Myth of the surge

[Nocturnal]

Excellent article in rolling stone. It really is a good read, though I'm sure most won't bother. If it's not a 5 second soundbite it's no good.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge

We are creating a precariuos situation in Iraq. Arming both sides of the conflict is dangerous and bribes only work for so long.

portion of article (continues in link)
It's a cold, gray day in December, and I'm walking down Sixtieth Street in the Dora district of Baghdad, one of the most violent and fearsome of the city's no-go zones. Devastated by five years of clashes between American forces, Shiite militias, Sunni resistance groups and Al Qaeda, much of Dora is now a ghost town. This is what "victory" looks like in a once upscale neighborhood of Iraq: Lakes of mud and sewage fill the streets. Mountains of trash stagnate in the pungent liquid. Most of the windows in the sand-colored homes are broken, and the wind blows through them, whistling eerily. House after house is deserted, bullet holes pockmarking their walls, their doors open and unguarded, many emptied of furniture. What few furnishings remain are covered by a thick layer of the fine dust that invades every space in Iraq. Looming over the homes are twelve-foot-high security walls built by the Americans to separate warring factions and confine people to their own neighborhood. Emptied and destroyed by civil war, walled off by President Bush's much-heralded "surge," Dora feels more like a desolate, post-apocalyptic maze of concrete tunnels than a living, inhabited neighborhood. Apart from our footsteps, there is complete silence.

My guide, a thirty-one-year-old named Osama who grew up in Dora, points to shops he used to go to, now abandoned or destroyed: a barbershop, a hardware store. Since the U.S. occupation began, Osama has watched civil war turn the streets where he grew up into an ethnic killing field. After the fall of Saddam, the Americans allowed looters and gangs to take over the streets, and Iraqi security forces were stripped of their jobs. The Mahdi Army, the powerful Shiite paramilitary force led by the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, took advantage of the power shift to retaliate in areas such as Dora, where Shiites had been driven from their homes. Shiite forces tried to cleanse the district of Sunni families like Osama's, burning or confiscating their homes and torturing or killing those who refused to leave.

"The Mahdi Army was killing people here," Osama says, pointing to a now-destroyed Shiite mosque that in earlier times had been a cafe and before that an office for Saddam's Baath Party. Later, driving in the nearby district of Baya, Osama shows me a gas station. "They killed my uncle here. He didn't accept to leave. Twenty guys came to his house, the women were screaming. He ran to the back, but they caught him, tortured him and killed him." Under siege by Shiite militias and the U.S. military, who viewed Sunnis as Saddam supporters, and largely cut out of the Shiite-dominated government, many Sunnis joined the resistance. Others turned to Al Qaeda and other jihadists for protection.

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. The Americans call the units by a variety of euphemisms: Iraqi Security Volunteers (ISVs), neighborhood watch groups, Concerned Local Citizens, Critical Infrastructure Security. The militias prefer a simpler and more dramatic name: They call themselves Sahwa, or "the Awakening."

At least 80,000 men across Iraq are now employed by the Americans as ISVs. Nearly all are Sunnis, with the exception of a few thousand Shiites. Operating as a contractor, Osama runs 300 of these new militiamen, former resistance fighters whom the U.S. now counts as allies because they are cashing our checks. The Americans pay Osama once a month; he in turn provides his men with uniforms and pays them ten dollars a day to man checkpoints in the Dora district — a paltry sum even by Iraqi standards. A former contractor for KBR, Osama is now running an armed network on behalf of the United States government. "We use our own guns," he tells me, expressing regret that his units have not been able to obtain the heavy-caliber machine guns brandished by other Sunni militias.

The American forces responsible for overseeing "volunteer" militias like Osama's have no illusions about their loyalty. "The only reason anything works or anybody deals with us is because we give them money," says a young Army intelligence officer. The 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, which patrols Osama's territory, is handing out $32 million to Iraqis in the district, including $6 million to build the towering walls that, in the words of one U.S. officer, serve only to "make Iraqis more divided than they already are." In districts like Dora, the strategy of the surge seems simple: to buy off every Iraqi in sight. All told, the U.S. is now backing more than 600,000 Iraqi men in the security sector — more than half the number Saddam had at the height of his power. With the ISVs in place, the Americans are now arming both sides in the civil war. "Iraqi solutions for Iraqi problems," as U.S. strategists like to say. David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. Petraeus, calls it "balancing competing armed interest groups."

