You're gonna take it in the chin over this one, Kevin. Frist.

I couldn't care less whether the "surge" worked or not. There is no "winning" Iraq (or Afghanistan). We just need to get out as soon as possible and quit throwing more bad money after bad. None of these peoples in this region will be our bestest buddies as long as their worlds are rooted in Islam and tribalism.

Posting about and arguing about the "surge" is pointless. It's temporary success or failure is meaningless in the larger scheme of things.

Kevin we all know our soldiers were the most important part of the current Iraqi situation.

Just admit it and move on. You will feel better for it.

But the surge went mostly to Baghdad. We already had 130,000 troops in Iraq. At the time the surge was announced most of our troops stayed on bases and didn't try to hold neighborhoods.

And the point of the surge was not to reduce violence, but to allow for other things to happen, which have not happened.

As long as reduced violence is taken as an end unto itself we will be in Iraq, or have an excuse to stay there, and have a continued reason for future surges.

Ask the question: why is violence down now in Iraq? What is different? Obviously it is not the surge troops, which have now left.

Geez Kev,

You liberal hawks just never give up.

It had nothing to do with the troops, the "awakening" was bought. Think Iran, Jan 1980.

Troops in an occupation = civil unrest.

It really is that simple.

Money talks. We are Americans, we worship money, why is this so bad?

If there is one administration that knows how to use money to get what it wants, this is it. They finally got back to the basics. Unfortunately, the basics don't get them many votes. Guns do. YEEEEEEEHA!!!! Go AMERICA!

Well spoken. No leader or pundit is going to predict everything correctly. Those who adapt their positions the fastest in response to new facts are the best..

Kevin, can't believe you don't see the politics behind this.

It's split-the-difference PR by Mansoor, greasing the skids for his boss to work with either McCain or Obama.

There is no possible good explanation for the success, or lack of success or whatever, of the surge.

Explanations require context, information, perhaps even facts, and none of those can be good for Republicans. Even if you buy the idea that the surge was successful, if you think about it at all you have to ask yourself questions like, Successful at what, and where are we now? Why was it needed? How much did we get for it, compared to what we paid?

The answers to all of those are messy, whereas The Surge(tm) is clean, powerful, and right.

Reading through the full op-ed, it looks like the "split the difference" would be 85-15 McCain, at least.

Kevin, to understand how this doesn't really split the difference, but is partisanship disguised as bipartisanship, all you had to do was read the first graf:

To realize how misleading these [it wasn't the surge] assertions are ...

Kevin, you didn't even get punked. You punked yourself.

Unbelievable.

Your pretty boy 'bama is now talking about endless wars in the middle east too - a far cry from the bragging he did earlier about not voting for the Iraq war.

Fact is, BOTH sides are now doing the dirty work for the military-industrial complex.

Finally, Mansoor's column ignores the ephemeral nature of any surge "success," Kevin.

And THAT's what the neocons and just plain cons don't want to discuss.

"You liberal hawks just never give up."

It's true. I can never tell if Mr. Drum believes what he says sometimes, or if he just needs to be included, for professional or whatever reasons, in the mainstream of political narratives. He doesn't want to be a moonbat, he wants to participate, and the liberal hawks (i.e., neo-cons) dominate the political media. (How many "liberals" in the media, Washington Post, NYT, and the liberal blogs supported the war? Almost all. There was more support in our "liberal" media, than there was among Democratic politicians or the general public).

Mansoor says:
"U.S. commanders extended contracts to tribes that volunteered to stand up against al-Qaeda in Iraq."

Which identifies the article as propaganda, or at least one that buys into the falsified narratives.

"In other words, the security situation in Iraq was on the cusp of something potentially dramatic, and it was possible that a small nudge might make an outsized difference. The surge was that nudge."

It's also likely, more likely in fact, that the surge coincided with the changes already under way. And the surge would be wholly unrelated to the reduction in violence. Adding even 50% more troops, 100k to 150k in a country of 27 million, doesn't seem like much.

Much more likely that the money we paid the Sunni tribes to go along was a bigger factor. They claimed, "oh yeah, we'll fight that mean old al-Qaeda for you!"

And personally, I don't really care if the surge was responsible or not for the reduction in violence. I'm unusual in that I was a war-protesting leftie, but now that the government has been destroyed, I feel it is our obligation to provide security and reconstruction over there. Which means I'm in favor of MORE troops, and much more spending.

Iraq is about to sign an agreement with China to develop some of their southern oil fields. Go to www.buzzflash.com for more details. What an utter failure this invasion and occupation has been!

Looks like the early results vindicate my prediction - it's like being Carnac.

Having the surge 'work' for the wrong reasons is useless to Republicans, because it means the troops can be withdrawn. The surge can only have worked due to the troops, so there's an excuse to keep them there.

Having said that, the surge didn't work, because its goal was political progress. Removing the troops will promote political progress because we won't be around to back one particular faction, and they'll be forced to compromise.

American Citizen has it right. I'm not sure why Kevin is so perplexed by the neocons refusal to offer more modest and accurate praise for the surge. All things good that happen in Iraq must be due to our troop presence. Maximal credit must be assigned, therefore, to the surge. That is the last thread that the permanent presence in Iraq contingent have for us staying in Iraq forever. I agree that the argument is wrong and even cynical, but it seems very clear why surge supporters have to make it.

Why go out of you way to think the war supporters will ever use honest arguments, Kevin? 6 years into this mess they haven't yet. Why would they start now?

*

"Listen up, libs, the surge worked and all your pettifogging will not change that result one iota."

Explain to me exactly how it worked, mhr.

the surge had a scorecard.

the surge did not score well on the scorecard.

so why the lunatics keep trying to tell us the surge "worked" is beyond me. if they want to say "as a happy byproduct of the surge, certain factors worked out in such a way that violence has been reduced to 2005 levels," fine, let 'em say that.

but that ain't what the scorecard was supposed to evaluate....

Yeah, the surge was so good that after 5 years of improving life for the Iraqis, they still only have an average of 11 hours of electricity. Just to put that in perspective, try operating your refrigerator for that amount of time and see how long your food lasts. Now try that in heat that typically averages 120 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer. Wow, $500 billion and the deaths of 4,500 members of the military sure seem worth it, huh?

"I'm not sure why surge supporters seem averse to making this argument directly. Perhaps because it doesn't give enough credit to the U.S. troop presence..."

That's it on the head. The Republican/Neocon argument is all about reasons why we should keep permanent bases & a permanent troop presence in Iraq.

The "surge", by the way, isnt just about paying some Sunnis a wage & promising better days ahead - it's also about 12 foot high concrete barriers ringing certain slums, streets turned into obstacle courses & the Palestinianization of Baghdad.

I don't see a single reference in Col. Mansoor's piece about the 18 benchmarks that the surge was going to clear the way for completion. I believe we're pretty much at the same attainment level now as when the surge started. Weren't these the real goals of the surge?

I don't see a single reference in Col. Mansoor's piece about the 18 benchmarks that the surge was going to clear the way for completion. I believe we're pretty much at the same attainment level now as when the surge started. Weren't these the real goals of the surge?

The Surge is a fabrication.

We don't give General Patraeus sufficient credit. He single handily changed the army's military policy. We went from a West Point military view to a Special Forces philosophy, ... live with the population, embed and work with the enemy to undermine its posture. When we fought the British Hessian troops during the revolutionary war it was the Indian guerrilla tactics that won the dy. In much the same wy as the current up front tactics re doing now. We have 185,000 American mercenaries working in Iraq now. Retired polic, army personnel, etc.earning $3,000 a week for their participation. That far exceeds the Army bodycount any day.