Not, of course, in winning the war in Iraq. That will require a lot more troops than even the surge put in-country, over a very long period, and will never happen. But it is a success for the purpose for which it was undertaken, which was to get Iraq out of the 2008 presidential campaign, and to give the Republican Party a chance to win the election.

The surge put just enough troops on the scene to control enough of the country to reduce various metrics of violence AND, because it was billed in advance as temporary, the various factions involved in the civil war which we unleashed when we took down Saddam had a good reason to pull back until it is over. Why start something now, when the Americans had the troops to hurt you, when they're leaving anyhow? What do you think Sadr's truce is about?

So when he debates Obama or Clinton this fall, John McCain will be able to say that things are going well in Iraq without fear of contradiction, and mendacious little turds like John Podhoretz will say, when Obama or Clinton say what I've said here, that they don't want America to succeed, hate the troops, etc. That's the Republican campaign plan, and its military arm was the surge. See, Bush IS competent when his political fortunes are at stake.

Luckily, McCain isn't as smart as Bush is. He has already said that we're going to need more troops and that we're going to be there for a long time. This means Obama or Clinton can point out that HE -- the next President if they aren't elected -- is going to continue the war indefinitely. And when McCain couples this with a call to make the tax cuts permanent, it can be shown pretty clearly that this combination will bankrupt the United States. You cannot perpetually spend 200 billion off-budget dollars every year(which is to say, every cent will be borrowed and carry with it interest charges whether the budget is balanced or not).

The difficulty which Obama or Clinton face is that they have no solution to the Iraq War THAT THEY CAN OFFER IN PUBLIC. There is a solution, of course. It begins with a new President going to as many powers as seem likely to help and saying, in secret of course, something like:

Look, the bozos we finally got rid of started a stupid war and then screwed it up. We want to end it but we don't want to see a bloody civil war as the aftermath. And since you guys live a lot closer to Iraq than we do, and have Muslim immigrant populations far in excess of ours, your security interests are going to be threatened much worse than ours if that happens. It is in your INTEREST to help us here. So let's cobble together an international force to control the situation until Iraq is stablilized. And since it will be your soldiers who are now on the firing line, part of the deal will be that we'll relinquish all command of the troops involved in this once our guys are out of there, providing only air support as needed, like we did in Bosnia.

The various powers won't like this and some -- the Russians come to mind -- may feel that bankrupting the United States is more in their interest, but the EU will see the wisdom of it. Even the Chinese will have reasons to support it -- at least financially -- because a bankrupt United States will likely try to escape bankruptcy by inflating its currency, which would make the billions of dollars in Chinese coffers worth a lot less.

But however it is worked out, it will take us a generation, and possibly two, before the damage wrought by the Bush administration is healed.

Very intelligent response.

pretty awesome post

Excellent post.

It's only fault is that it's far too long and far to nuanced for the average wingnut to read.

Which is why there don't seem to be any of the usual ranters on this thread.

Your post reminds me of the sort of intelligent discussion that used to happen hear seven years ago.

Y´know, back when the Bushites were gearing up for this war, I remember thinking (a) there´s no need for this, cause even though he´s a nasty guy, Saddam´s in a box and no threat; (b) Haven´t we still got a lot to do in Afganistan y'know, like catch the guy who started all this) and shouldn't we finish the one thing before looking around for another fight); (c ) Damn -- look at Iran. Those guys look a lot more potentially dangerous and wouldn't they love it if we tied what´s left of our resources up for, say, 10-15 years? I'm no geopolitical expert which only means that if I could come up with those considerations with only the knowledge of the world the "mainstream" and "new" media gave me, then why couldn't our elected leadership and their experts? The answer of course, is they did, but went ahead anyway -- political interest (theirs) being in their minds equivalent to national interest.

Once the deed was done, however, it seemed that the only way out was through. Pulling out "now" would only leave things worse than before the war -- worse for the US, worse for the Iraqis, worse for the world. Well, I'm a guy who thinks you ought to clean up your own messes -- fix what you broke, etc. So the surge made a sort of sense....

