, ought we assume that Al-Maliki lacks the intelligence and subtlety to have a hidden agenda? Why do we blithely accept his pronouncements of his desire for a unified Iraq, when all signs indicate that country is anything but unified? They can't even reach agreement on oil-profit-sharing, so where are the deep signs of progress?
When you say that the gains of the surge are stable, I worry that you're conflating the objectives of the surge with the objectives of our efforts there in general. I'm not going to rehash this argument though, rather I'll point out one thing I think is being missed: Al-Maliki, the guy we're getting ready to hand things off to, is a partisan Shia. I worry very, very much about what he starts doing once we leave. I would bet cash money that he changes his tune once we're gone, and the violence against Sunnis rises sharply. Just because the guy (and the government he runs) says "we're ready for you to go", doesn't mean that our actual objectives have been achieved, because it's not clear that our objectives were the same in the first place.
To me it smacks of a subtle and dangerous sort of racism, by which I mean the tendency of Americans, particularly our leaders, to underestimate the ability of Arabs to dissemble. I first noticed this when John McCain touted Hamas' "endorsement" or Obama as a reason not to vote for him. I thought, has McCain never heard of reverse psychology?
Now America, and particularly Liberals (of which I am one), seem to be making the same mistake about Al-Maliki, and the Iraqi government in general. Just because he has a brown face and talks funny, ought we assume that Al-Maliki lacks the intelligence and subtlety to have a hidden agenda? Why do we blithely accept his pronouncements of his desire for a unified Iraq, when all signs indicate that country is anything but unified? They can't even reach agreement on oil-profit-sharing, so where are the deep signs of progress?
Let's not forget the contribution of ethnic cleansing to the peace. Over 4 million Iraqi refugees, out of a population of 30 million or so.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1953066020080919
Theoretically, resettling every last Shiite, Sunni and Kurd would eliminate religious/ethnic violence entirely.
"...the gains from the Surge seem pretty durable. "
Why do you assume the Surge had anything to do with the outcomes? Ever read about the Sunni Awakening?
Ever read any David Hume? or Nicholas Taleb for that matter?
Tsk. Tsk.