Can we please now say that the “Cut and Run”-ers were dead wrong. That America could be successful in Iraq and that it wasn’t the Sunnis who did it; it was Americans who supported an unpopular “surge” strategy that proved to be the real solution to the security problem…
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON — The number of daily attacks in Iraq has dropped nearly 95 percent since last year, a U.S. military official said yesterday.
Iraq suffered an average of 180 attacks per day this time last year. But over the past week, the average number was 10, Army Brig. Gen. David G. Perkins, a Multi-National Force Iraq spokesman, said.
“This is a dramatic improvement of safety throughout the country,” Perkins told reporters during a wide-ranging news conference in Baghdad yesterday.
He added that the country’s murder rates have dropped below levels that existed before the start of American operations in Iraq. In November, the ratio was 0.9 per 100,000 people.
– Christian
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Yeah, something makes me think this sort of message will NEVER be picked up by the MSM. They’re still too busy with their ‘Sarah Palin Stinks’ stories. Another reason their daily papers are dropping like flies – ZERO credibility.
Destroyed the regime of a hated enemy and put in place a loyal compliant regime. Only a complete grump would deny a victory.
And that the US military did this for the Iranians is extraordinarily generous.
Remember that Joe Biden (our next Vice President!) insisted the war would be lost, and that Iraq should be divided in three parts along ethnic lines. Biden supported Ethnic Cleansing! But of course we are supposed to forget these things.
Especially we are also supposed to forget that B. Hussein Obama (our next President!) was adamant that the surge would fail, and that the war was un-winnable. No matter; he has not met a cause or person he would not throw under the bus to further his ambition.
Hopey Changemas, everyone!
There comes a time in the affairs of man when he must take the bull by the tail and stare the situation in the face.
So things have cooled off? even if i buy that line, i would be interested where the numbers surged in response to the decline of evaluated areas being talked about. This war is un winnable in the end, as they do not want what were selling, and in the end all those lives were lost in some vain attempt to “Settle” the score over 9/11. Losing over 4k us lives, countless limbs, and over a million iraq’s will never be enough to respond to the pain of that day, but sure, keep it going, maybe the next thing that gets killed will be the memory of truth that barely exists today.
“it wasn’t the Sunnis who did it;”
I am quite certain that the Sunnis that risked their lives to switch sides during the Anbar Awakening and the subsequent changes in Baghdad later would have something to say about your assertion. It would not be kind.
Place credit where credit is due — if the Sunnis had decided that their interests were best served by continuing to fight Americans, the surge would have failed just as all the other “clear, hold, and build” strategies had before it. To dismiss their role so completely in creating the current situation in Iraq seems eye-poppingly arrogant.
The presence of American troops on the ground and the hard work of the diplomatic corps was a great contributor, but this was not a victory that was won by the Americans alone. It would seem self-evident to me that no good counter-insurgency strategy ever is.
I dunno how you can characterize the us ABANDONING all of the war aims in 2004 (http://40yrs.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-other-matt-said.html) as anything but defeat.
We abandoned all our war aims in order to get out, and we could have done so in 2004 to the same effect:
* Create a strong Iraqi state. They still can’t keep water and power and sewer working.
* We have abandoned the idea that the government of Iraq should not be dominated by Iran (further evidenced by the fact that the Iraqi government is now expelling Iranian opposition groups [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/world/middleeast/23muj.html]).
* Creating a stable democracy (witness Maliki’s recent purge of the interior ministry).
* Prevent ethnic cleansing (The nation has now been been cleansed with little in the way of mixed neighborhoods)
All we have is purple fingers, and we had that in 2004.
“Remember that Joe Biden (our next Vice President!) insisted the war would be lost, and that Iraq should be divided in three parts along ethnic lines. Biden supported Ethnic Cleansing! But of course we are supposed to forget these things.” A lot of people were looking toward this type of solution but would not say it publicly….the fact of the matter is that Iraq is segregated into three maybe four distinct regions but you woun’t find those lines on any map but make no mistake, they are very real.
With regards to the surge, it didn’t hurt but it was the enlisting of the Sunnis in the ‘Awakening Councils’ that really turned the tide. Patraeus deserves a lot of credit for that not so much the surge. Of course that is too complex an issue for a lot of people to really think over so instead you get this “Surge good…surge work…” mentality.
So America was successful in Iraq? Funny, because I define success as acheiving your stated goals, and I can’t see how we acheived a single one of our stated goals (which all had to do with securing America from an imaginary threat posed by non-existent Iraqi WMD being given to a terrorist who had no ties with Iraq or Hussien).
Look, the surge “worked” in the sense that it reduced the carnage we had caused. No doubt. But I’m not sure that saying “the mightiest nation in the history of the world was able to, finally, subdue a gaggle of towel-headed teenagers” really gives us all that much to brag about.
“Victory” in Iraq was impossible once we discovered that there were no WMDs. Next question. Everything after that was just assuaging our egos so we didn’t feel beaten.