The above is a really long winded prelude to saying that Slasher´s cogent analysis is really appreciated, tying as it does the domestic political picture in so well. The only thing I would add (or perhaps caution about) is that one shouldn't expect too much rationality from the EU and therefore no count on a solution such as he suggests... Having lived in Europe I can tell you that demonstrable self interest is no greater an influence on decisions of the EU than it is on those of the US.

the_slasher14 wrote this abject NONSENSE and The Anointed Class quickly affirmed its approval, most fawningly:

"Look, the bozos we finally got rid of started a stupid war and then screwed it up. We want to end it but we don't want to see a bloody civil war as the aftermath. And since you guys live a lot closer to Iraq than we do, and have Muslim immigrant populations far in excess of ours, your security interests are going to be threatened much worse than ours if that happens. It is in your INTEREST to help us here. So let's cobble together an international force to control the situation until Iraq is stablilized. And since it will be your soldiers who are now on the firing line, part of the deal will be that we'll relinquish all command of the troops involved in this once our guys are out of there, providing only air support as needed, like we did in Bosnia.

[CALIFORNIADREAMIN INTERJECTS SOME FACTS INTO THE ANOINTED CLASS' DREAM WORLD:

1. IT WAS AN INTERNATIONAL FORCE THAT TOPPLED SADDAM HUSSEIN. PLEASE STOP PRETENDING OTHERWISE. BRITISH TROOPS HAVE DIED THERE. AUSTRALIAN, AND OTHER ALLIED TROOPS AS WELL GAVE THEIR LIVES.

2. YOUR REFERENCE TO BOSNIA IS VERY NOTEWORTHY. UNITED (sic) NATIONS PEACEKEEPING TROOPS (sick) LET SERB TROOPS INTO THEIR CIVILIAN ENCAMPMENTS AND REMOVE HUNDREDS OF MEN AND BOYS, AND MURDER THEM.

3. ELSEWHERE, IN NORTH AFRICA, THE U.N. PEACEKEEPERS DO LITTLE MORE THAN RAPE LOCAL WOMEN.]

The various powers won't like this and some -- the Russians come to mind -- may feel that bankrupting the United States is more in their interest, but the EU will see the wisdom of it. Even the Chinese will have reasons to support it -- at least financially -- because a bankrupt United States will likely try to escape bankruptcy by inflating its currency, which would make the billions of dollars in Chinese coffers worth a lot less.

But however it is worked out, it will take us a generation, and possibly two, before the damage wrought by the Bush administration is healed.

[CALIFORNIADREAMIN RESPONDS:

1. "SADDAM HUSSEIN MUST GO." - BILL "LOATHING THE MILITARY" CLINTON

2. YOU HAVE ALL SEEN THE VERY LONG THREAD OF QUOTES BY DEMOCRATS WHO CLAIMED THAT IRAQ HAD WMDS AND HAD TO BE STOPPED. NEVER DID ANY OF YOU HYPOCRITES CALL YOUR OWN ANOINTED ONES "LIARS." NEVER. NEVER DID ANY OF YOU OF THE ANOINTED SET DENOUNCE CLINTON OR AL GORE FOR SAYING SADDAM HUSSEIN MUST GO. QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, YOU NODDED IN ASSENT, THEN RETURNED TO YOUR WINE AND BRIE.]

Report abuse Quick Reply Re: Yes, The Surge Is A Success
by ecw0647
02/23/2008, 8:26 AM # Favorites Reply Very intelligent response.
Report abuse Quick Reply Re: Yes, The Surge Is A Success
by hildy
02/24/2008, 8:40 AM # Favorites Reply pretty awesome post Report abuse Quick Reply Re: Yes, The Surge Is A Success
by TomFitz
02/25/2008, 6:29 AM # Favorites Reply

Excellent post.

It's only fault is that it's far too long and far to (SIC) nuanced for the average wingnut to read.

[CALIFORNIADREAMIN RESPONDS: HOW EXQUISITE. TOM FITZ SPEAKS PRETENTIOUSLY OF "NUANCED" AND MISSPELLS "TOO." FABULOUS, DAHLING.]

Which is why there don't seem to be any of the usual ranters on this thread.

[CALIFORNIADREAMIN RESPONDS: WHEN YOU "NUANCED" ONES AREN'T DRIVING OUT THE "AVERAGE WINGNUT," YOU'RE WONDERING WHERE WE ALL ARE.

YOUR HYPOCRISY ISN'T AT ALL "NUANCED." IT'S BLATANT. IT'S SICKENING. IT'S AS PREDICTABLE AS THE TIDES AND THE MOON.]

Your post reminds me of the sort of intelligent discussion that used to happen hear seven years ago.

[CALIFORNIADREAMIN WITH INCREDULITY:

"HERE, HEAR." WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU'RE ANOINTED AND "NUANCED."]

