The 'Surge' comes under fire

It is now becoming part of the accepted wisdom that the 'Surge' has been successful in bringing down the level of violence in Iraq. While it is fortunate that violence in Iraq has declined, it's not clear that the Surge is wholly responsible for this. In a previous post I cited the work of conservative columnist Paul Sperry who suggested the Surge not only involved increasing the number of troops in Iraq, especially in Baghdad, but also involved handing out cash bribes to Sunnis to cease resisting the U.S. occupation.

Confirmation for this continues to roll in, but I find it amazing that the media -- especially the so-called liberal media -- seems reluctant to report these findings. I encourage everyone to read Steve Simon's essay in Foreign Affairs The Price of the Surge, because he provides a more even-handed analysis of the Surge. Violence has gone down, yes, but at what cost? And are we any closer to establishing a political reconciliation among Iraq's various ethnic enclaves?

However, he does discuss the cash 'bribes' we've been providing to the Sunnis and why this has been a significant factor in alleviating the violence in Iraq. He writes :

"The deals were mediated by tribal leaders and consisted of payments of $360 per month per combatant in exchange for allegiance and cooperation. Initially referred to by the United States as 'concerned local citizens,' the former insurgents are now known as the Sons of Iraq. The total number across Iraq is estimated at over 90,000.

The Sunni sheiks, meanwhile, are getting rich from the surge. The United States has budgeted $150 million to pay Sunni tribal groups this year, and the sheiks take as much as 20 percent of every payment to a former insurgent -- which means that commanding 200 fighters can be worth well over a hundred thousand dollars a year for a tribal chief."

It's important to note that these are former Sunni insurgents, that is "terrorists," who have been responsible for killing Americans. But because the United States could not find a way to militarily bring down the violence and the war was becoming increasingly unpopular at home it seems a silent deal was struck between the commanders on the ground and the Sunnis. So far the 'bribes' seem to be working, but is this really much of a success?

The author also notes that the ethnic cleansing that went on in 2006 and early 2007 segregated the Shiites and Sunnis so that now they live in their own communities. A recent study done by professors at the University of California at Los Angeles confirms this.

Night light in neighborhoods populated primarily by embattled Sunni residents declined dramatically just before the February 2007 surge and never returned, suggesting that ethnic cleansing by rival Shiites may have been largely responsible for the decrease in violence for which the U.S. military has claimed credit, the team reports in a new study based on publicly available satellite imagery.

It seems premature to declare the Surge a success because clearly other factors are at play. Finally, though, we should remember that the ultimate purpose of the Surge was not just to decrease the level of violence in Iraq, but to provide the embattled Iraqi government time to reconcile with dissident factions. While no one knows the future of Iraq, we do know that we had no cause to invade and occupy Iraq and all the "successes" in Iraq are ultimately for naught.

A Light Shines in the Darkness and the Darkness Comprehends it not: Ron Paul Exits the Stage

Last week Ron Paul officially ended his campaign for the presidency, and so once again "politics as usual," carries the day. The Ron Paul campaign was the most electrifying in years successfully tapping into America's growing disenchantment with the Bush Administration. The record of the last eight years has been a cruel one: record high gas prices, preventable terror attacks, anemic job growth, and a baseless and costly war. Ron Paul was the only candidate who spoke to all these concerns, and his record of consistency and principle was able to spark a revolution throughout the country. He was not an establishment candidate, but one grown out of America's populist soil: anti-war protesters, civil libertarians, gun-rights' activists, tax opponents, vegan radicals, and all those who feel alienated and distrustful of the two parties.

While his candidacy was always a long-shot he was still able to raise tens of millions of dollars, outperform Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo in the Republican primaries, and call attention to important matters that otherwise would have been neglected. Just how boring -- or more boring -- would the Republican debates have been without Ron Paul railing against the Iraq war, the follies of nation-building, and the deceitful conmen known as Neocons? Without him stirring controversy, the debates would have been pitiful, bland, and monochrome.

Despite the success of the Ron Paul campaign it all comes to naught unless it influences the direction of public policy. Will the Ron Paul revolution continue under some other banner, or will his troopers just resign themselves to defeat, with some returning home and others returning to the ineffectual Libertarian party?

