Sorting Out The Surge

Michael Cooper of the NY Times attempts to resolve the McCain-Obama dispute about the relationship between the Anbar Awakening and the surge.  I would say the article favors McCain's side; do look for the Michael O'Hanlon quote sure to create aneurysms on the left:

Candidates Spar Over Troop Surge and Iraq Chronology

By MICHAEL COOPER

Senator John McCain was chiding Senator Barack Obama for “a false depiction of what actually happened” in Iraq in a television interview this week. But in giving his chronology of events in Iraq, Mr. McCain gave what critics said was his own false depiction.

Mr. McCain has been using Mr. Obama’s trip overseas this week to argue that the improved security situation in Iraq shows the success of the troop escalation that just ended, of which he was an early, fervent supporter, but which Mr. Obama opposed.

Mr. McCain bristled in an interview with the “CBS Evening News” on Tuesday when asked about Mr. Obama’s contention that while the added troops had helped reduce violence in Iraq, other factors had helped, including the Sunni Awakening movement, in which thousands of Sunnis were enlisted to patrol neighborhoods and fight the insurgency, and the Iraqi government’s crackdown on Shiite militias.

“I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened,” Mr. McCain told Katie Couric, noting that the Awakening movement began in Anbar Province when a Sunni sheik teamed up with Sean MacFarland, a colonel who commanded an Army brigade there.

“Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others,” Mr. McCain said. “And it began the Anbar Awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.”

Lest we forget, let's just toss in the fateful quote from the Obama-Couric interview (my emphasis):

Couric: All that may be true.  But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

Obama: No, no … of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn't anticipated happening.

All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence.

Now, the Dem criticism of McCain's view is that the Anbar Awakening had started before the increase in troop levels.  But if McCain has the timing wrong, what about Obama?  How could the US have failed to anticipate a Sunni uprising that was already occuring?

In fact, President Bush cited the Anbar uprising in his Jan 2007 speech announcing the surge:

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.

Now, if Obama meant to say we did not anticipate the extent or success of the Anbar Awakening, well, OK - the overall success of the surge certainly seems to have surprised him (pleasantly, I hope).  But Obama's statement that we did not anticipate the Anbar Awakening surely ignited McCain, since the US success in dealing with the Sunni sheiks in Anbar had been a major factor leading some people to think that an increase in troop levels could result in similar successes elsewhere.  And clearly Bush in his speech anticipated some success in working with the Anbar sheiks.  This article from a man who was there describes the pre-surge 'surge" into Ramadi.

Here is O'Hanlon:

But several foreign policy analysts said that if Mr. McCain got the chronology wrong, his broader point — that the troop escalation was crucial for the Awakening movement to succeed and spread — was right. “I would say McCain is three-quarters right in this debate,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Mr. Cooper throws in a quote from Gen. Petraeus to reinforce that; here is a different Petraeus quote with the same thrust:

Our commanders believe that Coalition forces have played a key role in facilitating the success of the tribal awakening in Anbar, which has led to dramatic reductions in violence.  Gen. Petraeus says that while the rejection of al Qaeda by Sunni sheiks and others did not result directly from the surge, “the surge certainly enabled that to move much more rapidly, we believe, than it otherwise would have.”

Well. McCain's use of "surge" to mean a package of counter-insurgency tactics including an increase in troop levels may be idiosyncratic.  However, as he noted himself, he was meeting with MacFarland in December 2006 and was promoting the increase in troop levels before Bush was.  McCain might well feel entitled to a bit of deference as the leading politician to call for a troop surge, and feels entitled to have the word mean just what he wants it to mean.  FWIW, at other times the White House meant the "surge" to include a surge in troops levels, civilian resources, and diplomatic effort (see point 4 of this July 2007 Fact Sheet). 

On my scorecard, Obama's inability to anticipate a Sunni uprising that was already underway and noted in Bush's announcement speech is the greater error.

Comments

[boris]

My take on the events are this ... Sunni forces and US military cooperated in producing successful methods for defeating Al Qaeda. The willing cooperation, the successful methods and other factors such as better Iraqi government forces and growing economic motivation for stability was the opportunity that greater number of troops could exploit country wide.

IOW a surge before Anbar awakening would have lacked an exploitable opportunity and may have been counterproductive. Thus in my opinion the Bush strategy, persevere hang tough and wait for the opportunity for winning to arise, was as good or better than anything else.

Calling the awakening part of the surge makes more sense than claiming otherwise. Call it the trigger if you will.

[boris]

All my take are belong to us.