Report abuse Quick Reply Re: Yes, The Surge Is A Success
by Embee
02/25/2008, 7:30 AM # Favorites Reply

Y´know, back when the Bushites were gearing up for this war, I remember thinking (a) there´s no need for this, cause even though he´s a nasty guy, Saddam´s in a box and no threat; (b) Haven´t we still got a lot to do in Afganistan (SIC) y'know, like catch the guy who started all this) and shouldn't we finish the one thing before looking around for another fight); (c ) Damn -- look at Iran. Those guys look a lot more potentially dangerous and wouldn't they love it if we tied what´s left of our resources up for, say, 10-15 years? I'm no geopolitical expert which only means that if I could come up with those considerations with only the knowledge of the world the "mainstream" and "new" media gave me, then why couldn't our elected leadership and their experts? The answer of course, is they did, but went ahead anyway -- political interest (theirs) being in their minds equivalent to national interest.

Once the deed was done, however, it seemed that the only way out was through. Pulling out "now" would only leave things worse than before the war -- worse for the US, worse for the Iraqis, worse for the world. Well, I'm a guy who thinks you ought to clean up your own messes -- fix what you broke, etc. So the surge made a sort of sense....

The above is a really long winded prelude to saying that Slasher´s cogent analysis is really appreciated, tying as it does the domestic political picture in so well. The only thing I would add (or perhaps caution about) is that one shouldn't expect too much rationality from the EU and therefore no count on a solution such as he suggests... Having lived in Europe I can tell you that demonstrable self interest is no greater an influence on decisions of the EU than it is on those of the US.

If I'm not mistaken, the request for additional troops ("the surge") came from Petraeus and Gates. As far as I know, their calculations were military, not political.

Many of the Democrats said the surge wouldn't work. There was political risk for the Republicans in supporting it--some didn't--and they didn't fair particularly well in the 2006 Congressional elections. So the_slasher14 is suggesting that Bush was more concerned about getting McCain elected in 2008 than in keeping Congress more Republican now. Not likely. Just typical ranting from the left--Bush is a genius when we need him to be to support our nutty conspiracy theories, and an idiot the rest of the time.

the_slasher14 may well be right as far as the political calculations of those Iraqui factions who have ratcheted down the violence there. It may well be that they are calculating their odds will be better if they wait until the inevitable drawdown. However, in doing so, they are giving the surge a chance to suceed. The surge has always been about a gamble that with some breathing space, the Iraqui goverment will be able to coalesce enough support to keep things from falling apart when the drawdown starts. Its reasonable to call that gamble a long shot, but it is also reasonable to think, given the alternatives, that it's a shot worth taking.

Then we drag out the old lie about Europe suddenly realizing that it is in their own self-interest to help in a meaningful way in Iraq if only we elect a Democratic administration. Sure, NATO is just falling all over themselves to disprove this silly fantasy in Afghanistan, and Europe dithers while Sudan displaces, starves, kills, and rapes black Africans, but lets not let facts or recent history stand in the way of our delusions.

Yes, the Republicans will lie about the economic costs of staying in Iraq. And the Democrats will lie about the political, military, economic, and human costs of leaving too soon. What else is new? I hear no call from anyone for the most honest approach to dealing with this issue from anyone, whicih would be to say that the situation sucks, and we're going to have to increase military spending and taxes to deal with it for some time. Or that the most sensible way to fund it would be with an energy tax. So, when hell freezes over, maybe a politician will be honest enough to say that $100 / barrel oil plus an energy tax is the most effective way to deal with both the middle east and reducing CO2 emissions. Get the cost of oil high enough to allow the market to pick the alternative energy winners instead of subsidizing Iowa farmers to make ethanol from feed corn for a net energy loss. Yeah, that'll happen.

'....because a bankrupt United States will likely try to escape bankruptcy by inflating its currency, which would make the billions of dollars in Chinese coffers worth a lot less'

Did you mean to say that they would be worth more? Seems to me the Chinese holding American dollars would be more interested in this happening.

I love the narrowminded approach that the "war in Iraq" is THE war.

In addition, I love the narrowminded assertion that the next president is going to have the ability to either "end" or "prolong" THE war.

This "war" started WAY before 9/11. It will go on WAY past Iraq and Afghanistan.

Until you get your skull wrapped around that very inconvenient fact, you're (if you are one of the multitude that buys this notion) going to have a very bitter, perpetually disappointed, miserable little life.

