The Fix Is In!! Conventional Wisdom Is Convinced That the Surge Has Brought Progress!

So the fix is in and many in the media and in the elite Washington establishment are buying into (and helping craft) the new 'conventional wisdom.'

The new conventional wisdom is that: while there are problems still in Iraq, the Surge has reduced the violence, improved the security situation, and created some progress.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

Is this view justified? Well, most of you will know my answer, based on the tenor of the post so far. And you would be right...

The success of the Surge is a big load of BS

In previous posts I detailed more or less the same thing. Specifically, I attacked the credibility of the upcoming Surge Progress Report due in September. It's lack of credibility, and the history of the administration of fudging numbers to claim "progress" when there is in fact none.

This time I will try not so much to attack the credibility of the administration (its like beating a dead horse at this point), but to show you the numbers themselves...and let those do the actual talking.

[The following figures where compiled by Kevin Drum using figures and statistics from the Brooking Institutions 'Iraq Index.' This index has tracked security and infrastructure figures in the post-Saddam era of Iraq]

Note: Some may ask why compare figures from the same time in different years (Jan 06 vs. Jan 07), as opposed to comparing figures from nearby months (Jun 07 vs. Jul 07)? The reason is that a lot of the fighting often fluctuates along seasonal lines. Some seasons, whether for weather, or other practical reasons, are more violent than other times of the year. It's sometimes misleading to, say, compare figures from winter and spring, or even from different months because of these differences. That is why most comparisons are done with statistics gathered from the same time of the year.

Anyways, lets go to the Iraq Stats and see how dismal the actual outlook is:

Violence Metrics

	June/July 2006	June/July 2007	Change
Iraqi Military and Police Killed	349	429	Up 23%
Multiple Fatality Bombings	110	82	Down 25%
# Killed in Mult. Fatality Bombings	885	1,053	Up 19%
Iraqi Civilians Killed (All violent causes)	6,739	5,300	Hard to say1
U.S. Troop Fatalities	104	187	Up 80%
U.S. Troops Wounded	983	1,423	Up 45%
Size of Insurgency	20,000+	~70,0002	Up ~250%
Attacks on Oil and Gas Pipelines	8	143	Up 75%

¹Methodology changed dramatically between 2006 and 2007, so numbers are highly suspect.
²Number is for March 2007.
³Numbers are for June only. No July numbers are available.

Infrastructure Metrics

	June/July 2006	June/July 2007	Change
Diesel Fuel Available	26.7 Ml	20.7 Ml	Down 22%
Kerosene Available	7.08 Ml	6.3 Ml	Down 11%
Gasoline Available	29.4 Ml	22.2 Ml	Down 24%
LPG Available	4,936 tons	4,932 tons	Down 0.1%
Electricity Generated	8,800 Mwatts	8,420 Mwatts	Down 4%
Hours Electricity Per Day	11.7	10.14	Down ~14%

⁴No numbers available for June/July. Figure is extrapolated from May and August numbers.

Those are some pretty sorry numbers for a Surge, much less one that is now supposedly making progress like the Kool-Aid drinkers in the press corp now seem to believe. Violence is up by most important metrics measuring violence, and metrics measuring reconstruction show that the situation for Iraqi civilians is getting worse.

Further, there is some indication that more Iraqis have been fleeing their homes since the Surge began.

Statistics collected by one of the two humanitarian groups, the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, indicate that the total number of internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled, to 1.1 million from 499,000, since the buildup started in February.

One way that the administration may try and claim progress is by pointing to some decreases in certain provinces...while ignoring increases in others [think: Whack-a-mole].

Further some of the gains in certain provinces is due to Sunni insurgent groups who have cracked down on Al-Qaeda in Iraq in their - mostly Sunni - provinces. The problem here is that, while it is good news that these Sunni groups are cracking down on Al-Qaeda...well, those same groups have and will continue to kill American forces, and the Shia-dominated Iraq central government when Al-Qaeda in Iraq is suitably disabled.

This is not some optimistic point that US officials should make and the US should stop arming those Sunni groups.

The enemy of your enemy is not your damn friend in this case!! Those arms and weapons we are showering on formerly hostile groups will soon find American soldiers and Iraqi government targets in their cross hairs. For the love of God stop arming them!