[megapotamus]

What Barry and the other anti-warriors did not anticipate is that anything George Bush put his hand to could be anything but a disaster. One problem with Barry's version is that these developments he and his Genius Battalion did not anticipate WERE anticipated, of course, by McCain and the Bushies. Quite publicly. And we know what Barry DID anticipate; a worsening of conditions in an already hopeless quagmire (hey, when did the quagmire dry up?). That superior judgement and insight we hear so much about? Is this it? We would be in a laughable circumstance if this feeble-minded egomaniac were not so close to the Presidency. But he is.

[Tom Maguire]

We would be in a laughable circumstance if this feeble-minded egomaniac were not so close to the Presidency. But he is.

A major problem is that he is far from feeble-minded. He is just resolutely committed to a certain world view (at least for current political purposes). My guess is that he is well aware of just how daft much of his base is, but since he has spent so little time with conservatives, he does not even know what arguments he is not aware of.

[jimmyk]

Well, according to this story from the Christian Science Monitor, on Obama's world tour:

"So far, [Obama]'s been gaffe-free, and so his image as a potential commander in chief could get a boost."

I guess it all depends on the meaning of "gaffe."

[Cecil Turner]

I think the main problem with this is folks viewing it as an event rather than a process. There were several attempts to strip insurgent groups away from Al Qaeda and woo them into supporting the government, significantly predating the surge. Most were unsuccessful, either due to enemy action, or MNF inability to capitalize on them. The surprising thing about the Anbar Awakening was that it continued after its leader was assassinated, institutionalizing the effort. But that state of affairs didn't happen overnight.

Certainly the "Anbar Awakening" has its roots before Jan 2007. (An excellent overview here.) But at best that covered the city of Ramadi, and the actual return to normalcy there began in 2007, when the MNF and local police had restored security to the point where a mayor could be installed. The expansion of the program through Anbar was predominantly in 2007-2008, and continues to this day.

Obviously the latter part (across Anbar, not merely the effort in Ramadi) is the critical issue for Iraq as a whole. Just as obviously, the surge had a huge impact on that. Less obvious is the diplomatic efforts to make such organizations acceptable to the central government (and, conversely, government efforts to stabilize areas taken over by the Shia militias, helping to make the central government more acceptable to the Sunni tribesmen). It's all the pieces taken together that appear to be working. I don't see the value of trying to isolate a particular meeting held by Sheikh Sattar in 2006, unless one is trying to score a political point that really doesn't reflect the total situation.

[Buford Gooch]

"So far, [Obama]'s been gaffe-free, and so his image as a potential commander in chief could get a boost."

I guess it all depends on the meaning of "gaffe."

Posted by: jimmyk | July 24, 2008 at 03:31 PM

Gaffe free like a Payday Bar is peanut free>

[PeterUK]

"We would be in a laughable circumstance if this ignorant egomaniac were not so close to the Presidency. But he is."

The man has serious psychological flaws,the main one being the need to display omniscience.A common enough flaw in politicians,but one which leaves them open to any BS artist peddling magic beans.

[cathyf]

Well, to expand on CT's excellent analysis, I'd say that this is a case of one of McCain's "maverick" betrayals of the administration coming back to bite him in the butt. Because he had been criticizing Rumsfield and Bush claiming that there weren't enough troops, parroting one of the defeatocrat talking points that the problem was not the decision to invade, but that the administration had botched the execution of the war. When the actual problem was that there was not a mission for more troops to accomplish.

Then the operations in Ramadi started, and the marines there learned how to make a new sort of mission succeed. The first "surge" would have been moving troops from one part of Ramadi to another. Then, as the marines and their new Sunni tribal allies were successful, moving troops around in Anbar. Then, as the awakening successes spread, troops from inside Iraq but outside of Anbar moved in. And then, it was Spring 2007, and the trial run in Anbar was clearly a success, there was an actual mission for extra troops to accomplish. So the president went and built the political support to send Petreus and implement his COIN theories, and send the extra troops, and The Surge was born. And the Americans who think that Bush and the Bush Administration are the enemy (who cannot be accurately characterized as "the administration's enemies" because the administration thinks that the Islamofascists are their enemies) crowed that they had been right all along, and that the "bumbling" administration had finally seen the light, and was finally sending enough troops to do the job properly as they had been baying for all along.

So, anyway, I'd say to Ole' Mac as he madly scratches all those itches, hey, your mama told you that if you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas!

[Neo]

Obama is the primary sponsor of the "Global Poverty Act (110th Congress, 2d Session, S. 2433)," which if passed would mandate the U.S. to spend 0.7 percent of the gross national product on foreign aid, costing the U.S. at least $845 billion dollars over thirteen years.