[Fungus Amungus]

Why would the Rolling Stone have a article on politics? I thought it was just a music magazine.

[Nocturnal]

Why would the Rolling Stone have a article on politics? I thought it was just a music magazine.

They routinely run very intelligent articles on current events, usually worded as a counterpoint to the official policy line and the mainstream media.

[Fungus Amungus]

I wouldn't say counterpart. Most mainstream outlets run negative stories on the war. I admit it was a interesting article, although I don't think they took in consideration that a significant portion of the insurgents were fighting to defend thier family rather than for the movement. Alot of grunts and soilders of the terrorist groups have been giving up information and leaving because they don't like the brutality of the groups they're fighting for. They also ralized they would rather have freedom then be opressed again.

[PitwrkzZ1]

So we fucked up Iraq and we're continuing to fuck up Iraq? Great, what else is new :rolleyes:


Rolling Stone is shit journalism.

[Nocturnal]

I wouldn't say counterpart. Most mainstream outlets run negative stories on the war. I admit it was a interesting article, although I don't think they took in consideration that a significant portion of the insurgents were fighting to defend thier family rather than for the movement. Alot of grunts and soilders of the terrorist groups have been giving up information and leaving because they don't like the brutality of the groups they're fighting for. They also ralized they would rather have freedom then be opressed again.

Negative stories aren't in vogue anymore. The media has been telling everyone for months now that the surge worked.

So we fucked up Iraq and we're continuing to fuck up Iraq? Great, what else is new :rolleyes:


Rolling Stone is shit journalism.

That message doesn't seem to have been heard enough lately.

[shade]

The surge has not worked. Negotiations with Al Sadr have.

Fancy that... diplomacy instead of wanton violence is what is helping.

[_Joe]

So we fucked up Iraq and we're continuing to fuck up Iraq? Great, what else is new :rolleyes:


Rolling Stone is shit journalism.

It's shedding light on why and how we're fucking up. You're right, shit journalism.... who gets to the point, anyways? I just wanna see and hear about people getting blown up :rolleyes:

[Mr. Heskey]

Excellent article in rolling stone.

I stopped reading right there.

[Nocturnal]

I stopped reading right there.

Why?

chars

[TFS]

The surge has not worked. Negotiations with Al Sadr have.

Fancy that... diplomacy instead of wanton violence is what is helping.

The surge is not "wanton violence." It is giving those over there, doing the patrolling of the streets for the time being enough man-power to really do the job well enough to matter.

Think about it: if you read in the paper that the police in your area are stepping up speed traps all over your town, aren't you going to be less likely to speed? Same principle can be applied to insurgent activity in response to stepped up security patrols, etc.

And with that drop in violence, the negotiations can occur with less chance of new sparks of violence causing leaders in the negotiations becoming spiteful and emotional in outrage over something that might have been done to their people during the negotiations.

Increased security is actually a big help in maintaining a smooth diplomatic process, but is in no way a permanent solution.

[shade]

The surge is not "wanton violence." It is giving those over there, doing the patrolling of the streets for the time being enough man-power to really do the job well enough to matter.

Think about it: if you read in the paper that the police in your area are stepping up speed traps all over your town, aren't you going to be less likely to speed? Same principle can be applied to insurgent activity in response to stepped up security patrols, etc.

And with that drop in violence, the negotiations can occur with less chance of new sparks of violence causing leaders in the negotiations becoming spiteful and emotional in outrage over something that might have been done to their people during the negotiations.

Increased security is actually a big help in maintaining a smooth diplomatic process, but is in no way a permanent solution.

Sounds nice on the surface but it fails logical criticism. The speed trap analogy does not apply.

