Despite the tempting option of withdrawal, US wise to adhere to Surge
Jeremy Noam Makover
11/5/07 | World
On a daily basis, our media covers the latest attacks and American losses in Iraq. Most members of Congress demand troop withdrawals, echoing the wishes of a sizeable American majority in all recent opinion polls- and more visibly in big anti-war protests like the one held near our campus last months. War critics flirt with a Vietnam comparison: once again, America is bogged down in an unpopular war being waged against an undefeatable enemy in a distant land. But despite all the domestic sentiment arguing for a US exit, under the current set of circumstances a drawdown would bring horrific effects for the US, Iraq, and the region. In the short-term, America maintaining the Surge as recommended by General David Petraeus and endorsed by President Bush remains the best choice among the uncomfortable options available.
Many in the antiwar camp argue about the invasions' faulty logic or even illegality. Such a discussion is important but irrelevant to the current situation. Like it or not, America's actions have created historically irreversible realities. The withdrawal debate must operate on this premise, addressing consequences of such a decision; in specific, current US responsibility for Iraqis. While many similarities do exist with the Vietnam War, political scientist Josef Joffe notes the key difference: that was a peripheral Cold War conflict, Iraq sits at the geo-strategic epicenter of today's key problems-- terrorism, religious fanaticism, and nuclear proliferation.1 These heightened stakes have persuaded longtime antiwar Congressman Bryan Baird to give the Surge a chance, saying "once we're on the ground, we have an obligation."2 And up to now, none of the withdrawal advocates have made a convincing case that things would get better if the US and coalition military forces begin leaving.
War opponents have questioned the statistical accuracy of Petraeus's statistics in his September testimony, but noted Iraq analysts representing a variety of political positions have presented mounting evidence that substantiates the general's core argument: since the Surge began in January and particularly since it reached full strength in June, deaths and violence have declined. Michael O'Hanlon of the left-leaning Brookings Institution, once a fierce Bush critic, stated "all major categories of violence have been trending downward over the course of the year".3 His respected and independent Iraq Index database recorded a 20% decrease in total civilian casualties and a 46% drop in multiple-fatality bombings from February to August.4,5 In the capital, where the bulk of Surge forces have been deployed, Deputy US Commander Odierno last month declared attacks to be down 50% since the offensive began and fatalities reduced from 32 to 12 per day.6 And in September, which coincided with Ramadan (a time when violence has risen in the past) the Associated Press found Iraqi casualties halved from their August rate, while the US reported its fewest troop fatalities since August 2006.7 Qualitatively, O'Hanlon and fellow Brookings scholar Kenneth Pollack commented on the Surge raising troop morale and inspiring Anbar Sunnis to continue their revolt against Al-Qaeda after their summer visit to Iraq.8
Many in the antiwar camp argue about the invasions' faulty logic or even illegality. Such a discussion is important but irrelevant to the current situation. Like it or not, America's actions have created historically irreversible realities. The withdrawal debate must operate on this premise, addressing consequences of such a decision; in specific, current US responsibility for Iraqis. While many similarities do exist with the Vietnam War, political scientist Josef Joffe notes the key difference: that was a peripheral Cold War conflict, Iraq sits at the geo-strategic epicenter of today's key problems-- terrorism, religious fanaticism, and nuclear proliferation.1 These heightened stakes have persuaded longtime antiwar Congressman Bryan Baird to give the Surge a chance, saying "once we're on the ground, we have an obligation."2 And up to now, none of the withdrawal advocates have made a convincing case that things would get better if the US and coalition military forces begin leaving.
War opponents have questioned the statistical accuracy of Petraeus's statistics in his September testimony, but noted Iraq analysts representing a variety of political positions have presented mounting evidence that substantiates the general's core argument: since the Surge began in January and particularly since it reached full strength in June, deaths and violence have declined. Michael O'Hanlon of the left-leaning Brookings Institution, once a fierce Bush critic, stated "all major categories of violence have been trending downward over the course of the year".3 His respected and independent Iraq Index database recorded a 20% decrease in total civilian casualties and a 46% drop in multiple-fatality bombings from February to August.4,5 In the capital, where the bulk of Surge forces have been deployed, Deputy US Commander Odierno last month declared attacks to be down 50% since the offensive began and fatalities reduced from 32 to 12 per day.6 And in September, which coincided with Ramadan (a time when violence has risen in the past) the Associated Press found Iraqi casualties halved from their August rate, while the US reported its fewest troop fatalities since August 2006.7 Qualitatively, O'Hanlon and fellow Brookings scholar Kenneth Pollack commented on the Surge raising troop morale and inspiring Anbar Sunnis to continue their revolt against Al-Qaeda after their summer visit to Iraq.8
Be the first to comment on this story