Even with the strong anti-war sentiment in the country, the Republican Party and the larger conservative movement have built a little cocoon around George Bush and moral sanctity of the Iraq war. Neither Bush's leadership nor the wisdom of going to war is open to question. Many in the Democratic Party are against the war and probably support an immediate withdrawal, but the leadership has capitulated to almost all of Bush's demands, and their attitude seems to be that "yes, Iraq was a mistake, but we just can't pick up and leave." Of course, this idea ensures that our occupation of Iraq will be indefinite.

Regardless, the American people had a choice to set a better course for themselves and their country, and either because of indifference, habit, defeatism, ignorance, apathy or whatever, they chose politics as usual.

So get used to the new 100 year war.

What's so great about the Surge?

Last year President Bush implemented a new strategy in Iraq -- the "surge" -- aimed at increasing security in Baghdad, and putting another 4,000 troops in the Anbar province to fight the Sunni insurgents. At first, the results didn't look too promising. When General Patraeus released his interim report on the "surge" in July 2007 coalition fatalities were at an all time high. Still, General Patraues claimed the "surge" had been moderately successful.

Since then there has been a remarkable decline in U.S fatalities, and now they are at an all time low. While the immediate reaction is to attribute this decline to the "surge" there may be other factors at work.

Conservative columnist Paul Sperry argues that the reduction in violence isn't so much due to the troops as it is the cash "bribes" we are offering to the tribal sheiks in the Anbar province. He writes:

The only, 'success' in Anbar is really just a return on U.S. financial inducements to tribal sheiks. Instead of dropping bombs in Iraq, we're now dropping bundles of cash in the laps of insurgents who without the crude bribes would no doubt return to ambushing our troops.

There is also corroborating evidence from the TimesOnline:

The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp.

.

If these cash "bribes" are responsible for the reduction in violence then we can say that in all respects the "surge" has been a failure. Perhaps the White and military were growing weary of all the negative press coming out of Iraq and wanted to turn back the tide. The Sunni insurgency was just too difficult for us to handle, so instead we tried a new approach: bribery.

This makes me wonder that if the part about the Sunnis turning against al-Qaeda is just a cover story. Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq is hotly debated and, I suspect, wildly inflated. In fact, I doubt al-Qaeda has any real presence in Iraq at all. Perhaps we refer to foreign "terrorists" in Iraq as al-Qaeda because most of the foreign fighters come from Saudi Arabia and Bush doesn't want to alienate one of our "allies."

However, I think the military just decided to hand out cash bribes to the Sunnis and invented the part about them turning against al-Qaeda. The military cannot just claim we are paying off the insurgents to keep the violence down, so they concocted a story to make the "bribes" appear legitimate.

This is all speculation at this point, and I invite any criticism, but we cannot trust the White House and military to tell us the truth about Iraq.

Is war with Iran on the horizon?

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, February 1, 2007

It seems as if the United States is always on the cusp of plunging into a full scale war with Iran. Last year, President Bush made the allegation that Iran was responsible for providing sophisticated "explosively formed projectiles" to the Iraqi insurgency. This year the State Department added the Al-Qods to the list of terrorist organizations. Finally, there has been much saber rattling over Iran's nuclear weapon program, and while the latest NIE on Iran defused much of the tension, the White House remains adamant that Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Last weekend there was an "incident" in the the strait of Hormuz in which Iranian speedboats "swarmed" several Navy ships. During the communication there was a threat, "I am coming to you...you will explode in a few minutes." Originally, the Pentagon claimed that this threat came from one of the speedboats, but now things are not so clear. Supposedly, it may have came from shore, or from another merchant freighter in the strait. However, this doesn't stop President Bush from playing up this incident for all it's worth:

"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, so the United States is strengthening our long-standing security commitments with our friends in the Gulf and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late."

You're not imagining things if you think this rhetoric sounds awfully familiar.

We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.

This was from a speech in Cincinnati made on October 9th, 2002 as part of the Administration's attempt to justify the use of force in Iraq.

Americans need to understand that those who formulate America's foreign policy, the Neocons, are adamant that the United States overthrow Iran's regime, and occupy the region. We must interpret all events in this light. It's very possible that there will be an attempt to provoke Iran or possibly stage a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to start a war with Iran. We should be skeptical of any report released by the Pentagon or the White House that alleges Iran is "threatening" the United States. America will not benefit from a war with Iran, but the Administration desperately wants one, and right now there is no telling how far they will go to get one.