There have been many solid cases made debunking this Republican talking point. There are many statistics, including the money we have spent in Iraq, the lives lost, and time wasted. However, what must be said about the "Surge is Working" talking point is that is relies on the short memory of the American people, and spineless unwillingness of the press to deflate it.
Can we compare where we are today, almost seven years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to where we were on that day. Imagine if we were told then that seven years later that Osama Bin Laden would still be roaming free. We were still at war in Afghanistan, where the Taliban still have power over vast areas of the country. Al Qaida still had strong support while America had lost credibility on the world stage. Hamas was elected to lead the Palestinian parliament, and the U.S. was engaged in an entrenched war with a nation that didn't even attack us. Would that be deemed a success to Americans who lost family and friends on 9/11?
More below the flip
Imagine that the only consolation we were given is that there had been no more attacks on American soil because we "took the fight to the terrorists". Mind you, we'd have to admit that we'd gone in to record deficit and national debt in order to "take this fight to the terrorists"; Mind you that the Administration tasked with "taking the fight to the terrorists" had encouraged the marketing of wasteful automobiles that helped send tens of billions of dollars to the terrorists in order to kill our soldiers.
So, now seven years later we are told that "the Surge in working" and that is supposed to be a victory!? This talking point is made five years after we invaded the wrong country! This talking point is made when we are losing ground in war in Afghanistan! This talking point is made during a U.S. recession, in part caused by these disastrous foreign policy choices!
After the initial post-invasion debacle when the U.S. lost control of Iraq, it quickly became apparent that the U.S. sent too few troops to keep order in the country. It also became apparent that the U.S. military leadership had advocated for more troops and were denied, primarily by neo-conservative leaders in the Bush Administration who had no military experience themselves.
After inciting more terrorism through the utilization of torture methods; After wasting billions on incompetent contractors and war profiteers; After failing to provide our troops with adequate body armor; and After refusing to talk to other nations in the region we deemed hostile, the Bush Administration finally agreed to send more troops.
The problem is, by this time, they had made so many horrendous errors, the call for our troops to leave Iraq had exploded. Scrambling for some type of middle ground, the Bush Administration put all their hopes behind David Petraeus, a Major General with an impeccable record and known to be a competent, non-partisan, and non-controversial figure. Petraeus helped lead the Surge policy, which simply brought the situation back to where it should have been in 2003. Aided by the already burgeoning Sunni Awakening, violence declined in Iraq from completely out of control nightmare massacre of blood and explosions to a somewhat out of control holding pattern. Meanwhile, Afghanistan continues to deteriorate.
Frankly, it should be obvious that this Surge policy can not be considered a success.
Keep thinking in terms of America on September 12, 2001. I will repeat myself here, but it is important to bring this point home. We should ask ourselves these questions as if we are talking to America on September 12, 2001:
Is it a success that seven years later we managed to somewhat secure a country, a country that did not attack us on 9/11, a country which is smaller than California, on a budget of over $10 billion a month?
Is it a success that seven years later the Taliban government that did house the people that attacked us still has control over major regions in Afghanistan?
Is it a success that seven years later we lost over 4,000 soldiers, with over 30,000 wounded?
Is it a success that seven years later Osama Bin Laden has still not been caught?
If we did a public opinion poll on that day, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, providing they weren't certifiably insane would answer a resounding "NO!"
That brings me to another point; one that the Republicans will continue to bring up. That Barack Obama was against this glorious "Surge" policy. Well can you blame him? The "Surge" policy still did not include plans to engage Iran and Syria to defuse the crisis. The "Surge" policy included continued stop-loss policies forcing troops to endure longer tours of duty, and shorter time off between tours. Ultimately, Barack Obama deserves no blame for his position because he had every reason to ask for something better; something broader; and something more substantive.
When the Republicans next week slap each other on the backs for backing "the Surge" they might as well slap each other on the back for backing the Stimulus package as well. Both policies increased billions of dollars in deficit spending. Both policies were a band-aid for failed policies; one economic and one military; and Both policies required no political courage.
