Monday, February 25, 2008
Standing Against the Surge
Thanks to "the surge," the Iraq war has become almost a non-issue in this presidential campaign. We've been told so often that "the surge is working" that we've all pretty much come to believe it, and the ramifications have been significant: If the surge weren't working, one has to think that John McCain, its greatest defender outside the White House, would not be his party's imminent nominee.
But two pieces of journalism—one interesting, one important—suggest it's time for us to reconsider the success of the surge.
In Slate, Michael Kinsley argues that the surge was presented to the American people as a way to bring soldiers home, and by that standard—George Bush's standard—it's a failure.
President Bush laid down the standard of success when he announced the surge more than a year ago: "If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home."
...Lately, though, Gen. Petraeus has come up with another zenlike idea: He calls it a "pause." And the administration has signed on, meaning that the total number of American troops in Iraq will remain at 130,000 for an undetermined period.
In other words, the president has played us all for suckers.
In Rolling Stone, an Arabic-speaking correspondent named Nir Rosen writes an enlightening story, "The Myth of the Surge," explaining that the surge essentially means we are arming both sides of the divided country, the Sunnis and the Shiites, thereby laying the foundation for the civil war that we're trying to avoid.
Now, in the midst of the surge, the Bush administration has done an about-face. Having lost the civil war, many Sunnis were suddenly desperate to switch sides — and Gen. David Petraeus was eager to oblige. The U.S. has not only added 30,000 more troops in Iraq — it has essentially bribed the opposition, arming the very Sunni militants who only months ago were waging deadly assaults on American forces. To engineer a fragile peace, the U.S. military has created and backed dozens of new Sunni militias, which now operate beyond the control of Iraq's central government.
Even before the Americans leave, these militias are taking justice into their own hands—and we're giving them the weapons and the money to do it.
The article also prints one of the most depressing photos I've seen in some time: two grinning American soldiers, standing next to a beheaded Iraqi, propped upright, whose head they've plopped back on his neck.
We all know that there are tens of thousands of physically wounded Americans coming back from this war. If we included mental health issues in the roster of the wounded, how large would that number grow to be? ¶ 7:49 AM
But two pieces of journalism—one interesting, one important—suggest it's time for us to reconsider the success of the surge.
In Slate, Michael Kinsley argues that the surge was presented to the American people as a way to bring soldiers home, and by that standard—George Bush's standard—it's a failure.
President Bush laid down the standard of success when he announced the surge more than a year ago: "If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home."
...Lately, though, Gen. Petraeus has come up with another zenlike idea: He calls it a "pause." And the administration has signed on, meaning that the total number of American troops in Iraq will remain at 130,000 for an undetermined period.
In other words, the president has played us all for suckers.
In Rolling Stone, an Arabic-speaking correspondent named Nir Rosen writes an enlightening story, "The Myth of the Surge," explaining that the surge essentially means we are arming both sides of the divided country, the Sunnis and the Shiites, thereby laying the foundation for the civil war that we're trying to avoid.
Now, in the midst of the surge, the Bush administration has done an about-face. Having lost the civil war, many Sunnis were suddenly desperate to switch sides — and Gen. David Petraeus was eager to oblige. The U.S. has not only added 30,000 more troops in Iraq — it has essentially bribed the opposition, arming the very Sunni militants who only months ago were waging deadly assaults on American forces. To engineer a fragile peace, the U.S. military has created and backed dozens of new Sunni militias, which now operate beyond the control of Iraq's central government.
Even before the Americans leave, these militias are taking justice into their own hands—and we're giving them the weapons and the money to do it.
The article also prints one of the most depressing photos I've seen in some time: two grinning American soldiers, standing next to a beheaded Iraqi, propped upright, whose head they've plopped back on his neck.
We all know that there are tens of thousands of physically wounded Americans coming back from this war. If we included mental health issues in the roster of the wounded, how large would that number grow to be? ¶ 7:49 AM
