View Full Version : Did the troop surge in Iraq work?
Yes I know the Iraq war is a very old topic, :sweatdrop: but I was thinking about it on my way home from work today and I was wondering because I'm not very informed on the subject...
Did the troop surge in Iraq work? I remember everybody made a very big deal out of it, how the troop surge was wrong, it wouldn't work, we should be pulling out of Iraq, etc. etc. etc. President Bush went ahead with it anyway if I remember correctly and then a couple of months later I heard that violence levels were way down. However I don't think I ever heard anyone say that the troop surge worked, not even on conservative talk radio.
Also while we're at it has the Iraq war been "won"? Personally I feel that it has, but then again I don't know very much about the situation over there. I guess I could always do my own research and find out the answers to these questions on my own but I want to start posting here more because I'm pretty much a lurker and I'm interested to see what you guys think.
CountArach
02-27-2010, 08:13
What would you define as "work"?
Samurai Waki
02-27-2010, 08:24
It may have worked a little bit, but paying off insurgents has worked better.
It may have worked a little bit, but paying off insurgents has worked better.
What he said. It did provide a little more security and underline our commitment to stay but the rejection of Al Queda by most of the Sunni tribes did far more. At least it allowed the coalition to send troops to work with the local tribal militias without having to reduce forces too much elsewhere.
What would you define as "work"?
Did it have a postive impact on the overall situation in Iraq.
CountArach
02-27-2010, 08:55
Did it have a postive impact on the overall situation in Iraq.
Well it is all relative then. Better in terms of more stable? Sure. Worse than a complete withdrawal would have been? I imagine so.
PanzerJaeger
02-27-2010, 09:46
Yes, it worked.
Furunculus
02-27-2010, 10:49
some metrics by which we may judge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#Interpretation_of_the_surge.27s_results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_to_Congress_on_the_Situation_in_Iraq
Centurion1
02-27-2010, 16:20
Well it is all relative then. Better in terms of more stable? Sure. Worse than a complete withdrawal would have been? I imagine so.
That is a totally subjective statement based completely off whether you support the war or not.
That is a totally subjective statement based completely off whether you support the war or not.That's more charitable than I would have been- more like it was a complete nonsense statement that was inconsistent with reality. :wink:
Anyone remember what our current VP proposed? :dizzy2:
CountArach
02-28-2010, 06:42
That is a totally subjective statement based completely off whether you support the war or not.
Yes, but any definition of "work" is, by its very nature, subjective, so your criticism is completely invalid.
Centurion1
02-28-2010, 21:33
Anyone remember what our current VP proposed?
what that he and obama came up with the surge.
please at least give bush credit for things he actually did no matter what else he did.
Yes, but any definition of "work" is, by its very nature, subjective, so your criticism is completely invalid.
well no where in that entire statement is the word "work" used so your point is also invalid.
we were talking about whether it was positive.
CountArach
02-28-2010, 22:53
well no where in that entire statement is the word "work" used so your point is also invalid.
Read the title of the thread, please.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-28-2010, 23:02
I would suggest that it is working, though I would also assert that a changed approach that was co-implemented explains more of the success.
Pacification requires a LOT of patrolling, so the increase in troops that allowed for that was certainly a plus. In addition, a combination of carot and stick is required -- you have to crush the foreign/terror components and any domestics who attack, but you should also offer real amnesty to those insurgents who opt to stop fighting you (and you may have to pay for some of this to happen). We and the Iraqis have done a good deal of this and are fairly far ahead on security, though by no means is Iraq truly secure as yet.
However, even more important is for the locals to start believing that something resembling progress can/will/is happening. This takes a fair measure of security (patrolling), a degree of infrastructure enhancement, and clear signs that control and real sovereignty is being/will be passed back to the indigenous population. This part is still in progress.
Louis VI the Fat
03-01-2010, 00:41
I somewhat lost interest in all the details of Iraq some time ago.
From what I understand, the surge was an improvement. Violence breeds violence, peace is the first prerequisite for development and all that.
The dummy version of Seamus' post directly above then. :dunce:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-01-2010, 00:47
Yes, I think it worked, but only because it was a part of a much larger plan that basically involved doing what should have been done in the beginning. So, I suppose, in that sense you could say the surge failed because it underlined the abject failure of previous policies.
Centurion1
03-01-2010, 00:48
Read the title of the thread, please.
you did not make it clear your post was an extension of the thread title therefore it does not necessarily mean you are speaking of the same thing. you never acknowledged you were speaking of "work" only whether you thought the surge was positive which is in and of itself a totally subjective term as well.
