Spring Break
A surge going nowhere is not the solution
Issue date: 4/10/08
Maliki got his butt kicked in Basra and was forced to crawl to al-Sadr and sue for peace. Various estimates of the rate of defection of the national government's Iraqi army range between 10 percent and 30 percent. The only thing preventing a total defeat was the presence of U.S. troops. Yes, U.S. troops took an active role in Maliki's attack. We always hear that the United States is supposed to prevent civil war in Iraq. Instead, we are taking sides and fighting in their civil conflicts.
Isn't this the opposite of what the surge was supposed to accomplish? We were supposed to have space for political reconciliation. Open warfare between factions is the opposite of political reconciliation. The American presence is supposed to prevent civil war, yet here we are, our military propping up one side in a civil conflict. The surge has taken us further away from political reconciliation.
By propping up Maliki, we preserve factional division in Iraq. Our presence also makes increased violence more likely. As we continue with this boondoggle, we pump billions of dollars in Iraq. We are funding the weapons for Maliki's faction. Also, the surge has introduced a practice of bribing Sunnis not to kill us or other Iraqis. We are essentially pouring money into Sunni militias. We increase the likelihood of Sunni-Shiite violence in addition to the Shiite-Shiite violence we already have taken a part in.
Moreover, billions of dollars have simply disappeared. Money is funneled to the shadiest characters in Iraq, unbeknownst to us. We are not only funding militias but funding criminals.
We must recognize that the U.S. presence in Iraq is counterproductive. The longer we stay, the more money we provide for future violence. We are propping up an unpopular faction in Iraq and allowing that faction to use our troops for its violent efforts. Instead of creating political reconciliation, we are fostering civil violence.
Petraeus is smart enough not to spout obvious propaganda. He will call the gains tenuous and reversible. He will ask for more patience, but we should give him none. There were not even tenuous gains. The surge has been a complete strategic failure. It is time to leave Iraq.
Isn't this the opposite of what the surge was supposed to accomplish? We were supposed to have space for political reconciliation. Open warfare between factions is the opposite of political reconciliation. The American presence is supposed to prevent civil war, yet here we are, our military propping up one side in a civil conflict. The surge has taken us further away from political reconciliation.
By propping up Maliki, we preserve factional division in Iraq. Our presence also makes increased violence more likely. As we continue with this boondoggle, we pump billions of dollars in Iraq. We are funding the weapons for Maliki's faction. Also, the surge has introduced a practice of bribing Sunnis not to kill us or other Iraqis. We are essentially pouring money into Sunni militias. We increase the likelihood of Sunni-Shiite violence in addition to the Shiite-Shiite violence we already have taken a part in.
Moreover, billions of dollars have simply disappeared. Money is funneled to the shadiest characters in Iraq, unbeknownst to us. We are not only funding militias but funding criminals.
We must recognize that the U.S. presence in Iraq is counterproductive. The longer we stay, the more money we provide for future violence. We are propping up an unpopular faction in Iraq and allowing that faction to use our troops for its violent efforts. Instead of creating political reconciliation, we are fostering civil violence.
Petraeus is smart enough not to spout obvious propaganda. He will call the gains tenuous and reversible. He will ask for more patience, but we should give him none. There were not even tenuous gains. The surge has been a complete strategic failure. It is time to leave Iraq.
Be the first to comment on this story