If my goal were to kill police then knowing that there will be many police around the city with speed traps will make me happy and draw fire from me. The same is true for insurgents.

The reduced violence is a result of negotiations with insurgents.

[kevinsmith]

Sounds nice on the surface but it fails logical criticism. The speed trap analogy does not apply.

If my goal were to kill police then knowing that there will be many police around the city with speed traps will make me happy and draw fire from me. The same is true for insurgents.

The reduced violence is a result of negotiations with insurgents.

I would disagree with that.
Much of the methodology of insurgent groups points to at best point to cautious tactics and what many would call "cowardly" tactics. The whole pop off a few rounds and then run and hide amongst civilians or in a church type of thing. With more soldiers out there that make their odds of being successful worse, they'll lay low and wait until the odds are a little more in their favor.
When would you attack the enemy? When there are more of them or less?
Simple tactic, really. The goal is to get rid of us so they can take over the country. Fighting them brought more of us, so wait for less of them and then go back to trying to take over the country.

[pinger]

I stopped reading right there.

Because he is a raging conservative who does not believe one word out of liberal hippie musician loving journalists. Which all Rolling Stone writers are of course.

[slapnpopbass]

The surge worked, and continues to work.

Rolling Stone should stick to music.

[_Joe]

The surge worked, and continues to work.

Rolling Stone should stick to music.

Or perhaps it just is seeming to work as the article implies. What happens when we stop paying these people off?

[American Infidel]

I started to read the story, until I glanced up at the top, to see who the author was. Don't read anything written by Nir Rosen if you don't want biased and outright false information.

Try reading Michael Yon (http://michaelyon-online.com/).

[_Joe]

I started to read the story, until I glanced up at the top, to see who the author was. Don't read anything written by Nir Rosen if you don't want biased and outright false information.

Try reading Michael Yon (http://michaelyon-online.com/).

So you're claiming he has fabricated his story?

[American Infidel]

So you're claiming he has fabricated his story?

No, I'm claiming that his liberal bias leaks all over any page he places a pen on. I stopped reading the story, as soon as I saw that he was the author of it, so I don't know if he fabricated the story or not.

[Nocturnal]

So you're claiming he has fabricated his story?

Yup, it's all false that we are arming the sunnis, and paying people to work in militias. It's false that Patreus said we were working to balance the two groups against each other. It's also false that the Iraqis get frustrated by our heavy handed tactics.

Truth is that purple unicorns run around the land shitting pure rainbow sherbet for all the good people to bathe in.

[Mr. Heskey]

I'm not exactly what you call 'pro war' (at least not the Iraq one), but I agree completely that the surge has been working.

[david_slupper]

Meh, so there's one shitty place in Iraq and all of the sudden everything is shitty? Why didn't he go to the North and see how the Kurds are doing, or the South see how the Shiites are doing?

Meh.

[Nocturnal]

So since the surge has worked so well... can any of you define the statement "the surge is working".

What exactly has it done?
What was it's purpose?

Are those the same?


Just because we saw a reduction in violence for a few months doesn't mean everything there is on the up and up. The shihites have been calm due to a self imposed truce. Ethnic migration is still rampant, and the green zone is the only safe place in the country.

Yes, rainbows and butterflies.

[TFS]

I would disagree with that.
Much of the methodology of insurgent groups points to at best point to cautious tactics and what many would call "cowardly" tactics. The whole pop off a few rounds and then run and hide amongst civilians or in a church type of thing. With more soldiers out there that make their odds of being successful worse, they'll lay low and wait until the odds are a little more in their favor.
When would you attack the enemy? When there are more of them or less?
Simple tactic, really. The goal is to get rid of us so they can take over the country. Fighting them brought more of us, so wait for less of them and then go back to trying to take over the country.

Right on the money. There's a reason it's US Army policy to disengage the enemy and fall back from a firefight unless we outnumber them 3 to 1.