War is part of human nature. Ever since Ugg figured out that his club could be used on his neighbor as well as the squirrels and rats, there has been war. Oh, don't believe in the whole caveman thing? The Bible tells us that a war was fought in heaven for crying out loud. A War... In Heaven!

The War of Terrorism (no not ON) will continue. Have no doubt about it. Sure, we can pull out of the current hotspots. That might buy us some time. Sooner or later someone's gonna blow up something and someone that pisses us (or our neighbors) off and guess what...

And please stop referring to the Clinton administration as those blissful years of Peace and Prosperity. Appeasement and avoidance maybe. Clinton sought to unilaterally launch cruise missiles at least once- that is war.

Do you think China is building a military machine at a record pace for kicks and giggles? Consuming a larger percentage of oil just to power go-karts?

Have you not read that oil isn't the commodity wars will be waged over in 40-50 years (or less)? No! Wars will be waged over water. Not even Al Gore's Oscar can change that fact.

Look, California, leave me alone from now on and I'll do the same for you. You say things that have no meaning, like "it was an international force which toppled Saddam." Yes, it was. How come we haven't all gone home yet? Oh, right, Iraq was left in a state of anarchy, just as Colin Powell (who knows more about what an international force is than you do) predicted it would be.

Wipe the drool off your chin and stay out of adult conversations.

My comments:

"If I'm not mistaken, the request for additional troops ("the surge") came from Petraeus and Gates. As far as I know, their calculations were military, not political."

Almost every general who has been in a position to speak without fear of incurring administration wrath since 2002 has said we needed more troops or we'd lose the war. And they called for increases FAR beyond the 30,000 in the surge. It may well be true, and in fact I'm sure that it IS true, that Petraeus asked for more troops, but the decision to call for only 30,000 on a temporary basis (which is what the surge is) is really kind of crazy if you think about it.

Why would you ask for enough troops to control SOME of the country -- and that's all that has been accomplished -- and do so on a basis that ANNOUNCES to the Iraqis that it's going to end by a certain date, which tells the belligerents that they can go into hibernation because they will be able to leap at each others' throats again soon enough. Why would Petraeus and Gates ask for THAT, of all things? My theory is that they did it because Bush told them that was all they were going to get.

And since Petraeus and Gates ARE reporting to their boss, their alternatives were to resign, or smile bravely and try to make lemonade out of lemons. It is probably not THEIR decision that is political but the timing of the surge, plus the fact that it was done in a way that made it highly unlikely that it would work as designed, tells me that it was a political decision by Bush/Cheney.

BTW, I would take this view of the surge even if I were in favor of the war, because it is so patently inadequate to the task set for it. If I favored the war in Iraq, I'd be for DOUBLING the number of troops -- at the very least -- and doing so for a period to end only when the fucking war was over. Bush had the power to do that if he wanted to until 2007 (when the Democrats won Congress), and he didn't.

(Are you) "suggesting that Bush is more concerned about getting McCain elected than in keeping Congress more Republican now."

Oh, absolutely. Bush knows full well that the Repubs have no hope at all of winning the House and very little of winning the Senate in 2008. Look at the retirements; look at the polls; look at the shift in governorships over the past eight years. Although the surge may be successful in making Iraq a secondary issue in the 2008 elections, the economy is going to be in recession or, at the least, close to it. The Repubs are going to get the rap for that, as the party that has had the White House for eight years damn well should. McCain is the only hope the Repubs have for being able to control the course of government for the next four years.

I don't think Bush is a genius by any stretch, but he is politically astute enough to know that if McCain wins, anything Congress tries to do in terms of investigating the many claims of sweetheart deals with corporations made during his administration won't get much follow up from a Republican Attorney General and will get vigorous follow up from a Democratic one. And, of course, McCain's Supreme Court choices will be much more right wing than any Democrat's. The power of the President to dictate events is far more than that of Congress.

Frankly, I'm quite surprised by your statement. Of course Bush would LIKE to carry Congress too, but it's not going to happen and he knows it. McCain is all he's got.

And I have NEVER called Bush an idiot. Just his neocon advisers.

As far as your argument about Europe, hey, I cannot promise Europe won't blow it, but your examples of Afghanistan and Sudan aren't germane to Iraq, because neither country hits European interests as hard as Iraq does. Even most Muslim countries disapproved of Afghanistan harboring Bin Laden (Iran did; the Saudis did) and remained silent when we went in there. As for Sudan, I hate to say it but nobody on either side of the Atlantic cares much about what happens in Africa enough to get serious about it.

