Is the surge working?
It appears to me that the belief that the surge is working started with the July 30 New York Times op-ed by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, "The War We Might Just Win," O’Hanlon and Pollack sunnily reported: “Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms….”
On August 1st, I posted, Deadliest July yet for U.S. troops...How does that square with "A War We Just Might Win"? I linked to Glenn Greenwald’s post, which exposed O’Hanlon’s and Pollack’s hypocrisy, and well, outright lying, about their previous positions on the war, which surely should have raised a question about their credibility in reporting that the surge is working.
Thanks to Juan Cole of Informed Comment, I know that the surge isn’t working. In my August 1st post, I linked to Cole’s post, Deadliest July Yet for US Troops; 23% Rise in Iraqi Deaths in July.
Here we are, almost a month later. And what appears to be the consensus regarding the success of the surge? That the military surge is working. On Friday, The New York Times published Report Offers Grim View of Iraqi Leaders, stating, “A stark assessment released Thursday by the nation’s intelligence agencies depicts a paralyzed Iraqi government unable to take advantage of the security gains achieved by the thousands of extra American troops dispatched to the country this year.”
In Cole's post this morning, Surge in Deaths...:
Deaths per day from political violence in 2006 - 33
Cole’s conclusion is supported by a US soldier in Iraq, blogging at Army of Dude, who posted on August 18 regarding the surge, "…The increase of troops in Baghdad pushed the insurgents to rural areas (like Diyala), hence our move here in March. The surge was nothing more than a thorn in the side of nomadic fighters having to move thirty five miles while the generals watched Baghdad with stubborn eyes.”
(photo of US soldiers in Iraq: Wikimedia.org)