My dad is currently in Iraq, and the building he works on is the target of mortar firings almost every day. The tactic is this: they emerge from a crowd of civilians, hastily set up and fire a mortar round at the building without taking time to aim it specifically at any one thing, and then run back into the crowd before they can be traced. They place incredible amounts of importance on evading capture to the point of sacrificing success of the mission.

They don't want to fight us directly because they know they'll lose. They fear going up against a big group of us and risk dwindling their numbers. I personally think they're having trouble recruiting.

[Nocturnal]

Right on the money. There's a reason it's US Army policy to disengage the enemy and fall back from a firefight unless we outnumber them 3 to 1.

My dad is currently in Iraq, and the building he works on is the target of mortar firings almost every day. The tactic is this: they emerge from a crowd of civilians, hastily set up and fire a mortar round at the building without taking time to aim it specifically at any one thing, and then run back into the crowd before they can be traced. They place incredible amounts of importance on evading capture to the point of sacrificing success of the mission.

They don't want to fight us directly because they know they'll lose. They fear going up against a big group of us and risk dwindling their numbers. I personally think they're having trouble recruiting.

Seems like they are becoming more organized. Less random violence, less foreign/terrorist influence etc. I don't think things are going to wind up the way we want though.

[_Joe]

No, I'm claiming that his liberal bias leaks all over any page he places a pen on. I stopped reading the story, as soon as I saw that he was the author of it, so I don't know if he fabricated the story or not.

You're right, anyone with an opinion contrary to your own should be ignored.

I'm not exactly what you call 'pro war' (at least not the Iraq one), but I agree completely that the surge has been working.

According to you, what is "working?"

[TFS]

Seems like they are becoming more organized. Less random violence, less foreign/terrorist influence etc. I don't think things are going to wind up the way we want though.

With the decreased violence brought on by the surge, I think that makes group leaders more willing to cooperate and negotiate.

So as artificial as the reduced violence may be just because of US presence, with the negotiations going in the right direction, there's a good chance it will get to a point where the violence stays down just because the groups have found common ground and would prefer to work in conjunction with each other than duke it out on the streets.

Not saying it definitely will, but I think that's what we're going for, and if we have every indication that this will happen, I'd have no problem pulling out. At that point if someone pulls a coup, as unhappy as I'll be, I'll be willing to say we did our best to prevent it and set Iraq up for democratic success, and what happens at that point is no longer our issue to get involved in.

[IrishNed]

The surge worked, and continues to work.
How do you explain the 40-or so Shiite Pilgrims killed a few days ago just south of Baghdad when an IED exploded in the middle of the group? Shouldn't the Troop surge have kept that from happening??

The U.S. Military added 30,000 Troops in a small area of Iraq. Now it's time to bring them home; but the Generals in Charge are in no hurry to do that.

[slapnpopbass]

How do you explain the 40-or so Shiite Pilgrims killed a few days ago just south of Baghdad when an IED exploded in the middle of the group? Shouldn't the Troop surge have kept that from happening??


You honestly judged the troop surge off of one incident? Give me a break.

[Easy]

A much more detailed article about the same subject. Very long though.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/is-the-us-really-bringing-stability-to-baghdad-782425.html

Patrick Cockburn is one of the most reputable British correspondents in the region

[painfulogic]

I usually look over an article first before I read it and if I think it has a chance of logically representing an opinion or thought different from my own, I just stop right there. :rolleyes:

[texmaster]

So since the surge has worked so well... can any of you define the statement "the surge is working".

What exactly has it done?
What was it's purpose?

Are those the same?


Just because we saw a reduction in violence for a few months doesn't mean everything there is on the up and up. The shihites have been calm due to a self imposed truce. Ethnic migration is still rampant, and the green zone is the only safe place in the country.

Yes, rainbows and butterflies.

But something interesting is happening on the way to the "new direction." Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.

In Iraq, there's a sense that change is in the air -- literally. Omar of Iraq the Model spots a B-1 Bomber in the skies of Baghdad for the first time since the end of the major combat. On the ground, Omar writes that the signs that Iraqis are getting serious about security are more palbable. With the help of Compstat-like technology, security forces are cracking down at checkpoints (even ambulances are getting stopped) and getting nimbler about locating them strategically so the terrorists don't know what to expect.

