Despite Chickenhawk Commentary, Violence Explodes in Iraq

by: Brandon Friedman

Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 15:09:39 PM EST


When a mortar landed just outside Tikrit on Thursday, the round killed one American soldier and wounded another.  We still don't know their names.  Yet despite all the cheering we've heard about the success of the surge recently, this death made January the deadliest month for Americans in Iraq since September.  Let that sink in.

When 39 Americans are killed in January at the highest rate since September (which marked the end of the single bloodiest period to date in Iraq) we cannot say things are improving.  Call it a spike, call it a bump, call it whatever you want: Just don't call it success.  The bottom line is that despite what the chickenhawk pundits and politicians are saying about the surge, American troop deaths are up 70 percent from December to January.

To further highlight the fact that the success of the surge is largely a myth, two explosions rocked Baghdad today, killing over 70 people in the deadliest bombing in the capital since last summer.  From the AP:

Remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally handicapped women detonated in a coordinated attack on pet bazaars Friday, police and Iraqi officials said, killing at least 73 people in the deadliest day since the U.S. sent 30,000 extra troops to the capital this spring.

Unfortunately, this violence is occurring beneath the shadow of Moqtada al Sadr--as Iraq awaits his decision on whether or not to declare an end to his ceasefire with American troops and Sunni militias.  And despite what American commanders are saying publicly, influential members of the Mahdi Army are urging Sadr to end the ceasefire.  Should that happen, violence would literally explode across central Iraq.

Therefore, given this significant rise in violence, coupled with the perpetual uncertainty that hangs over Iraq, I've come up with a list of people, along with some key statements they've made in the last month--the deadliest month for American troops since last summer.  It's called:

The List of People Who Are in the Process of Making Premature, Ignorant Statements about the Success of the Surge

Bill O'Reilly, January 2, 2008:

"Unresolved problem" segment tonight, by all accounts, the security situation in Iraq has improved drastically in just a few months. The surge by American troops has worked."

When Bill says, "by all accounts," he really means by all accounts that don't figure in the upcoming American casualty rate, major terrorist attacks on the horizon, and those that wrongly predict the future.

Frederick W. Kagan, Jack Keane, and Michael O'Hanlon, January 18, 2008:

The full surge has been in place and operating for just over six months, and already violence has fallen dramatically across the country. The achievement in such a short time of significant legislation that requires all sides to accept risk and compromise with people they had been fighting only a few months ago is remarkable.

Well, Kagan's been ahead of himself for years now, but that's understandable when a Napoleonic historian tries to tackle modern Middle Eastern problems.  And O'Hanlon jumps the gun because he thinks he's an expert after spending a few days on the ground in Iraq.  That often happens to highly educated, but inexperienced people when they try to untangle guerrilla war in Arab countries.  As for Keane, well. . .I would've expected more from him.  Oh well.

Kimberly Kagan, January 26, 2008:

The Iraq debate in 2007 focused on whether the new strategy and troop increase could stem violence in Iraq. It did.

It did?  That's probably news to the men and women serving in Diyalah.  It's probably also news to the Iraqi Army units attempting to quell the violence in Mosul this week.  Jeez.  This is another chickenhawk Kagan (wife of Frederick) who knows absolutely nothing about the fighting in Iraq, and yet still tries to offer advice to the commanders on the ground.

Max Boot, January 27, 2008:

This is a position so utterly disconnected from the on-the-ground reality I discovered in Iraq during a recent 11-day visit that it boggles the mind. The ability of our forces to rout Al Qaeda during the past year was due precisely to abandoning the Special Forces-centric approach we had utilized in the past.

Routing al Qaeda during the past year?  Hey buddy, last year was the deadliest of the war for Americans.  And the American death rate was higher in January than in any month since September.  We can do without the chickenhawkish self-congratulation, desk jockey.

Fareed Zakaria, January 28, 2008:

The Democrats are having the hardest time with the new reality. Every candidate is committed to "ending the war" and bringing our troops back home. The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.

I love this one from Zakaria: "The war has largely ended."  That doesn't even merit a response.  The troops in theater hate guys like this.

George W. Bush, January 28, 2008:

While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago. (Applause.) When we met last year, many said that containing the violence was impossible. A year later, high profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down.

Right.  Until now.  This is nothing we haven't heard dozens of times in the past.  We're about to turn that corner.  Last throes.  Unimaginable success.  Same stuff.  

David Ignatius, January 29, 2008:

Progress here is undeniable, both in terms of security on the ground and in the political bargaining among Iraq's parties and ethnic groups. You see this on the streets, in the faces of people you meet in shops and teahouses.

Do you see it in the torn bodies and bloodied sandals that littered Baghdad's streets this morning, David?

::

And finally, though he hasn't said it in the past month (as far as I know), I'd be remiss if I didn't bring John McCain into this for his series of remarks:

John McCain, November 2007:

"We can win in Iraq, and we are winning in Iraq," he told voters crammed into Hudson's Smokehouse on this rainy Carolina Monday. "The surge is working and Baghdad is better off for it."

