Since the declaration three weeks ago of a supposed end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, most Americans have seemed awfully quick to wash that war right out of their hair. The way the Obama administration pitched the "end" to combat was evidently designed to encourage such a response, to keep Iraq from being too much of a distraction from its other endeavors, most notably that other war two countries to the east. Observing an "end" to combat operations was a subterfuge, in that U.S. troops are still in Iraq, they are still sometimes engaged in firefights, they are still incurring casualties, and they will remain in Iraq for another fifteen months. This subterfuge, along with President Obama's clear statement of intent to stick to the commitment to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011, may be beneficial to the extent it helps the president to ward off agitation from some quarters to revise the U.S.-Iraqi agreement and extend the U.S. military presence beyond 2011.
The quickness in trying to put the Iraq War behind us has also, however, unhelpfully frozen in amber some perceptions about the war, despite continuing events that should call those perceptions into question. Foremost among these perceptions is one that has become received wisdom: that the surge of U.S. forces in 2007 was a big success. Violence in Iraq did drop markedly, of course, from the worst sectarian strife in 2006 and 2007. But the troop surge was only one of several changes in Iraq's political and military landscape that were occurring at the same time and contributed to the drop in violence. And violence continues at a level that, although it seems favorable compared to the darkest days of the sectarian civil war, is horrible by most other standards. The bloodshed on Sunday represented one of the worst days since the "end" of U.S. combat operations but seems all too typical of the prevailing trend.
Most important, the surge never brought about the political reconciliation for which it was supposed to provide space. The impasse over formation of the next government has gone on for so long (over six months) that it has become a well-established form of political theater. The disillusionment of the Iraqi population is clear in poll results, such as a survey by the International Republican Institute in June showing that 59% of Iraqis think the country is on the wrong track--a substantial increase over the portion who thought that six months earlier. And the squabbling over who will be the next prime minister doesn't even get to more fundamental questions that divide Iraqis, including the overall role of Sunni Arabs in a new Iraqi political order and the parceling out of territory and oil resources between Arabs and Kurds.
President Obama is on the right track in sticking to the agreement reached between his predecessor and the Maliki government to terminate the U.S. troop presence in Iraq at the end of next year. In appropriately ending that very costly chapter of an ill-advised military expedition, however, we should not brush aside the lessons this unhappy misadventure holds. The most important lessons have to do with the warped way in which it all began, especially the total absence of any policy process for deciding whether the war was a good idea. But other lessons, highly relevant to other foreign policy problems, concern exactly what results military deployments do or do not buy for us.
Comments
Bravo to you Mr Pillar, your analysis of the effectiveness of the so-called "called success of the surge" with the U.S. framing it's public so that they can "Trying to put the Iraq War behind us" it on the point that the surge wasn't all it was puffed up to be!Here is what the May 15th Prophecy wrote back in 2008
From the post titled The Curse Continues No Coincidence "Wasn't the "SUCCESS OF THE SURGE" suppose to stop all that? (referring to the bombings that were occurring all throughout the month of July 2008) "However the May 15th Prophecy informed you the "SUCCESS OF THE SURGE" is not base on the simple simon criteria of violence being up or down, or the sublimiual frameing properganda lie of breathing space for reconciliation (which hasn't happened!)Because this is war; the "SUCCESS" OF THE SURGE" or failure is base solely on achiving ones objective by advancing ones influence and self interest while halting and demenishing the influence of your enmmies!!Iran is making it very clear who has won that battle!!"
Also from the post titled The Storms, Surge and My Confession"It take a grown man and a wise man to realize the hard cold reality of war and the wagging thereof particularly a war of choice, by which the wise man knows you ONLY go to war to advance your interests.When the surge was put together in 2006 the U.S troop causality was around 3000 (to use round figures), but as of today and 1,150 dead solider later (now 4,150 to use round numbers) and hundreds of billions dollars poorer; and still the U.S still have not advance their interest, and is in the same position only weaker then before!Not only have they not advance their interest, but they have advance the interest of their emmiesThe U.S. have not only NOT gained an ally for the "War On Terror", but rather have enriched the position of Iran who have more influence over the Iraqi government then the U.S.!"So I say bravo to you for stating the true on the ground realities "Most important, the surge never brought about the political reconciliation for which it was supposed to provide space"So I will put your article inside the Recommend Reading section on my daily update site Again Bravo!!