In what sense is the "surge" "working" in Iraq?

[mwb970]

All I've heard for the last week is that the Dems must now reluctantly acknowledge that the "surge" has "worked". But has it?

The military surge was undertaken to produce a specific outcome, namely political reconciliation within the Iraqi government. The surge has been in place almost a year and the desired outcome not only has not occurred but is declared by some to be further away than ever.

If I take action A with the purpose of producing result B, and result B does not occur, then action A did not "work", no matter what other consequences may have resulted. Is this somehow not obvious?

If we install expensive lights downtown to reduce the crime rate, but the crime rate does not go down and in fact actually increases slightly, then we would say that the lighting plan did not work, even if it can be shown that the downtown sidewalks are now twice as bright at night as they were before. Again, how is this not obvious?

So I ask once more, in what sense is the "surge" "working" in Iraq? Help me out here.

[tekisui]

1. The *surge* is working in the propagandized-war-machine way.

Political reconciliation is no closer now than before.

1.2 million Iraqis have died.

4 million Iraqis displaced, internally and externally.

Over 35 US Troops killed last month. I'll talk about success when 0 Troops die in Iraq, and they are all on their way home.

Deadliest year for US and Iraqis.

The *surge*, like this entire Invasion and Occupation was designed to fail.

Maybe the success of the *surge* was establishing Permanent Military Bases. We got that done!

[Echo In Light]

11. Exactly. It's only "working" cause the mainline media hopes to get you on the same page as War Pigs

[madokie]

2. only the lie part of the surge is working

for some reason our Dem's are scared shitless of the tyrant and his minions. nsa, wiretaps, blackmail maybe

if they keep killing and running them off then at some point the causality numbers has to start looking better, of course if one only looks at the numbers that is

[spanone]

3. It's NOT....No Political Progress.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Are you suggesting that the military aspect of the surge has not worked?

I've seen nothing that supports that contention and lots of data to the contrary.

What am I missing?

[mwb970]

6. Again though, that was not the reason given for the surge.

To go back to my OP, you are saying "but isn't it true that the lights are brighter downtown now?" The answer is yes, but that is not the point.

I might mention that the reasons given for bush's Iraq War were: (1) get rid of Saddam; (2) get rid of Saddam's WMD; (3) pay Saddam back for 9/11. We accomplished (1), and (2) and (3) turned out to not be needed. Did the war "work" then, in terms of its stated objectives? And if so, why does a nebulous "victory" continue to lie in some distant future?

So. In the case of the war, the stated objectives were achieved but we have not yet succeeded. In the case of the surge, the stated objective was not achieved but we have succeded. Got it?

[Buzz Clik]

10. Focus your question, and you'll get a satisfactory answer.

This was your thread title: "In what sense is the "surge" "working" in Iraq?"

It has been stated over and again -- the military aspect of the surge has worked exactly as projected. All indicators of the insurgency have decreased in the targeted areas.

However, as you suggest, the whole point of the military surge was to create a window of opportunity or the Iraqi government to get its act together. That has not happened.

[tekisui]

7. The surge was never intended to be solely a military endeavor.

It was supposed to manage the violence, reduce it to the point that the political process would have the space credibility to progress.

Violence is down for this month, but Baghdad is not safe enough, nor the country secure enough for the political process to progress.

Over a soldier a day died in this "successful" month.

[Buzz Clik]

12. That is correct.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. In the sense that it is now media "conventional wisdom" that it's a success.

[begin_within]

8. They should call it "the splurge."

The whole Iraq war is nothing but an attempt by the U.S. to grab control of the oil under Iraq, for the profit of multinational corporations mainly owned by U.S. shareholders. Any other talk about it is just a smokescreen. If there was no oil under Iraq, the U.S. government would be paying less attention to Iraq than it is to Sudan.

[Lex]

9. It was a corporate take-over using our US military.

Someone else here on DU said that (can't remember who) and it is so true.

[begin_within]

13. What I don't get is why aren't there legal challenges to it.

[calimary]

14. That is a GREAT one!

"The Splurge"!

:yourock:

[begin_within]

16. thanks

[tjwash]

15. What Dems are acknowledging it working; Lieberman and Feinstein?

nt

[mwb970]

17. John Murtha, for one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/01/wsurge101.xml

[TheFarseer]

18. less of our troops getting killed

also, it would seem there is less violence. "Now we have a window of opportunity for political progress" I'm getting sick of opening and closing windows and nothing ever gets done to end this. If the surge is working, then we need to keep troop level where they are to keep it working. The goal is to end the war, right? The real test is when we bring troop levels down, does the violence stay at lower levels? I'm not sure the surge has accomplished anything but to be fair, I think it's a debatable point.

[usaftmo]

19. The only area that the "surge" has worked is

Halliburton's profits.