Keep in mind that McCain said exactly the same thing exactly four years earlier:

John McCain, November 2003:

We are winning in Iraq, but we sow the seeds of our own failure by contemplating a premature military drawdown and tempering our ambitions to democratize Iraqi politics.

::

The bottom line, as I've said before, is that the violence in Iraq is cyclical, and will remain so until we leave.  Anyone who tells you otherwise--anyone who tries to sell you a "surge" as the solution to all your problems, for instance--is full of garbage.  

Brandon Friedman :: Despite Chickenhawk Commentary, Violence Explodes in Iraq
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The real sound coming out of Iraq . . . (0.00 / 0)
is neither the voice of the turtle nor the fat lady singing as those you note above would have us believe. It is the screams of the wounded and the dying that prove Flightsuit's SOTU claim that "high profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down" to be either a bold faced lie or the total ignorance of rose colored glasses.

Damage control: (4.00 / 1)
  I'm sure the chickenhawk commentators and others will be saying that today's events were merely "another bump in the road to freedom."

 I wonder what they will say if (when) al-Sadr calls off the ceasefire. THAT will be some interesting reading!

 The more things change, the more they stay the same. IV


[ Parent ]
These articles... (0.00 / 0)
...are all written with a political bias to give Flightsuit a boost in his last year in office, and to bolster the Republicans who are standing by the "We're doing awesome in Iraq!" bumper sticker for the election season.  I'm more inclined to listen to the brass who don't have to worry about re-elections, and they're saying it's going to be a long haul.  I don't think the American public wants to hear that a stable Iraq will take years and years of assistance from US forces (much like Afghanistan), which is the reality of it all.  Based on statistical analysis, I will say that violence is down, albeit reversible, which is why I will probably be the lone jackhole who gave a "good strategy" to the vote above.  It's frustrating, but I maintain my position that things are trending the right way if the ultimate goal is stability.

But Brandon's tone is dead-on, because jingoistic Op-Eds like the ones above will never underscore the fact that this invasion was a bad idea from the get go.


So that was you, huh? (4.00 / 1)
Jackhole.

;)


[ Parent ]
Haha... (0.00 / 0)
...hey 17 to 3 ain't bad.  That's a lot better than the "Does BillO need to go" poll which was like 120 to 1.

[ Parent ]
Hell no, BillO sucks! (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
The surge is working... (0.00 / 0)
The surge is working... The surge is working... *sticks fingers in ears- la la la la la.....

great description from the debate last night (4.00 / 1)
"I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point." I cannot find the rest of the quote right now but it was along the lines of:....the violence went from unacceptable devastation to unbelievable devastation and is now merely back to unacceptable devastation. A great section from both candidates talking about how it is a myth to say everything is peachy in the sand.  

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

Well (4.00 / 1)
Has the Surge worked? Well, in one word, I can honestly say no. While the Surge may have provided some temporary security and a few lulls in violence here and there, it has not worked in my honest opinion. After all, I was under the impression that the point of the surge was to create enough security so that political reconciliation could take place. Unfortunately, I have seen no real political reconciliation whatsoever in regards to the Iraqi government. Now, if one is to take a second look at all of this, one cannot help but observe that the Surge was a flawed strategy from the beginning, as its success or failure was tied to the Iraqi government getting its act together, which has not happened and leaves two lessons to be learned here.

1. No matter how hard we want to try, the overwhelming majority of Iraq's problems(Political reconciliation included) can only be FIXED BY IRAQIS!!!

2. The Arabs(Iraqis included) work on their time, not our time. Should they decide to engage in reconciliation, they will do so when they are ready, not when we are ready. It is simply foolish to use US troops for any mission whose success hinges on the Iraqis taking care of their own business.

It should also be noted that the biggest success of the counterinsurgency campaign, al Anbar province, had little if anything to do with the surge.



While... (0.00 / 0)
...political reconciliation at the central government level has been a catastrophe, I think the tribes banding together to kick out the Islamic State of Iraq (al-Qaeda) has been a positive sign and shows that at least some Iraqis have taken the initiative.  But we can't pay these guys $300/month forever, they need jobs, and that will require assistance from the central government to a large extent.

[ Parent ]
Then again (0.00 / 0)
With all of the months of hoopla leading up to the surge, who is to say that many of the jihadists took this as an opportunity to slip underground and regroup for a few months, with plans to come out in full force once again when the surge is completed. I certainly would not put that past them, with a fewer amount of attacks maintained in an effort to give the illusion that the surge is working.

[ Parent ]
VetVoice on Facebook
VetVoice Recommends

"The War I Always Wanted,"
By Brandon Friedman

"The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

"Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

"A Time To Lead,"
By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

"A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

"This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

Buy A Time to Lead here.

"Love My Rifle More Than You,"
By Kayla Williams

"Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

"How to Break a Terrorist,"
By Matthew Alexander

"...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

" ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.

RSS Feed Links

Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!

Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
Menu

Front Page Writers
PTSD Resources
TBI Resources
IRR Information
Casualty Reports
VA Information
Support the Troops
Veteran Candidates We Support
Congressional Committees
Contact Your Elected Leaders
Sites We Like
Search

Advanced Search

Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

Site Design: Articulated Man

VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

Powered by: SoapBlox