Iraq, however, represents -- in the eyes of Muslims -- an attack on a country which did NOT attack the United States (nor had plans beyond Saddam's fantasies to do so), and a war that goes on there for a generation WILL eventually boil over into Europe, as indeed it already has to some extent.

You may think that electing a Democrat won't change anything about how the Europeans feel about us -- you may be right, there's no guarantee. Electing a Republican, however, means four more years (minimum) of a war with the surge over, the number of troops reduced below the point where even Petraeus and Gates think they will be able to contain the violence, and therefore sectarian violence that kills Americans at the rate of about a thousand a year and spends 200 billion of our dollars a year.

And you know what? In 2012, you're going to face exactly the same situation you face now -- elect a Democrat and MAYBE we can internationalize this war or elect a Republican and get four more years of it. And it will happen again in 2016 and in 2020. We cannot end the war in Iraq on our own without a DRAMATIC increase in the number of troops there and we will never get that from a Republican President because the tax increases that would require will never even be proposed by them, much less passed. The tax-cut wing of the Republican Party controls it, and prevents victory from being possible every bit as much as any thumb-sucking pacifist.

So let's get it over with now, friend. Let's elect Obama or Clinton and find out what Europe is made of, and if it turns out to be Swiss cheese, then let's either leave Iraq to the factions that refuse to make peace or let's kick taxes to WWII levels and win the fucking thing. What we've got now is a slow bleeding to death of America's treasure, and all the Repubs are proposing is to keep it going forever.

benhon3: perhaps I wrong about what you're saying but as I understand it: no, the Chinese would LOSE if we were to inflate our currency, because the dollars they hold would buy fewer goods and services. Please explain why you think that wouldn't be the case.

OIFVet: Did I say that Clinton's years were "peace and prosperity?" I mean, they were, relative to Bush's, but that was largely luck, and as you say, Clinton was no pacifist. I don't doubt for a nanosecond that he would have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11 -- ANY President would have, or been impeached. He probably would NOT have gone into Iraq, though that's far from certain.

China isn't building a military machine at a record pace -- read Philip Kaplan's article on this -- about 2-3 weeks ago. They're building up their military with an eye to being able to win wars in forty years, and they're being very UNaggressive these days -- certainly as compared to most of my life.

As for the rest of it, if it's your view that "there will always be war, and more wars, and rumors of war," I certainly cannot say that history doesn't support your view, but I feel we really ought to TRY to prevent wars anyhow, if it's possible to do so. I've proposed an international force to control Iraq until that country is pacified -- that's actually a form of war, but it's war with an end in mind of a more peaceful world.

Your top piece and this reply are both outstanding! Back in the day when the Fray gave out stars, you would have gotten one.

Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that the surge was conceived in order to defer resolution of the war to 2008 and help the GOP win the presidency again. The GOP lost big over Iraq in 2006, and there is no reason that anyone should think escalating or prolonging the war would help them now.

The kind of huge troop build-up that you believe to be necessary might be desirable if it were possible. It isn't possible, so the surge was the last best shot before either leaving or resigning ourselves to keep 100,000+ troops their for another ten years. No point in comparing an alternative that is possible with one that isn't.

Electing either Clinton or Obama will undoubtedly cause much of the European public to view the US more favorably than they do now. Since that probably is going to happen, you most likely will have a chance to call me on the prediction I make now: that favorable opinion will not result in any significant constructive tangible contribution by Europe towards resolving the situation in Iraq. (Europe might give a Democratic administration a little more support in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, but that's a big "might", and its unlikely that it will make much difference their either, in my view.) Russia is likely to view Clinton as more distasteful than McCain, I suspect.

I can say that all of the worst candidates in both parties have been elminated, in my opinion. I probably would prefer McCain's foreign policy to Clinton's, and vice versa for economic policy, although I don't really care for either them there. Obama will be interesting to watch. For some reason, I suspect that he will conduct foreign policy with more toughness than he leads people to believe now (could be wishful thinking); not much doubt he would conduct it with more tact. A short time in the legislature just doesn't translate (for me) into any strong sense of how someone will function as an executive.

As for Iraq, with or without European help, I am about where I was before the surge. If it works, great. Otherwise, leave and support its partition. A huge troop buildup isn't going to happen.