The mainstream media has failed to make this case for fear that doing so would destroy the Republican argument for their party remaining in power. They do so willingly, and without any thought of taking a larger view. Some Democrats said the War in Iraq was lost because of what had already occurred. The consequences of the failed policy towards the War in Iraq have ensured that fate. However, that didn't mean that violence would never decline. That didn't mean that Iraq would be in chaos forever. At a certain point, by spending over $500 billion in post-war Iraq, a nation smaller than California, eventually these things can be accomplished. The American economy and the American military are the strongest in the world. "Losing" a war has a different meaning for America than for other countries. Of course, that is nuance; something Republicans are incapable of digesting, and even more unwilling to debate.
The Surge has been nothing more than the Republicans last resort to end a disastrous war. That is all it is and ever has been. And whatever "success" the Surge policy has created, is more than offset by the disastrous failures that came before it. The Surge policy is like failing a course all semester and than pulling off a D- in the end. McCain is banking his whole campaign on a D- and the American people may be willing to except it. After all, when they elected Bush, they were electing a C student. I guess the curve keeps going down in America in the era of low expectations.
In fact, whether the surge is a success or not is, IMHO, irrelevant. The entire war is an error of titanic proportions.
As a talking point, however, Obama should not engage in this particular debate. His position should be the question is not what has happened in the last year in Iraq. The question in this election is what will happen over the next year in Iraq.
This much is clear. McCain means we will be in Iraq at least another four years. If the country is stable, we will stay on the Hundred Year Plan. If the country is not stable, we will stay because to leave under those circumstances would be defeat in his eyes.
To McCain, winning actually means staying in Iraq.
And the reason is because if we withdraw, and the situation stabilizes, it will prove that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest all lied, and that 4,000 American lives were lost not in vain, but because of vanity, political hubris and greed.
So, if people want our troops home, the only vote is Obama.
The whole argument is a mask for the refighting the old VietNam fight. And McCain needs to put that to bed and get on with his life and the life of Americans who need all politicians to get their crusty selves out of 40 years ago and focus on what we need done today and tomorrow.
Fat chance McC will do any of those things, but it's hardball time.
Furthermore, the Bush Administration hasn't really done a great job protecting us from more attacks. Our Nuclear Power Stations still aren't secure. Our ports still aren't secure. Our airports still aren't secure. All we have, to quote the late great George Carlin, is the illusion of security. What instead has happened is that we gave the terrorists much easier targets. We have basically said to them, "you don't have to come to America to kill Americans, we'll send you plenty of Americans you can kill in your own backyard!"
A terrorist attack on the U.S. takes lots of planning, whereas killing U.S. troops in Afghanistan and/or Iraq does not. The sad thing is that the Bush Administration has been outsmarted by the terrorists all this time, and rather than realize that and correct their strategy, they have told the American people that we are "unpatriotic" if we don't follow that strategy! In other words, the Republicans are saying we are emboldening the terrorists if we don't let them outsmart us! Now, with McCain, the Republicans are assuming that we will be as stupid as they are for another four years!
What Republicans are doing here is focusing on the specific instead of the general. Because they can ask the question about whether the Surge worked (albeit based on a limited set of parameters excluding all of the political objectives) and get a positive response. They know that the more general question on whether our Iraq Policy has been a success or whether that was a good decision does not elicit the same positive response. The problem with their argument is that they want to take the specific and apply it to the general. They want to take sunk costs, in this case the Surge, and apply that to current decision making.
I don't think we should quibble with them over whether the surge worked. The question should be, as you are generally framing it, whether the overall policy worked. Also, it should be where do we go from here. I think Obama is doing that. If he also happens to point out what Republicans are trying to do with this specific case, all the better.
This is an excellent article. It should take the form of a (briefer) letter to the editor and be published all over Virginia.
The "surge" is a distraction, though. And it's a straw man.