In reality, the bill also "Commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," writes Cliff Kincaid.

"Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels."

[liontooth]

From BarackObama.com:
“Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.
So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war."

"The Problem
Inadequate Security and Political Progress in Iraq: Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."

[desertfox]

Scene: A young and handsome Greek by the name of Obamapides, promises to end the unpopular and costly Trojan War which has lasted over 8 years. Bushamemnon is deposed in ignominy. A bright Greek by the name of Odysseus Petraeus comes to the new king and tells him of his daring plan to win the war that has heretofore been a grisly exercise in futility. What does Obamapides do?

A) Remember that he ceased power as an agent of change and sticks to his promises to end the Trojan War. After all the Trojans are nice people, especially compared to red state greeks.
B) Take the sage advice of Petraeus and do whatever is in his power to win the unpopular war armed with evidence that victory is within reach,
C) Straddle. Leave a "residual" force of Greeks unsupported on the Trojan beaches. When they are eventually annihilated by the now emboldened Trojans, blame such results on the bad judgments of prior leaders and the incompetence of Odysseus Petraeus, whose recommendations are to be ignored.

Anybody have a more plausible answer to my historical hypothetical?

[clarice]

Gerard Baker at his best:
A Child Has Come

[narciso]

Do I have to state it again, To put it another way, "Am I the only one not taking
crazy pills." The surge, which includes Petraeus adaptation of Galula's experience, Kilcullen's anthropology in Indonesia, McMasters, Nagl, Mirabile in Ramadi; worked because of the Anbar Awakening, thatNewsweek
and Time were painting as Neanderthal thugs
as late as this Spring; while the whole talk was of civil war, all of last year. Maliki was opposed to the surge, almost as insistingly as Obama; Chalabi was the liason to the Shia during this time, demonized by the media as an Iranian agent, while the same media like Hirsh talk shop with actual Iranian handlers like Mohsen Rezai, a 'diplomat' with ties to the Iranian
nuclear program. Virtually all of the Democrats with the exception of Lieberman, who does double duty as Scoop Jackson & early Moynihan) were willing to abandon Iraq; using the ISG as a scapegoat just like the White Paper served to assuage any
connections to the Chiang's Kuomingtang in China later Taiwan.

As to Barry Dunham's speech, well he did circulate the details about 9/11 being planned in Hamburg, and Karachi & Kandahar;
where the German govt refuses to authorize more aggressive action; considering that more than a third of Germans, believe 9/11 was an inside job, that's progress. He eschews escalation, an ironic consideration in light of where he gave the speech. Also in light of the Pershing missiles that Reagan deployed, in the face of crowds larger than those faced by Barry's backup band. Not to mention the tens of thousands of US and other troops that were deployed along the Fulda Gap to prevent a Warsaw Pact incursion (those circumstances were the background, some would say the culprit in the nuclear freeze agitprop "The Day After") The idea that America has much to answer for in Germany! is a statement I find hard to swallow. One generation isn't responsible for their ancestors sins, but
seeing as he is willing to throw us, under
the bus from the Jamestown slave traders to Abu Graib and Gitmo; a bit of a double standard JFK would never have made that connection, much less Reagan. Merkel comes from the East and she probably found that a little hard to swallow. Nothing about
Iran's path to nuclearization. Of course, global warming has to be the big issue.
Also tolerance to 'anyone who doesn't have
the same language'(illegals)or the same faith' (we're not talking Episcopalians
here people) The capper, was the refusal to visit Landstuhl and Ramstein AFB where wounded American soldiers; while doing this
out door concert.

[cathyf]

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends.

Sachs says that because he lacks imagination. If the act is passed, it will be much more likely that it shrinks US GNP so much that 0.7% of the new GNP will be less foreign aid than the US hands out now.

[bad]

from the Obama/Couric interview, an answer to a question:

No, no … of course I have.

All bases covered....

[PeterUK]

Buzz phrases like Anbar Awakening encourage sloppy thinking as did,Nuclear Winter,Brutal Afghan Winter,Arab Street and Global Warming.They obscure complex issues and produce facile solutions.

[E. Nigma]

It may be also useful to remember, that the original "Iraq Security Plan" envisioned by the Maliki government in late 2006, saw the US Army establishing a 'security cordon' around Bagdad, while the Iraqi Army 'cleaned up' the militias. In short, it would have been a "cleansing" of the Sunnis in Bagdad, to make the capital all-Shia. MNF-I and the Bush Administration forcefully resisted this, and the new "Surge" plan using Petraeus' doctrine on COIN followed. If we would have followed the Maliki plan, Anbar would have reverted to the Wild West and never been pacified. The Sunnis in Anbar call some of the Shia Iraqis in the central government 'Iranians', due to their suspected loyalty.
Petraeus and Maliki have argued bitterly (in private) over the months since, and I partly think that Petraeus elevation to Centcom commnand (along with his predecessor's incompetence) was to remove the friction between Petraeus and Maliki. I think the top officers in MNF-I are under no illusions about Mailik's true nature.