Strike For The South
03-01-2010, 01:05
It wastes more American lives for a fruitless cuase.
No
PanzerJaeger
03-01-2010, 02:54
So, I suppose, in that sense you could say the surge failed because it underlined the abject failure of previous policies.
That doesn't even make sense.
I think he's saying it failed because its success showed how bad the prior policy was...yes? So if it had failed to do anything it would be a success if the policy was to continue to fail...
This reminds of Catch 22, the old man who is explaining that Italy is winning the war because it is succeeding in being defeated!
CountArach
03-01-2010, 12:43
you did not make it clear your post was an extension of the thread title therefore it does not necessarily mean you are speaking of the same thing. you never acknowledged you were speaking of "work" only whether you thought the surge was positive which is in and of itself a totally subjective term as well.
Thank you for arguing my point. Both are totally subjective terms and as such criticising me for stating a subjective opinion is utterly superfluous.
Aemilius Paulus
03-02-2010, 00:22
It wastes more American lives for a fruitless cuase.
No
I like how you failed to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths :tongue::skull::no::no:
Why should we care so much about the American troops? They all willingly joined the Armed Forces, killed some people perhaps, came under the banner of an aggressor nation, a global superpower taking on a small state, and then cannot stop talking when one or two soldiers die. While the civilians are caught up in this mess and die by the trainloads as a result of the struggle...
I mean, do not get me wrong. For one, I have immense respect for vets. I am not anti-American. I am not a pacifist. But this treatment of Iraqi vs. US deaths bothers me.
Godwin's Law take on this: What of that mining accident story, the one that happened in the Greater Reich, where it was said 'x number of people and unknown amount of Untermensch died'? Sometimes the newscasts here in US resemble such a remark far too close for comfort. I know I am stretching it, but I swear, that is the attitude I constantly hear being unconsciously/semi-consciously repeated.
Strike For The South
03-02-2010, 02:14
I like how you failed to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths :tongue::skull::no::no:
Why should we care so much about the American troops? They all willingly joined the Armed Forces, killed some people perhaps, came under the banner of an aggressor nation, a global superpower taking on a small state, and then cannot stop talking when one or two soldiers die. While the civilians are caught up in this mess and die by the trainloads as a result of the struggle...
I mean, do not get me wrong. For one, I have immense respect for vets. I am not anti-American. I am not a pacifist. But this treatment of Iraqi vs. US deaths bothers me.
Godwin's Law take on this: What of that mining accident story, the one that happened in the Greater Reich, where it was said 'x number of people and unknown amount of Untermensch died'? Sometimes the newscasts here in US resemble such a remark far too close for comfort. I know I am stretching it, but I swear, that is the attitude I constantly hear being unconsciously/semi-consciously repeated.
I mentonied Americans only is becuase I know them, I went to school with them, I played football with them, I have laughed with them, cried with them, gotten drunk with them and now they are dying because someone in some think tank in D.C. said it would serve Americas position in the ME to invade Iraq.
And that sticks in my craw
America only pays lip service to these guys, we care more about pointless things than there lives. People now just don't want to talk about Iraq. EVEN THOUGH THEY SENT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And that sticks in my craw
America really doesn't know what sacrafice is anymore. We aren't at war, our troops are at war, we are at the mall. We've become desensitized to war and that is a tragedy becuase when push comes to shove that isn't going to serve us well
And that sticks in my craw
I have real ties to Americans and that's why I mentioned them. I feel for the Iraqis to but I dont know there suituation. I see Americas everyday and I can't stand it.
Aemilius Paulus
03-02-2010, 02:30
Well, I know why you only mentioned Americans, and you gave all the right reasons. But I had to use your post for a wider point, even if there was very little to grab on to ~;)
Centurion1
03-02-2010, 03:19
People care more about their own.
As Strike said the worst part of Iraq is they send em there but then they tiptoe around the whole place.
Strike For The South
03-02-2010, 04:16
People care more about their own.
As Strike said the worst part of Iraq is they send em there but then they tiptoe around the whole place.
tiptoe? I don't want our toes there in the first place.
Centurion1
03-02-2010, 17:39
i understand that. but having the issue and then not doing anything about it is even worse.
Strike For The South
03-02-2010, 17:53
i understand that. but having the issue and then not doing anything about it is even worse.
