The Anbar Awakening And The Surge

Mark Hemingway of The Corner notes Obama's disconnect between the presence of US troops and the Anbar Awakening (with a follow up).

Fred Kagan, intellectual godfather of the surge, presumably has an axe to grind.  Notwithstanding, he wrote this in Sept 2007 in the Weekly Standard:

The change in U.S. strategy announced in January 2007 and the surge of forces over the ensuing months did not create this shift in Anbar, but accelerated its development.

And in an NRO spot from Sept 2007 he offered more detail:

The tribal leaders in Anbar began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq last year, largely due to unspeakable atrocities committed by the terrorists against their own hosts. Many analysts and observers have seized upon this fact to argue that the movement in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge, began before the surge did, and would continue even without the surge. This argument is invalid. Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad. His soldiers and Marines fought tenaciously to establish a foothold in Anbar’s capital, which was then a terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton’s brigade relieved MacFarland’s in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the “awakening” began to accelerate very rapidly. At the start of 2007 there were only a handful of Anbaris in the local security forces. By the summer there were over 14,000. Before the surge, Ramadi was one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq; now it is possible for Americans to walk through its market with limited security details and without body armor. David Kilcullen describes the relationship between the surge and the movement very well in his Small Wars Journal posting [link], and I have also addressed the issue in detail in a recent Weekly Standard article . The fact is that neither the surge nor the turn of the tribal leaders would in itself have been enough to turn Anbar around — both were necessary, and will remain so for some time.

Or we could look to George Bush, from 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.

This doesn't seem to be as complicated as Barack needs to make it - for a variety of reasons the Sunni tribes had turned against Al Qaeda and US support helped them run AQI out of Anbar.  One reason for the surge was that additional troops in Anbar seemed highly likely to make a difference - the Anbar Aqwakening created an opportunity and US troops exploited it.  The notion that the Awakening would have been just as effective without US troops seems odd.

MORE ON A SCARY SITUATION:  I certainly hope this is not a fair characterization of Obama's sense of the history (but I bet it is); Jim Geraghty quotes ABC News' Rick Moran:

Moran's close of the story: “And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says that he still would have opposed the surge but said he didn’t anticipate what people here call the Iraqi surge uprising against Al Qaeda and Shi’ite extremists. He said he didn’t anticipate that, but he is insisting that he is focusing forward on what needs to be done — setting that timetable for withdrawal.”

Obama didn't "anticipate" the Iraqi surge, part of which was the Anbar Awakening?  My goodness, the Anbar Awakening was already underway when Barack delivered his surrender speech in opposition to Bush's surge in Jan 2007.  The generic lib talking point is that the Anbar Awakening would have spread and grown even without the US surge - is Barack now saying he didn't expect that to happen either?  That is actually a semi-sensible view, since over on the right we agree that the addition of US troops supplemented and complemented the Iraqi surge.  It's sort of like working with an ally.  Obama's Jan 2007 withdrawal plan, with US combat troops out by March 31 2008 almost surely would have undermined the Iraqi surge, so maybe that's what he means when he says he didn't anticipate its success.

Or maybe he was just flat wrong.   Nahhhh...

LEFT UNSAID:  That's not the surge I knew.

 

Comments

[BobS]

Tom: I believe you are accurate, but you have to know the left, the MSM and KOS kids will deny this reality. HufPo already is out their with their historical re-write

[Danube of Thought]

Somehow, deep down I just have to trust that the electorate is going to see through the shameless pap that Obama has been continuing to spread on this subject.

The best capsule description I have seen of the man--and I don't recall who rendered it--is that he believes he can talk his way out of anything. I suppose we've seen that before, and quite recently. Not pretty.

[MayBee]

It's interesting because the left is going crazy tonight over something McCain apparently said about the surge making the Anbar awakening.

[BobS]

Rasmussen: McCain now leads in Ohio.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ohio/election_2008_ohio_presidential_election

[sylvia]

Yes, so true. It took both elements, but the surge was just as vital. So unappealing to watch the left try to wriggle out of it. And to watch Obama wriggle out of it as well.