This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media's near-deafening silence. If it seems like you've heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what's happening. Time magazine worries that it's "Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet." That's right -- a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.

That last line really defines it all. If you want the surge to be a failure, you'll ignore the rapid decrease in violence. If you want it to succeed, you will tout the decrease as a good sign.

And anyone who questions whether Rolling Stone is a far left magazine need only read this article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=943

[Nocturnal]

That last line really defines it all. If you want the surge to be a failure, you'll ignore the rapid decrease in violence. If you want it to succeed, you will tout the decrease as a good sign.

And anyone who questions whether Rolling Stone is a far left magazine need only read this article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=943


I like my version better.
That last line really defines it all. If you want it to succeed to support a failed political philosophy at all costs, you will ignore every factor but two. That the surge happened and that a decrease in violence happened around the same time.

Personally I kind thougt the goal of the surge was to end the war. I didn't know a short term drop in violence was the entire point.

and yes, we all know that if you question GW or the war you are "far left"

[texmaster]

I like my version better.


Personally I kind thougt the goal of the surge was to end the war. I didn't know a short term drop in violence was the entire point.

and yes, we all know that if you question GW or the war you are "far left"

Of course I never said that in any way shape or form. I said if you are looking for the surge to be a failure, you will ignore the decrease in crime.

Thanks for proving that.

[Nocturnal]

Of course I never said that in any way shape or form. I said if you are looking for the surge to be a failure, you will ignore the decrease in crime.

Thanks for proving that.

I ignored the decrease in violence? I included in my original post even.

What I'm not doing is crediting the whole of the decrease to the surge, nor do I believe the surge did much for the long term war effort.

[texmaster]

I ignored the decrease in violence? I included in my original post even.

What I'm not doing is crediting the whole of the decrease to the surge, nor do I believe the surge did much for the long term war effort.

Then by all means post the evidence that suggests the violence was brought down for any other reason other than direct involvement by the allies.

[American Infidel]

Tex, you're in a debate with someone who believes there is no such thing as liberal bias in the media. He will take any good news, coming from the Iraq War, and spin it to "prove" that we have already lost, a long time ago.

Like Harry Reid, he completely refutes any claims that Iraqi's are better off now, than they were when Saddam was in power, while clinging onto the evil American military, Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay, Haditha, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[IrishNed]

You honestly judged the troop surge off of one incident? Give me a break.The Administration, the SecDef and the Field Commanders in the Military make any positive thing that happens in Iraq look bigger than it is and try to hide news reports about incidents that involved the killing of Iraqi civiilians. Why shouldn't I Use a similar tactic??

The Troop Surge was supposed to cut some slack for Iraqi Political processes. I haven't seen that goal achieved!

[bergshadow]

Then by all means post the evidence that suggests the violence was brought down for any other reason other than direct involvement by the allies. The fact that violence by airstrike outside of Baghdad is not down. The fact that Turkey is raiding into Iraq from the north. The fact that the ethnic cleansing of early 2007 was largely completed in Baghdad, and the ethnic enclaves surrounded by concrete walls with controlled access, by the end of the surge runup anyway. The fact that al Sadr agreed to call off his militia in synchrony with the surge, and did so - only recently (by failing to renew it) allowing that pledge to expire and freeing the largest and most violent of the Shia militia for whatever operations they may find indicated. The fact that the surge involved - as a key element - arming the Sunni insurgents and allowing them military control and defense of their areas (that's what they were fighting for, in many cases - so that is victory for the insurgents).

And so forth. All of this is interpretable as "direct involvement by the US", of course (The US built the miles of ghetto security walls, the US armed the tribal insurgents, the US negotiated the deal with al Sadr, etc). It's just not quite what we have been seeing as description of the "surge".

[Nocturnal]

Then by all means post the evidence that suggests the violence was brought down for any other reason other than direct involvement by the allies.

That's not how discussions work.

You are the one trying to prove the surge worked. The burden of proof is on you to isolate the amount the surge has decreased violence.

