Spring Break
A surge going nowhere is not the solution
Issue date: 4/10/08
Tuesday begins General David Petraeus's testimony in front of Congress. I trust Petraeus's judgment as much as I would trust Gen. George McClellan's judgment in 1862. The recent battle in Basra proves that the surge was a failure. Furthermore, it reveals that the United States is a destabilizing force in Iraq.
We must remember that one of the expressed purposes of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation. This is what the proponents of the surge said at the onset, and they must be held accountable for those words. They cannot continually move the goalposts.
In January, Bush himself said, "Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace, and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible."
Recently, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered an attack on Basra, where the Mahdi militia led by Muqtada al-Sadr had a strong presence. Note that al-Sadr had ordered a cease-fire last year. It was not al-Sadr who began this fight but Maliki.
We must wonder why the attacks were timed for now. Strange coincidences pop up. Maliki had recently been pressured by the United States to hold provincial elections. (After all, the United States does need its photo-ops to show "progress.") These elections had been vetoed before, but plans to hold them in October have been begrudgingly accepted by Iraq's federal government. The ruling political party was afraid that they would lose in the Shia dominated south, while al-Sadr's party was poised to win in areas such as Basra.
The attack in Basra was a blatant exercise in partisan violence. The "national government" of Iraq is a thinly veiled factional stronghold with its own ties to militias. Basra was an intra-Shiite battle for power.
We must remember that one of the expressed purposes of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation. This is what the proponents of the surge said at the onset, and they must be held accountable for those words. They cannot continually move the goalposts.
In January, Bush himself said, "Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace, and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible."
Recently, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered an attack on Basra, where the Mahdi militia led by Muqtada al-Sadr had a strong presence. Note that al-Sadr had ordered a cease-fire last year. It was not al-Sadr who began this fight but Maliki.
We must wonder why the attacks were timed for now. Strange coincidences pop up. Maliki had recently been pressured by the United States to hold provincial elections. (After all, the United States does need its photo-ops to show "progress.") These elections had been vetoed before, but plans to hold them in October have been begrudgingly accepted by Iraq's federal government. The ruling political party was afraid that they would lose in the Shia dominated south, while al-Sadr's party was poised to win in areas such as Basra.
The attack in Basra was a blatant exercise in partisan violence. The "national government" of Iraq is a thinly veiled factional stronghold with its own ties to militias. Basra was an intra-Shiite battle for power.
Be the first to comment on this story