On the Left, the Troop Surge is a Failure

I came across this post on what I believe is a popular left wing web site (called Crooks & Liars) that perfectly sums up the left's position on the surge:

The Year of the Surge: Failure

By: John Amato on Thursday, January 10th, 2008

Today has been the anniversary of Bush’s surge in Iraq. Clearly there is no political reconciliation in Iraq so the surge is and always will be a failure no matter how many times Joe Lieberman and John McCain proclaim it so. This has been an immoral war started by neocon warmongers and the end result at this point is that the Iraqi people have suffered dearly for our sins.

If you are on the left, I guess this is what failure looks like:


I suppose that a post entitled The Year of the Surge: Success would have been written had Bush not ordered the troop surge so that genocidal violence had spiraled completely out of control (with many thousands of innocent civilians being killed every month). That was the plan favored by just about everyone on the left. If the massive reduction in civilian casualties associated with the troop surge is evidence of failure, then I suppose that the massive increase in civilian casualties that would have accompanied their preferred course of action constitutes success (presumably because those deaths could have been pinned on Bush).

Actually, though, left leaning pundits don't like to talk about casualties at all now that they are on the way down (unless a new study comes out showing how high casualties have been in the past). Instead, if you are on the left, you have been willingly programmed to believe that the only purpose of the surge was to create the conditions for political reconciliation to occur. You believe that to be true because you can't stand to actually read Bush's address to the nation on January 10, 2007, in which he spelled out the actual purpose of the troop surge for the American people. Part of the reason that you cannot assimilate the main purpose of the troop surge is that you are constitutionally unable to assimilate the transparently obvious fact that the main enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda. Many of you on the left still preposterously believe that al Qaeda in Iraq is a big neocon snow job. But that's just you. Here is the purpose of the troop surge, according to Bush:

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Got that? What you see in these words was the actual purpose of the troop surge, as explained by the man who ordered that surge (not as processed through the minds of left wing reporters in the mainstream media). If you cannot comprehend the fact that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, then I guess it makes sense that you are also unable to process this part of the speech. But that says something about you, not about the purpose of the troop surge. We are fighting al Qaeda, and al Qaeda simply does not care about those much vaunted political benchmarks. Oh, and we are finally winning the war against al Qaeda in Iraq, in case you care (which, for some odd reason, I don't think you do).

The mainstream media and programmable left wing pundits misunderstood the purpose of the surge because, in the same speech, Bush also warned the Iraqi government that America's patience will run out if they don't make some political progress:

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.

That makes sense to me, but Bush did not put this on the table as the purpose of the troop surge. The purpose of the surge, as explained by Bush, was to prevent al Qaeda from achieving its goals in Iraq. It is preposterous to think that Bush would have allowed al Qaeda to do that if he thought that Iraqi politicians would not pass laws that the Americans believe are important for peace. Al Qaeda needed to be defeated no matter what.

Even though the purpose of the surge was not to ensure that political benchmarks would be passed, it is also true that we are all hoping for just such an outcome. After all, in addition to defeating al Qaeda, normal people hope that the neocon dream of a peaceful and democratic Iraq will be fulfilled. You are hoping for political reconciliation in Iraq (and, unfortunately, the ultimate vindication of the neocon dream), aren't you?

Just as the left was sure that the troop surge would not reduce casualties (Barack Obama said so, for example), and just as they were certain that casualties were not being reduced even while it was happening before their very eyes (Hillary Clinton said so, for example), they are now similarly sure that no political reconciliation will take place, even while that, too, is happening before their very eyes:

Iraq eases restrictions on Saddam's Baath party

Move wins Washington's praise for helping to reconcile warring sects

BAGHDAD - Iraq's parliament passed a law on Saturday to let members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party return to public life, winning Washington's swift praise for meeting a benchmark aimed at reconciling warring sects.
...
Iraq's failure to pass the bill last year had been seen as one of the main signs that political progress toward reconciliation was stalled even as security improved.

"The law has been passed. We see it as a very good sign of progress and it will greatly benefit Baathists. It was passed smoothly and opposition was small," said Rasheed al-Azzawi, a Sunni member of the committee which helped draft it.

Civilian casualties are way down in Iraq, al Qaeda is being routed, and political reforms aimed at reconciliation are slowly but surely starting to happen. To me, it's like a dream come true, but I can't help feeling that, to you (if you hail from the left), it is more like Nightmare on Elm Street.

UPDATE: I love this (via Glenn Reynolds):

I wonder how the anti-war crowd will spin this. My guesses:

1. It's too late -- the sky is already falling!
2. Too many people have died to make freedom worth it.
3. (crickets chirping)

Well, just for the record, I believe I know how the left will spin this. The trick is to start out the very definite conclusion that American efforts in Iraq have failed. Let your brain marinade in that thought for a long time, and then work backwards from there. When casualties are high, Iraq is a failure for that reason. When casualties drop, Iraq is failure because political benchmarks have not been passed. When those benchmarks are passed, Iraq will be a failure because displaced people are not yet home. When they come home, Iraq will be a fialure because certain government officials are corrupt. That final fallback position is always available. Watch for it as more benchmarks are passed and more Iraqis come home.