The Public

While many in the media, and many in the Washington Establishment may have been snookered by the administration and its pro-war supporters, the American public is rightfully much more skeptical about any report from this administration telling them things are getting better.

From CNN, we learn that most think the Administration will paint a rosier picture than is justified:

A majority of Americans don't trust the upcoming report by the Army's top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn't change their mind, according to a new poll...(snip)

But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.

What makes it interesting is that, even among those who think Surge is making progress (irrespective of the report or how accurate it is) [47 % - pretty sizable minority!], and those who do trust that the report will be accurate [43%]....It does not change the mind of most Americans, who still want the US to leave Iraq.

The poll indicates that most of America's mind is made up about the war -- 72 percent said the report will have no effect on their view of the war.

Of those opposed to the war, 47 percent said Petreaus' report could not change their mind while 17 percent said it could.

This poll gives me some optimism. The American public has usually been ahead of the Washington Establishment and the Media in terms of the war. But the pundits and politicians are often way behind and I worry that they will vote to continue the war (give the surge and the president 'another chance' and a 'few more months') when this BS progress report is released in September.

I fear even some Democrats will be fooled or will feel pressure to vote against measures ending the war, although I mostly fear that Republican "Waverers" will jump back on Bush-boys boat and support the war in the war in the wake of the report.

So let me take that back...the poll gives me some optimism...then other knowledge seeps in and crushes that optimism.

The Soldiers

A group of active non-commissioned officers (i.e. non-coms, NCO...from the ranks of 'private' to the highest 'sergeant' ranks) recently wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times that is anything but kind to the Iraq mission and the 'surge'.

The Op-Ed

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

They even mention the mistake of arming Sunni insurgents

Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

Like I said earlier in the post: "For the love of God stop arming them!!" These soldiers obviously understand that those very Sunni groups will soon take up arms against the government (and US if we are still there). All we are doing (basically) is arming multiple and opposing sides of a civil war. That is definitely not a good idea and recipe for increased violence. Its like fighting a fire by dousing it with gasoline and trying to smother it with pieces of dry wood and tinder.

Anyways there's more, give it a good read.

The Top General

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff plays a very special role in shaping US policy. The role and task for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is specific:

To provide independent and thoughtful advice on military matters to the President of the United States and to other members of the National Security Council. And to make known the independent view of those in the uniformed military (and NOT the civilian - and often political - leadership of the military such as from the Secretary of Defenses' Office and staff).

In other words this is a position in which independence advice (often telling the president what he might not want to hear) is supposed to be one of the duties of the position.

It hasn't always worked out that way of course, especially during the run up to the war in Iraq when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was completely controlled and dominated by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But this is what the position is about in theory.

Our current (and outgoing) Joint Chiefs Chairman, Marine Corp. General Peter Pace is causing a bit of a stir because of indications that he will suggest that the US withdraw half of US troops in Iraq, contrary to the current Administration policy of a "surge" (extra troops).

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.

Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.

A little more:

Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it.

According to administration and military officials, the Joint Chiefs believe it is of crucial strategic importance to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq in order to bolster the military's ability to respond to other threats, a view that is shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Pace is expected to offer his advice privately instead of issuing a formal report. Still, the position of Pace and the Joint Chiefs could add weight to that of Bush administration critics, including Democratic presidential candidates, that the U.S. force should be reduced.

President Bush didn't listen to Pace when he initially tried to warn him against a "surge" (I don't think the uniformed military was thrilled about that idea), but even Pace had to relent when it became clear that Bush was adamant.

I see no reason to believe that President Bush will heed the advice of his top General in this case either. Because, for all his talk about listening to his generals...he actually only listens to generals and people who tell him what he wants to hear or tell him things that conform with what he already believes to be true. [If you are reading this Jose: You were supposed to have read my big research paper...so you know I'm not making that assertion from facts I pulled out of my ass. And if you didn't read it...well get on it!! lol]

------

I still have 5 more links and articles to share, but I don't quite feel like doing a roundup at this point since I'm going to get picked up to watch a UFC pay-per-view thing. Hopefully tomorrow I can finish up (and add a few of Sundays news articles).

'till then, enjoy the damn "America to the Rescue" YouTube video on my profile...hilarious and educational!