And before someone writes in to tell me how I’m not authorized an opinion unless I was there – I was there, in uniform, for more than my year. And yes, it’s pretty clear that, by any rational definition, my sacrifice was wasted. At least I wasn’t one who sacrifice it all in search of a victory we can never have, however peaceful Anbar may become.
Can we please now say that the “Cut and Run”-ers were dead wrong.
Well, will people who defend the war admit that thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars were spent to restore status quo ante bellum? Well, except that Hussein is gone and now the Shi’a are in charge. Massive change there.
Once the invasion happened, the United States (and note how all mention of ‘Coalition of the Willing’ has also disappeared?) had to see it through to some sort of conclusion, lest the whole region explode into flame. But, the original intelligence of the invasion was flawed,
NCA strategic decisions surrounding the invasion and its immediate aftermath were flawed (why the hell did it take FOUR years before somebody decided “Oh, maybe we should send more people?”), and the whole system is so corrupt right now that as soon as U.S. support ends, the whole thing will fall apart. (Especially with all the money being paid to the Sunni councils to support the U.S.)
It’s really funny. Most people I know who support the war hate the idea of welfare — but what the U.S. has done is essentially put an entire country on the dole to the U.S. government.
JGH
Partisan baiting aside, whether the “Iraq War troop surge of 2007″,”awakening movements”, or both brought us to this point is irrelevant. No one knows if Iraq won’t turn to civil war right after we leave, or whether it will always require some form of U.S. support to keep the current government in place there. If after we leave they continue to have a secular democratic government, than it can be said we were successful. On the other hand if Iraq establishes a Shiite run Islamic Republic with closer ties to Iran, than it can be said that the U.S. failed in fulfilling George Bush’s original intentions of creating a U.S. satellite in the Middle East.
Let me try to work out this equation….
No more Saddam + Getting rid of Irans’ mortal enemy + Iran now spreading influence throughout the region + creating an area where Al Queda can kill Americans + US Loss of credibility on the world stage + 4000+ American lives = Success
Not sure I buy that calculus…..
I love and support our troops and there is not a single thing in Iraq (now or back then) that I would look them in the eye and ask them to sacrifice themselves for……nothing……not a single thing……
All you naysayers like Jerry and TDS4R (or whatever) please apply with Hillary’s State Department. You guys are the smartest people in the world. Your wisdom can finally bring peace and harmony to the whole world. Tis the season “Peace on Earth goodwill to man”
Just read the negative posts you see how they have raised the bar to impossible levels. They are setting themselves up to say they are right IF ANYTHING AT ALL EVER GOES WRONG IN IRAQ.
I knew the occupation and democratization of JAPAN would go wrong they have been in recession since about the mid-90′s a short fifty years after the occupation, AND WE STILL HAVE TROPS THERE OH MY GOD!!
My prediction: How soon does the media start giving Obama’s election the credit.
TDS4S comments are not correct.
Whether you believe going into Iraq was right or wrong is a personal opinion, but the big debate of staying or leaving after the fact has some serious ramifications. As TDS4S stated we stayed in Iraq, “just assuaging our egos so we didn’t feel beaten.” This is not a true statement.
TDS4S also stated that, “Look, the surge “worked” in the sense that it reduced the carnage we had caused.”
Contradicting to your first comment, this was the goal of U.S. forces staying,to the reduce the carnage the insurgents were making, and that is what was accomplished. This is not assuaging our egos.
Mike makes a good point. The argument over whether we “won” in Iraq usually goes no-where because because people don’t agree on basic terms.
Let’s define two seperate wars in Iraq (probably more, since there were wars-within-wars, but 2 is enough). First: OIF in which the US invaded Iraq with 2 goals – reducing the terrorist/WMD threat and spreading demopcracy in the region (an explicit goal, but not the justification used for the war). Second: the Surge in which the US beefed up numbers and spread out our footprint with 1 goal – controlling the raging civil war.
So take OIF first. The first goal (the stated justification for the war) was a total failure. The threat was only in Washington’s mind. I was as shocked as the next guy. I was sure he had them (less sure he’d share them… but that’s a separate issue) but there’s no denying it any more. The second goal has so far been a total failure, although who knows for sure what the future may hold. Iraq is not a democracy (it’s a kleptocracy or something like that), it will be probably be even less of a democracy when we leave, and it sure ain’t spreading peace to Saudi or Iran or anywhere else. The idea of a stable, non-corrupt, US-friendly Iraq containing Iran was always foolish… if anything, Iran is stronger now than befroe (why else do you think we let them develop a bomb? because we can’t stop them, like it or not).
So now the Surge. Did we win it? Yeah. Sure. Kicked ass and took names. But in March of 2003 we didn’t ask soldiers to go die so Anbar could be at peace. It was already at peace. We asked them to go protect America when in fact America didn’t need protecting. So winning the Surge doesn’t count as winning the war.
There is no debating whether we lost OIF or won the surge. The answers are clear. But there’s a 3rd quesiton out there to which Mike alludes, and it can be debated. Once OIF was lost, should we even have fought the surge? Mike says “yes” because pulling out would have had such grave consequences. I say no, because I don’t give a sh*t about the consequences. For my money, everyone in the entire middle east can die before one US solider dies protecting them. Soldiers die to protect us and our constitution… not to protect them from themselves. Yes, the economic consequences would have been grave and would have effected us. I still don’t care – saving that region was not worth the price paid in our blood.