You know I am tired of watching Obama anymore because I never hear anything that isn't completely predictable and routine come out of his mouth. Very surface. People think he is so smart, but to me the banality of much of what he says doesn't support that. Bush made a lot of mistakes but sometimes he gave very powerful and unexpected answers on topics such as freedom. So I think on the whole, Bush shows more signs of intellegence. Yet his grades and academic records were questioned repeatedly, as were his SATs. Where is the information on Obama's SAT's and academic record? I'd like to know what they were as well.

[Soylent Red]

ThreatsWatch has one of the most concise and clear repudiations of Obamessiah's views on the surge I've ever read. It goes right to the heart of what TM talks about, and is prepackaged for distribution.

Read and disseminate.

[BobS]

I have a hard time getting my arms around 'the awakening" going anywhere without the surge. I recall they Dems attempting to take credit for the awakening because of their aversion to everything Bush/Iraq.

[PrestoPundit]

"The notion that the Awakening would have been just as effective without US troops seems odd."

Translation: "seems odd" = "is typical Obama bullshit"

[Soylent Red]

BTW, that NRO article was what I was channeling the other day with el trollo loco.

I really should start capturing and saving those things rather than try to remember them off the top of my head...

[BobS]

Presto: I've gotten into "discussions" with the left over numerous issues involving Iraq. Its always hard them to continue to engage them in debate as they cite their own sets of fact that are little more than mantras. Examples are "the awakening happened without the surge, anyhow." or "Bush lied about WMDs" or "we cant drill our ways out of this"

[JM Hanes]

"The notion that the Awakening would have been just as effective without US troops seems odd."

It's just one of a list of lefty conceits to designed to justify their non-stop obstruction and deny Bush a success, any success. They seem to come in two basic flavors:

There's the "Lazy Iraqi Theory" which allows Democrats to claim actual credit for advances. When Iraqis realized that the Dems were serious about putting an end to the free ride they were enjoying, they decided they'd better start stepping up to bat while they still had time. Dems have had some success with Lazy Iraqis, and Obama is still floating slightly more modest variations on that theme.

Pelosi introduced the new improved smoke and mirrors when she credited Iran for deciding to let us win. While risible on its face, she was just dropping Anybody-But-Bush bread crumbs for the faithful left to follow, to a rousing chorus of, Thanks, Nancy! Si, Se Puede! Vero possumus!

[Soylent Red]

when she credited Iran for deciding to let us win.

Heh. They sure had an interesting way of doing it in Basra.

"Ali, Mohammed...you two go out into the street with these RPGs and get whacked by ISF and CF. As you lie in the bosom of the 72 virgins, just remember your deaths were for the cause of letting the Americans win."

Somehow I don't think that's how it went down, Nan.

[JM Hanes]

SR:

Don't know if you noticed it, but your trollo loco returned after a day of thinking it over and left you a thank you note.

The conceptual problem on the left is that they have always thought "the surge" was simply a matter of numbers -- adding boots on the ground, a la Shinseki, because we just never had enough troops to get the job done. They have never understood that a counterinsurgency was a radically different proposition which required a larger force for implementation because of what the troops were being newly tasked to accomplish. Most of the anti-war faction have probably never followed ongoing military operations closely enough to find out and basically think that the troops were just doing what they'd been doing before in larger numbers. The only changes they're actually aware of are the Sunni Awakening, Sadr's "repositioning," the partitioning of Baghdad, etc.

DoT:

"Somehow, deep down I just have to trust that the electorate is going to see through the shameless pap that Obama has been continuing to spread on this subject."

I comfort myself with that kind of thought too. I also remember those polls which put the military at the top of Americans' "most trusted" list. I suspect that Obama's dismissive attitude toward Petraeus as some sort functionary, and the formulaic praise he offers up in the very act of minimizing the role our troops have played in this year's stunning turnaround may not sit well in a lot of quarters. When reporters start reminding his staff that he's not President yet, I think we've come a long way.

In the end, it comes down to an abiding faith which is either there or isn't, doesn't it? I've always thought that the hardest battle is the one we ultimately fight against cyncism (as opposed to simple skepticism). I try to strike a balance between expecting the worst, and hoping for the best, although sometimes that's easier than others. The Rasmussen poll was certainly a welcome pick-me-up, however temporary, in that regard!