What issue? The issue about our troops being there? Lets take them out
a completely inoffensive name
03-03-2010, 06:06
What issue? The issue about our troops being there? Lets take them out
And let the terrorists know they've won and have them bring the fight to the homeland? Brilliant! And I suppose if we just got rid of all the guns, everyone will just stop killing each other. :dizzy2:
CountArach
03-03-2010, 13:51
And let the terrorists know they've won and have them bring the fight to the homeland? Brilliant! And I suppose if we just got rid of all the guns, everyone will just stop killing each other. :dizzy2:
The war was never about terrorism... The whole fact is that, given that our initial strategy did not 'work' due in large part to these terrorists, changing our strategy to soak up more resources/manpower and play into their Holy War rhetoric is exactly what they want. The terrorists have won and will continue to win as long as we remain there. Iraq has provided them with better recruitment propaganda than anything else I could think of.
Furunculus
03-03-2010, 14:06
The war was never about terrorism...
you might think so, i however, am half convinced that iraq made a very handy place to fight the war against terrorism, as a way to draw out the decades worth of radicalised jihadis who had drifted in out out of bin-ladens camps.
it wasn't on american soil.
it was a secular arab country, and therefore an ideal place to host a showdown between the west and radical islam, televised all over the world, into every home. who will get royally and publicly spanked.
it could break the will of the west, but by equal measure it could break the will of militant islamic ideology.
Myrddraal
03-03-2010, 14:19
I agree with AP. The number of times I hear about American (and in my case British) deaths without any reference to the number of Iraqi (military, police and civilian) deaths... When a British soldier dies, it (rightly) makes headlines, the TV news shows the crowds lining the streets of Wootton Bassett. It's tragic, and they are treated with due respect. Then we hear about the latest celebrity gossip and electioneering. Then we hear a 20 second headline informing us that a bomb has killed 50 odd civilians in Baghdad. I know it's not a surprise, I know it's a very human thing to empathise more with those we encounter in our day to day lives, but that doesn't make it right.
If the US pulled out tomorrow, how many people would die in the resulting power grab? How much injustice would follow? Would that be a fair price for a relatively small number of lives saved (albeit American lives)?
As AP rightly put, the soldiers in our armies are volunteers. The civilians who die had no choice whatsoever.
EDIT:
Anybody reading this thinking: that bastard doesn't care about our troops is showing the very symptoms I describe. I am in no way trying to devalue to lives of our soldiers, just trying to inject some value into those who they are trying to protect.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-03-2010, 15:59
you might think so, i however, am half convinced that iraq made a very handy place to fight the war against terrorism, as a way to draw out the decades worth of radicalised jihadis who had drifted in out out of bin-ladens camps.
it wasn't on american soil.
it was a secular arab country, and therefore an ideal place to host a showdown between the west and radical islam, televised all over the world, into every home. who will get royally, and publicly spanked.
Some truth to that Furunc', but only some. Saddam underwrote terrorist bombings in Israel/Palestine by offering money to the families of bombers willing to wear an explosive vest and kill themselves in the attack. To that extent we could argue that his regime was involved in international terrorism. Yes, there was an AQ camp in Iraq, but most accounts assert that the connection was pro-forma at best and mostly served as Saddam's sop to Bin Laden so that Bin Laden wouldn't list him as a prime target -- Saddam's dictatorship and true Wahabism are not sympatico. All-in-all, however, we really did hammer Saddam's regime flat because the Bush administration 1) feared they would field MDWs [lousy tradecraft/analysis supporting that one], and [NOTE: THIS IS SEAMUS' OPINION] 2) they believed that they could then have an American presence on both of Iran's borders and use that leverage to pressure Iran into backing away from supporting terrorism etc.
Sadly, I suspect the "use the war in Iraq as a marquee to draw in all the jihadi-types" was a rationale applied after the fact. Not a bad one, mind you, but I'd have been a lot happier if we'd actually organized our forces with that as a goal and been ready as opposed to the "knock Saddam down and hope for roses and flowers" approach we took.
Furunculus
03-03-2010, 16:14
Some truth to that Furunc', but only some. Saddam underwrote terrorist bombings in Israel/Palestine by offering money to the families of bombers willing to wear an explosive vest and kill themselves in the attack. To that extent we could argue that his regime was involved in international terrorism. Yes, there was an AQ camp in Iraq, but most accounts assert that the connection was pro-forma at best and mostly served as Saddam's sop to Bin Laden so that Bin Laden wouldn't list him as a prime target -- Saddam's dictatorship and true Wahabism are not sympatico. All-in-all, however, we really did hammer Saddam's regime flat because the Bush administration 1) feared they would field MDWs [lousy tradecraft/analysis supporting that one], and [NOTE: THIS IS SEAMUS' OPINION] 2) they believed that they could then have an American presence on both of Iran's borders and use that leverage to pressure Iran into backing away from supporting terrorism etc.