There are dozens of reasons why violence has decreased lately. The surge can't be given credit for the whole shebang.

[TFS]

That's not how discussions work.

You are the one trying to prove the surge worked. The burden of proof is on you to isolate the amount the surge has decreased violence.

There are dozens of reasons why violence has decreased lately. The surge can't be given credit for the whole shebang.

But you would say that it is contributing to the recent decrease in violence, right?

[American Infidel]

But you would say that it is contributing to the recent decrease in violence, right?

Direct question, there. I would not expect him to believe that the "surge" has had any direct influence on the progress, thus far.

I believe he will continue to opine, in his own spin, that we have lost this war, with a guaranteed endurance that, unless we retreat, immediately, the fledgling Iraqi security officials will be either bribed or threatened into cooperation with Al-Qaeda. Or, something to that effect. Either way, Nocturnal has no hope for Iraq. Period.

If you read Michael Yon's blog, however, we can see that Al-Qaeda is hanging on by their shoe-strings, thanks to the surge and cooperation from Iraqi citizens who are tired of the violence.

[TFS]

Direct question, there. I would not expect him to believe that the "surge" has had any direct influence on the progress, thus far.

I believe he will continue to opine, in his own spin, that we have lost this war, with a guaranteed endurance that, unless we retreat, immediately, the fledgling Iraqi security officials will be either bribed or threatened into cooperation with Al-Qaeda. Or, something to that effect. Either way, Nocturnal has no hope for Iraq. Period.

If you read Michael Yon's blog, however, we can see that Al-Qaeda is hanging on by their shoe-strings, thanks to the surge and cooperation from Iraqi citizens who are tired of the violence.

You really need to shut your mouth and let people talk. I'll get you started: I put the useless petty bullshit you spewed here in bold. Next time show some intelligent people respect and leave parts like that out of it.

Seriously...since when the fuck is a blog a reliable source of information?

[American Infidel]

You really need to shut your mouth and let people talk. I'll get you started: I put the useless petty bullshit you spewed here in bold. Next time show some intelligent people respect and leave parts like that out of it.

Seriously...since when the fuck is a blog a reliable source of information?

Heh. I love you, too.

You really need to shut your mouth and let people talk

I didn't realize that I was interrupting an ongoing conversation. Am I wrong, in taking a chance to speak out, when there's a timely break in the spoken verbiage? Pardon me, then. The rules of forum etiquette have evolved.

I put the useless petty bullshit you spewed here in bold.

I'm only relying on what I've seen, in the past. If Nocturnal responds with something other than what I've witnessed, and complimentary to what you're defending him on, I'll stand corrected. How's that?

Seriously...since when the fuck is a blog a reliable source of information?

Uh..the Drudge Report blog, who first exposed Bill Clinton's sex scandal. Next, we have Charles Johnson, who exposed the Rathergate embarrassment. Living under a rock? More often, the bloggers are more reliable than the mainstream media, who would rather promote their liberal agenda, than "real" news.

And, please, stop using foul language. I can understand it, if you're using spoken-word, but this is the internet, and typing out profanities is uncultured, in my opinion. You'll rarely see me type out profanities, in order to highlight my opinion. Overuse of profanity only makes you look like an idiot, counteracting the substance of the intelligence of your post.

And, in case you really didn't understand, I was in AGREEMENT with your post, to begin with. Somebody threw a brick at my house, with a note that is illegible.

[Danimal87]

Sounds nice on the surface but it fails logical criticism. The speed trap analogy does not apply.

If my goal were to kill police then knowing that there will be many police around the city with speed traps will make me happy and draw fire from me. The same is true for insurgents.

The reduced violence is a result of negotiations with insurgents.
More troops means more operations can be conducted against terrorists. Its rather simple.

Your analogy might work with some of the most die-hard insurgents, but most of the insurgents in Iraq would rather survive, and facing a more numerous opponent helps convince them to either do something else, or accept pay from the Americans. I agree, diplomacy is definitely helping, but its more than just that.