But that whole last paragraph is an opinion… it just depends on how you assign costs and benefits. It is possible to weigh costs and benefits differently than I do. And it doesn’t matter what I think anyway because we did fight the Surge. So we lost OIF, fought and won the Surge… the only question left is: what else is there to do and when can we say we’ve done it and leave? How about now?
DC2, Iraq has been ethnically “segregated” rather then ethnically “cleansed”.
A true ethnic cleansing would have looked like the India/Pakistan divorce, with the dead and displaced numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
But with Bush leaving office I look to see the animosity towards this war slacking off.
They don’t need to attack any more, they’ve got what they want — for the time being.
Let’s see what happens next.
When the two million exiles (including most of the doctors) and the two million internally displaced people make their way home, then perhaps it will start to look like success.
Those four thousand dead servicemen and women are not going to come back to life now. The question is what their sacrifice will mean.
Let’s see, we went into a country, removed one of the most evil dictators in history, gave a country it’s freedom and the public expected what? That they would become the perfect example of a nation in a year or two?
Hell, take the United States as an example. The Revolutionary war was from 1775
To all the naysayers out there.
Things are looking good in Iraq. You can thank our government for not leaving Iraq to soon! Can you argue that the U.S. “puppet government” (not Iran) was strong enough last year to defeat the insurgents? I think not.
Another question… what do you consider a victory in Iraq? I think this is pretty darn good so far. Weather or not your agree if going into Iraq was right or wrong, that is besides the point. The question is, what do we do after that fact?
And this story was posted on DefenseTech for what reason?
Was Vietnam a victory too?
I’ve seen some good journalism on this site–but but this is just pathetic.
A trillion dollars, God knows how many lives lost, a whole country destroyed… and a drop in insurgent attacks on our occupation (seven years later) is a success?
Hasn’t there been enough optimistic disinformation from official sources already?
Hey Rob..nice breakdown of our wins/losses in Iraq.If we know Iran is going to be a future problem,why not get our hands dirty,invade Persia and maintain positive control of the Strait of Hormuz,,using Iraq as our FOB???
“He added that the country’s murder rates have dropped below levels that existed before the start of American operations in Iraq. In November, the ratio was 0.9 per 100,000 people.”
To put things into perspective, that ratio is lower than the murder rate in some US cities. For example, in 2007 Detroit had a murder rate of 45.7 per 100,000 people. And that is just one city, the Iraq stat is for the entire country. It was actually safer to be in Iraq than Detroit.
Call me crazy, but I think we need to cut our losses in Detroit. Sure, the people from Ohio may take it over, but the cost is just too high. It’s a quagmire, another Vietnam waiting to happen…
Let’s see we’ve spent $100 Billion on reconstruction, five years, 4k soldiers lives and roughly ten times that “injured” to get Iraq roughly where it was the day we invaded?
Yeah you can argue the surge worked. But why the Eff did it take so long to implement? Why weren’t those troops put in place before the invasion? If the Bush administration had put even a cursory post-Sadam, occupation strategy in place we wouldn’t have needed a Surge.
Thank you for making this point. I completely agree with you. Of course, there are those people who would disagree, though often for illogical reasons. The point you make is not about whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. Your point is in regards to how we needed to wrap things up. Clearly the surge approach has been extremely successful in setting the stage for a responsible exit. Were other people to have their way, we would have essentially “thrown the baby out with the bath water”. I find it strange that all the people who complained about a “rush to war” would now push for a “rush to exit”. The surge has in fact worked and the people who disagree with this point are just unable to look facts in the face. THE SURGE HAS WORKED. The FACTS back this up. End of story.
OK, let’s compare mortality rates between two countries. Let’s take the US for example. US rate is 5.6 per 100,000. Iraq is .9 per 100,000. Hmm… safer to be in Iraq.
The US is too big you say? The closest US state population wise to Iraq is Texas. Let’s see, the Texas murder rate per 100,000 is 5.9. Hmm… Maybe we should fire Walker, Texas Ranger.
You know the Anti-war people will never admit that anything positive happens or has happened in Iraq. I got an e-mail from a soldier. It was labeled, “Iraq images too shocking for CNN”. It was pictures of GI’s playing with the Iraqi children. GI’s building schools and buildings. Iraqi’s thanking the US soldiers for what they did. Pictures of Iraq’s who just voted for the first time, celebrating…
The Militant Islamists want negative press to weaken our resolve and many of you are doing the work for them.
Nice post Christian, your %100 correct.
You are all forgetting that the real surge was economical. The Sunni militias were supporting by our Sunni allies countries but ONCE we HIRE them and we started to put them in our Pay Roll they became our allies. But once we stop Pay for our Peace and they fall to the Iraqui Govt they will wage War once again. So dont talk about the famous surge. That is something that Pres Bush came up with to hopefully win the election. It is just as if you start paying a salary to the so call GOOD TALIBAN so the won’t shoot at you.