August 08, 2007
The Surge May Be Working. But Is It Too Late?
UPDATED.
After four years of hearing that the U.S. had turned the corner and whittled down the enemy to a few "dead-enders" in Iraq, Americans may be in no mood to look at the situation there with fresh eyes. And who can blame them? Evidence that the war in Iraq is a hopeless disaster seems insurmountable: more than 3,600 U.S. troops killed and 26,000 wounded, an untold number of civilians [PDF] killed and wounded, more than 2 million Iraqis displaced, among other depressing statistics.
But recent assessments from critics of President Bush's war strategy see signs that the so-called surge is actually working.
So far, the successes are mostly military. The Iraqis tasked with running the country have yet to earn their votes. But that was always the plan: implement enough security so insurgents would have an incentive to lay down their arms and try to make their country whole again. Thanks to al-Qaida's aimless attacks on the populace, they are already beginning to do so.
AP military writer Robert Burns is noticing the counterinsurgency plan's gains. So have respected milblogs including Small Wars Journal. Both have analyzed the war with a critical eye.
Today, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Richard Durbin, echoed last week's highly publicized report from the Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack that positively rated the military leg of the strategy.
"It's a valiant, heroic effort by our troops, and one that's showing some results on the ground," Durbin told an audibly surprised Steve Inskeep on NPR this morning.
Pollack's New York Times op-ed, written with colleague Michael O'Hanlon, startled the Beltway because both are resident military experts in what is considered the nation's foremost liberal think tank. Pollack's 2002 book, "The Threatening Storm," is credited with convincing liberal hawks to sign on to the U.S.-led invasion. Some on the left have grown angry with him because of the downward spiral the war quickly took, but Pollack was deeply skeptical of the Bush administration's run-up to the war and was an early critic of the strategy there.
Except for those using the recess to visit the Middle East, anti-war lawmakers may evade questions on these unexpectedly hopeful reports -- for now. Also acknowledging the military surge may be working are fellow anti-war Dems Bob Casey and Keith Ellison, the only Muslim member of Congress. Ellison was there last week, and Casey is traveling with Durbin.
Besides their cautious optimism, all of the above parties share concern that Iraqi politicians are simply incapable of doing their part. One thing is clear: They will need time to try. And time is not a commodity many U.S. lawmakers -- led by the Democrats in Congress -- seem willing to dole out any more.
The public, on the other hand, is making up its own mind. A Gallup/USA Today poll conducted over the weekend shows support for the new counterinsurgency strategy is on the rise. The results seem to affirm last week's New York Times poll that shows more Americans think invading Iraq was the right thing to do -- an outcome so surprising that pollsters repeated the survey to make sure.
It hardly bears mentioning that the view of Iraq on the ground and from here remains bloody and grim. It may be that the public is being swayed by warnings that the two choices now facing the U.S. are staying put until the country is stabilized or risking a cross-border holy war in the Middle East.
This turn of events has the potential to not only shake up the presidential campaigns, but also Bush's political epitaph, which pundits have all but polished off. Certainly, the impressions of Bush as stubborn to a fault, political to a fault and optimistic to a fault are indelible. But a reasonably successful outcome in Iraq might keep him out of top 10 lists for worst POTUS ever.
That is, if Congress lets it happen. For one, Bush may just be the commander in chief who cried wolf. His arguments for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq appear to have an empirical basis for the first time in a very long time. But it's a song he's sung many times before, and critics of the war may be reflexively tuning him out.
Then there are the Democratic leaders, many of whom have locked themselves into an all-is-lost, set-a-timetable-now corner. They're convinced that they are duty-bound to end the war on the basis of the midterm elections. But are they really? As some recent polls show, the American public can adjust to changing conditions on the ground. The $1.2 trillion question for the leadership as the recess winds down and General David Petraeus prepares his September report on the stability plan is: Can Congress adjust, too?
The Brookings Institution's Iraq index is here, and the Belmont Club's must-read analysis is here. The Washington Post offers a potential preview of what could become of central Iraq if U.S. troops withdraw prematurely. Sunday Times war correspondent Tony Allen-Mills has an across-the-pond assessment worth reading for its headline alone.
Posted at 11:57 AM
Posted to:
Bush Administration, Campaigns, Congress, David Petraeus, Middle East, Military, President Bush, WH 2008
Share via
