COLUMN: Surge Report
COLUMN: Lack of progress in war shows
By Jon Adams
Last week, General Petraeus gave his long-awaited and much-politicized report on the “surge” before Congress. He predictably exaggerated its successes, downplayed its shortcomings, and pleaded for our continued (and undue) patience.
Petraeus first exploited the decline in sectarian violence to validate the Bush administration’s policy. His data, however, is suspect. Petraeus himself admitted the data ignored Sunni-on-Sunni and Shiite-on-Shiite violence. Moreover, general violence countrywide has risen. In any case, where sectarian violence has fallen, it has had little to do with the surge.
The relative calm in Baghdad, for example, is largely the product of its increased segregation. Baghdad’s Sunni population, the target of Shiite militias, is now a shadow of what it was only a couple years ago. Sunni families have either fled or been murdered. Center for American Progress analyst Brian Katulis estimates that Baghdad, which used to be a 65 percent Sunni majority city, is now 75 percent Shia-a horrific transformation. So the only “progress” we’ve witnessed in Baghdad is in the ethnic cleansing of its neighborhoods.
The surge’s show-pony is Anbar province, where security gains have allegedly been most pronounced. Sunni sheiks and insurgents have temporarily allied themselves with US forces to fight al-Qaeda-a welcome development, but not surprising. Iraqis have for years unanimously opposed al-Qaeda’s presence in Iraq. The jihadists-most of whom are Saudis-lost the support of the Iraqi people with their vicious campaign of targeting innocent civilians and holy sites. As early as 2003, the Sunni insurgency in Anbar offered to help US forces fight al-Qaeda, but the US rejected the offer.
The present accord between Sunni and US forces actually predated the surge by four months. And it was the prospect of our withdrawing forces, not surging them, which forced Anbar’s Sunni gangs to confront al-Qaeda. But to claim credit for Anbar’s preexisting stability, the Bush administration cleverly sent 4,000 troops there as part of the surge.
I also doubt the wisdom of arming these Sunni gangs. This strategy undermines Prime Minister al-Maliki’s fledgling government, inflames Iraq’s Shiites, and stokes more sectarian conflict. And bear in mind that these are the same people who until very recently were killing and maiming our soldiers. As al-Qaeda is further marginalized in Iraq, what assurance do we have that they will not resume attacks on US forces, and with the weapons we supplied them?
President Bush announced, at its onset, that the driving purpose of the surge is to create a breathing space in which the Iraqi parliament could reach political reconciliation. Short of that end, our modest security gains are in vain and the surge is a failure.
To date, no such political progress has been made. Earlier this year, the Iraqi parliament committed to meeting 18 political benchmarks come mid-September. However, instead of faithfully pursuing these benchmarks, the Iraqi parliament treated itself to a month-long vacation. It was too hot to be in legislative session, the White House said in their defense. Well, their self-imposed deadline has passed and here is where they stand: of the 18 benchmarks, the Iraqi parliament has partially met four and only fully met three, according to the Government Accountability Office. This degree of fruitless dithering and incompetence could make our own government blush-almost. But so long as we occupy their country, the Iraqi parliament can never effectively govern.
Ultimately, General Petraeus wants us to stay in Iraq for at least the next decade, but he understands the political expedience in convincing Americans otherwise. So next summer, he and the administration plan to draw down our forces by 30,000. Or, in other words, just return the troop levels to what they were before the surge. While this is being spun as a response to the surge’s progress, the fact is these 30,000 soldiers have to be withdrawn-our all-volunteer military is broken and unable to sustain the current troop levels into next year.
What remaining traction Petraeus’ testimony had with me was lost with this exchange:
Republican Senator Warner: “Does [the surge] make America safer?”
General Petraeus: “Sir, I don’t know, actually.”
It was an honest confession, but his answer begs a sobering question: how can this administration continue to ask young men and women to gamble their lives for this misbegotten mission when it cannot be confidently said that it is in our national interest? They can’t ask this of the soldiers. They’ve demanded too much of them already.
Our military has done its best to salvage the situation in Iraq. Neither the soldiers nor even General Petraeus are to blame for this disastrous war; its sole proprietor is the Bush administration. And yet the military has footed the bill. Three-thousand, eight-hundred soldiers have been killed, 28,000 wounded (many critically), and countless others psychologically ravaged. President Bush, in comparison, has sacrificed only his approval ratings.
Support our troops or support the war. Because between the two, there has never been so stark a disparity.
Jon Adams is a junior majoring in political science. Comments and questions can be sent to him at jonadams@cc.usu.edu.