[Jane]

Good Morning everyone! If it's Wednesday, it must be Jerusalem. I suspect the Messiah will probably manage to solve the mid-east crisis (his first priority) during the lay-over.

[Rev. Dr. E Buzz Miller]

Al Qaeda in Iraq?

I can't believe that!

[Pagar]

Good Morning to all.

I vote for this title as best joke of the day so far.

"If you're Stupid and You know It Clap your hands"

[Jane]

OT:

In MA -under-Deval-Patrick news today: MA has gone from the lowest number of food stamp recipients in the nation in 2000-2002, to the highest in 2008.

Change you can believe in!

[pagar]

Jane, I'm not sure your LUNs are saying what you want them to say.

[Jane]

Hi Pagar,

That was just a leftover LUN. I heard the news about foodstamps on the early morning news.

[pagar]

Thanks Jane, I guess since Deval-Patrick and Obama use the same thought process for their speeches, everyone can look forward to getting their foodstamps if Obama is elected.

[Soylent Red]

JMH:

I've officially seen everything now.

And regarding foodstamps...

I don't understand how people can use them. They taste so horrible...

[Terry Gain]

"The notion that the Awakening would have been just as effective without US troops seems odd."

Odd? How about loopy. So loopy that the opiner is obviously unfit for the office he is seeking. Obama said he didn't anticipate the convergence of the Surge and the Awakening. Hard to anticipate something that's happened. Obviously he didn't "hear" the President's speech.

The President was, however, imprecise in using the term "recently". The Anbar Awakening began in early 2006. Petraeus was of course aware of the situation in Anbar which is why only 4,000 of the 30,000 Surge troops were deployed in Anbar.

[Terry Gain]

One other point that McCain needs to make is that the Surge targeted al Qaeda. This was obvious from reading the daily MNF-Iraq reports. The Surge targeted al Qaeda and peace broke out. The Surge put the boots to the MSM lie that al Qaeda was only a minor factor in the violence.

[Paul Zrimsek]

While I certainly agree that Obama needs a new exegesis, somehow I don't think that "I was against the surge because we were already winning without it" is going to work for him.

[Der Hahn]

I was flipping channels last night and happened across what I assumed was a pro-Obama talking head on MSNBC yapping about a supposed McCain gaffe of saying the 'Surge' happened before the 'Awakening'. I didn't did watch long enough to get details. Anybody know whats up with that?

[Neo]

The whole argument of the exact date of the beginning of the "surge" reminds me of the question of exactly who desegregated the US military ?

Some historians will point out that Harry Truman began the desegregation of the US military, but anyone in the military will tell you that Truman didn't really try. but rather it was Dwight Eisenhower who really desegregated the the US military because he really made it happen.

I believe the history of the "surge" is very much alike.

[Ann]

I would call this must see T.V.: (I love the fact that Harold Ford agrees)

Scarborough: Olbermann is "Too Stupid to Be on TV!

[narciso]

The point is that "the Ambar Awakening" was occurring at the outset of what NBC,
McClatchy, the Times, was insisting on calling the 'civil war'; which was just a spate of revenge killings, provoked by the bombing of the Golden Mosque; the last straw for many Shia. As Max Boot has pointed
out, Maliki is very much like Obama; both are insular sectarians opposed to American intervention; one a TUCC black nationalist from Hyde Park, the other a sectarian Da'wa
from a small village in the Karbala area. although ultimately that was the only way to solve the problem; both opposed the
'surge' and supported the hunkered down American force straytegy; it occurred in spite of then, not because of them. So McCain was right in his hunches, and his chronology of events.

[sonnysighedup]

In the World According to Obama, the Democrats sweeping to victory in the Nov 2006 congressional elections was the true cause of the Anbar Awakening.

See: http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7575>Obama Spins the Surge (The QandO Blog, Jan 2008)

[Thomas Jackson]

If only the Dalibama were president! Can you imagine the North Koreans begging to surrender rather than face his intellect?

Reality doesn'r enter the echo chamber that is the Left very often, if ever.

[narciso]

This is an extension of what the lefty thinktanks like CAP seem to bring forward;
with our favorite Plame crazy blog as an intro:http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_ignorance_is_strength_a.php>

[sophy]

Please do not hesitate to have runescape gold . It is funny.