Sadly, I suspect the "use the war in Iraq as a marquee to draw in all the jihadi-types" was a rationale applied after the fact. Not a bad one, mind you, but I'd have been a lot happier if we'd actually organized our forces with that as a goal and been ready as opposed to the "knock Saddam down and hope for roses and flowers" approach we took.
sure it is not the only reason, the other being energy security.
it is the spikes in energy prices that put such intolerable strain on continued western economic growth, and it is tin-pot little ME countries continually rattling the T72's at each other that causes these spikes.
WMD's was an excuse (albeit a sincerely held one) rather than an actual cause, just as was Saddams tenuous links to terrorism, and support for an allies (israel/kuwait) against a belligerant regional hegemon.
IMO the two principle aims were; energy security, and a desire to fight the war on terror in a secular arab state, but neither of those aims is a reasonable justification for war.
Strike For The South
03-03-2010, 19:07
Would that be a fair price for a relatively small number of lives saved (albeit American lives)?
.
Yes. Considering its going to happen sooner or later anyway.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2010, 04:31
The war was never about terrorism... The whole fact is that, given that our initial strategy did not 'work' due in large part to these terrorists, changing our strategy to soak up more resources/manpower and play into their Holy War rhetoric is exactly what they want. The terrorists have won and will continue to win as long as we remain there. Iraq has provided them with better recruitment propaganda than anything else I could think of.
Then we will crush them on their home court. In case you forgot, America is the world's greatest Christian nation and god had blessed this country (it says so right in our anthems and money), and as long as we keep our faith and end this islamo-secular invasion, god will guide our troops to victory.
CountArach
03-04-2010, 06:28
Then we will crush them on their home court. In case you forgot, America is the world's greatest Christian nation and god had blessed this country (it says so right in our anthems and money), and as long as we keep our faith and end this islamo-secular invasion, god will guide our troops to victory.
Alright... I seriously hope you are joking...
EDIT: A re-read shows that yes, you have to be joking. Or a Fox News presenter.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2010, 07:04
Alright... I seriously hope you are joking...
EDIT: A re-read shows that yes, you have to be joking. Or a Fox News presenter.
And what's wrong with being a presenter on the only fair and balanced channel on TV? :dizzy:
Strike For The South
03-04-2010, 16:09
Then we will crush them on their home court. In case you forgot, America is the world's greatest Christian nation and god had blessed this country (it says so right in our anthems and money), and as long as we keep our faith and end this islamo-secular invasion, god will guide our troops to victory.
Take a day off, you're better than this
Aemilius Paulus
03-04-2010, 17:17
Jesus, as if ACIN does not already have a long and distinguished history of humour, tasteful trolling and Colbert-ism, and as if his language is not over-the-top enough, but hell, he still manages to fool people, which is probably a testament to his skill, if anything.
Strike For The South
03-04-2010, 17:30
Jesus, as if ACIN does not already have a long and distinguished history of humour, tasteful trolling and Colbert-ism, and as if his language is not over-the-top enough, but hell, he still manages to fool people, which is probably a testament to his skill, if anything.
My post was meant for his trolling....he's off his game
Aemilius Paulus
03-04-2010, 21:19
My post was meant for his trolling....he's off his game
Well, there was CountArach and other people on other threads... :shrug:
a completely inoffensive name
03-05-2010, 03:29
...
If I may be forgiven for going on-topic for a moment, I stumbled across an interview this morning that had some bits that bear directly on the subject: (http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2010/03/special-abu-muqawama-qa-six-questions-deb-amos.html)
While the “Surge” is not the major focus of the book, I write about the Iraq war and the events that surround the surge from an Iraqi point of view. I felt it was a view missing from the war literature. I couldn’t be on the ground in Baghdad in 2007, but I was in Damascus during the troop build up. There were more Iraqis fleeing the country in 2007 than had left in 2006. In Damascus, the UN refugee center was packed each day. By interviewing the newcomers I could document the explosion of sectarian cleansing that took place as additional U.S. moved into Baghdad neighborhoods. For many Iraqis, the price of the surge was quite high and some are still paying. Tactically, the surge contributed to the dramatic drop in violence, strategically, the surge failed to spark a political reconciliation in Iraq. Which means the refugee crisis could be with us for some time to come.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.