Maliki is a rug merchant in the Middle East bazaar, and haggling with all sides (Iran, Obama, Bush, etc.) to get the best deal for HIM, not necessarily Iraq.

[Sara]

They can all say what they want. The troops really really don't like him. Scroll to Update.

[Sara]

Powerline thinks

He Could Be A Serial Liar

[JAZ]

Tom: Obama used the same "failure to anticipate" line in the Nightline interview as well.

When asked about whether his decision to oppose the surge was the right one, he said:

"Here is what I will say," Obama said, "I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of
political factors inside of Iraq that then came RIGHT AT THE SAMETIME as terrific
work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

"I did not anticipate... the convergence of not only the Surge but the Sunni Awakening..."

And "a combination of forces (Sunni shift) that came "AT THE SAMETIME" as our work by our troops (surge).

Conclusion:

POINT I: Obambi, twice, remembered Anbar as happening as part of surge or after the surge. So he is leading in the old age dimentia game 2-1.

Point II which I too think is devastating:

In both interviews, Obama said that he would have supported the surge had he known or "anticipated" this seminal change in the dynamic which was the Sunni "flip" without which there would have been no success in Iraq.

The facts on the ground regarding the Sunni shift existed from at least September '06 months before the votes on the surge in February or March '07. Where was Sen Obama?

How did Obama "fail to anticipate" the "Sunni flip" if it started at least nine months before votes on the Surge? John McCain knew about the Sunnis and used the information to advocate for the surge of forces to support them.

My mother always said fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on you. I don't think Obambi simply mistated the Anbar timeline twice, I believe either:

1) his campaign fed him the fake Anbar timeline to justify his opposition to the surge and Obama used it in two interviews to lie to Americans across the country, or

2) his head was so stuck in his presidential plans that he genuinely did not know about the movement of the Anbar leaders against Al qeada at the time he opposed the surge, or

3) he knew but refused to credit these momentous facts on the ground in Anbar in '07, because he did not want to alienate the anti-war crowd or jeopardize his presidential aspirations.

Which choice do you think applies?

Obambi also mused in the Nightline interview that if there was a guy with a crystal ball who could foresee all of these things we would vote for that guy, right? (I don't have the quote but it's great).

Well McCain had the crystal ball which was an honest assessment of the facts on the ground and a willingness to lose the election than lose the sacrifices that our troops have made in Iraq.

So thanks, Sen Obama for telling America to vote for the guy who had the crystal ball- JohnMcCain.

[kim]

What he did not anticipate was change he wasn't hoping for. That is the key problem with the guy and his whole schtick.
==============================

[kim]

Now, I'm serious. His admission there of the failure to anticipate is stunning; I wonder if he understands that himself. His approach of 'Hoping for Change' has generically the problem of blindsiding one to the real future.

It was not hard to see the Sunni Arab ultimately finding common cause with their countrymen and against fanatic religious nuts. Obama just didn't hope for that to happen, so he discounted the possibility. This is an Achilles Heel; a weakness in his apparent strength.
=====================================

[kim]

Among his real pathologies is why he didn't hope that the Iraqis would find a nation among themselves. He buys the arguments of the leftists so easily because he really hasn't thought out the geopolitical and economic realities of the world. It's all a fairy tale to be created, through the power of will. Uh, oh, Is there a Way where there is a Will?
=====================================

[vinman]

As mentioned by others above, many of the more powerful Sunni sheiks were already very much part of the pre-Surge counterinsurgency strategy, ineffective as it may have been. The idea that there was somehow some spontaneous "Awakening" without American involvement is incredible.

[megapotamus]

But when did the quagmire dry up? The antis have been squealing for years, "Quagmire!" but this morning it is a success so obvious and facile that only a fool could point to it as remarkable. This is beyond the conventional pivot. Maybe Barry can point to the event that was the turn of the tide. McBain can.

[JAZ]

Kim: Iagree with you on the implications of Obambi's "failure to anticipate" statements. Between his opposition to the war which is now turning into a success, his opposition to the surge and his "failure to anticipate" the Anbar Awakening, I think he would be toast. Unfortunately no one has picked up on the implications of these statements.