# Let's Surge Some More - Michael Yon **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 18, 2008, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923 "2008-04-18T18:22:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/41 "2008-04-19T15:12:08Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] …Look at that and tell me the surge isn’t having an effect… [/quote] _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_, the logical fallacy of presuming that because something happened after something else happened, it happened because of that something else. That involves a bit of hoodoo and voodoo, that the surge brought our troop presence to the magical level. 140,000 weren’t enough, but add another 30,000 and _mirabile dictu_! The magical level is acheived! and the ponies begin to rain down. But what is the connection? Where is the evidence to say that these things only happened because of the “surge”? Where, conversely, is the evidence that they would not have happened otherwise? For that matter, where is the evidence that they would not have happened, and happened more quickly, if we were gone? > [@](#): > > …U.S. casualties rates are now at the lowest they’ve ever been during the war. So are Iraqi civilian deaths. Oil production is growing and is past pre-war levels… As I’m pretty sure you know, **Sam** , the alternative explanation is that ethnic cleansing has been largely accomplished, civilian deaths diminish because the number of available targes has diminished. You offer what evidence to suggest otherwise? > [@](#): > > …Although the numbers clearly show that life is tough in Iraq right now, there is no doubt that the public is feeling better since the surge and the mood of the country is lifting somewhat… Would not similar results be expected if the alternative explanation is the more accurate one? Again, you are eager to interpret any positive trend as a result of the “surge”, but offer no reason to believe it beyond your insistence that it must be so. > [@](#): > > …So… violence is down, the economy is up, there is progress on the political front, and the public is starting to feel better. There’s a long way to go, and lots of bad stuff could still happen. But it’s hard to deny that progress is being made… Progress to what, **Sam**? What would success look like? Are we still talking about a federal Iraq, with a unified central government? Given the demographics, wouldn’t that pretty much have to be a Shia dominated state, with close ties to Iran? > [@](#): > > …As to what would happen if the U.S. just pulled out… Have a look at what happened in Basra when the British left… What happened was al-Malilki tried to crush a poltical rival with the troops we have spent years and $billions “training”. It was a sorry spectacle, as I’m sure you know. > [@](#): > > …Look, you can blame Bush all you want for the war. You can honestly believe he lied and screwed up big time and hurt the U.S. if you want. But that war is OVER. Abandoning Iraq isn’t going to make it go away. The question you are faced with now is simply, “Given that we’re where we are, and forgetting about why, what is the best course of action from here on in? What is best for the Iraqi people? What is best for the security interests of the United States?”… Why, thank you, **Sam** , yes, we will. But what brings in the “if you want” phrase? Do you think this is a matter of political preference, we only blame Bush because we _want_ to? Who do you blame, **Sam**? Kerry? The dirty fucking hippies? Given that this strategy is the child of the same fuckups who initiated this debacle, you are suggesting that we should trust their judgement and wisdom? Why? > [@](#): > > There is no doubt that some sort of soft landing may still be possible,… but even a mildly hostile, mildly authoritarian state would be better than the alternative. Anything is possible, **Sam** , such is the nature of things political. The question isn’t what is possible, the question is what is feasible, the question is how much we invest simply because something is “possible”. You are reluctant to offer us an answer, how many more Friedman Units before the Day of Jubilee? > [@](#): > > …If the U.S. leaves, it seems to me that you’ll see first a rise in criminal activity, then revenge taking, then tribes and religious groups will begin fighting for power. Moqtada al-Sadr will grow immensely in power and draw in Iran. In short, there could well be a civil war, genocide, and spillover into neighboring countries… So we’ve heard. Perhaps that is so, perhaps it is not. Outside of your instinctive reaction, what have you? Sez who, **Sam**? The people who have been wrong about everything so far are suddenly prescient and wise? > [@](#): > > …Is your fervor to end the war so strong that you just don’t care?.. This is beneath you, **Sam**. If it isn’t, do work on that, won’t you? > [@](#): > > …I can honestly understand believing that withdrawal was correct when things were going to hell… Well, good, I guess. Very kind of you. > [@](#): > > …You could plausibly make an argument either that the disaster was unavoidable and the war lost, and therefore it was time to admit defeat and cut your losses. But how can you say that when the numbers clearly show that things are getting better? There’s a glimmer of light on the horizon. Casualty rates and violence are continuing to fall. al-Qaida is being smashed. Does none of that matter? The classic phrasing is “light at the end of the tunnel” Its the same light as “on the horizon”. Things have improved from wretchedly awful to not very good. But again, who’s to say that this is the result of the “surge”? Had there been no “surge”, and the same events occurred, wouldn’t you be here telling us we should stay because…well, exactly the same thing you’ve just said. Simply because something occurred after a given event is not proof of causality. And “crushing Al Queda”? You’ve got to be kidding. Do you want those same cites again, about how little significance AlQ has in Iraq? Please tell me you already know this. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/42 "2008-04-19T15:28:05Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] […] the surge brought our troop presence to the magical level. 140,000 weren’t enough, but add another 30,000 and _mirabile dictu_! The magical level is acheived! and the ponies begin to rain down. [/QUOTE] …the flying butt monkeys presumably having been declared obsolete for combat duty and sent to training bases stateside. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/43 "2008-04-19T15:52:03Z")
Trust some of the people posting to emphasize the success of the surge read the news coming out of Iraq **today**. It appears all hell has broken lose. Again. For instance: [America’s allies in Iraq under pressure as civil war breaks out among Sunni](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americas-allies-in-iraq-under-pressure-as-civil-war-breaks-out-among-sunni-811801.html) > [@](#): > > US spokesmen speak of a “spike” in violence in recent weeks but in reality security in Sunni and Shia parts of Iraq has been deteriorating since January. The official daily death toll of civilians reached a low of 20 killed a day in that month and has since more than doubled to 41 a day in March. The US and the Iraqi government are now facing a war on two fronts. [Iraqi forces fight Mehdi Army](http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/19/iraq.main/) > [@](#): > > Mehdi Army fighters clashed with Iraqi security forces in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriya late Friday night and into Saturday morning, an Interior Ministry official said. [Company of Iraqi troops abandons position after attack](http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=133545) > [@](#): > > A company of government troops in Sadr City retreated when they came under attack from Shiite militiamen who used the cover of a sandstorm, police said Friday. > > The clashes overnight killed two people and injured nine, a police commander said. The officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to release the information, said it was unclear whether there were any casualties among the soldiers. > > The reports of the latest setback for the Iraqi army come after government officials acknowledged that during fighting last month against Shiite militias in the southern city of Basra, more than 1,300 Iraqi soldiers and police deserted or refused to fight. [And they are at it in Basra yet again](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq20apr20,0,2267605.story): > [@](#): > > BAGHDAD — Artillery fire and bomb blasts shook a militia-held district in the southern city of Basra today as U.S. and British forces backed up Iraqi troops launching a new offensive in the area. > > The fighting was concentrated in Hyaniyah, in western Basra, a stronghold of Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Witnesses who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns said Iraqi forces were trying to wrest control of the area from the Mahdi Army, known by its Arabic acronym JAM. > > “JAM tried to prevent them from entering, but fierce air strikes enabled the Iraqi Army to take over control of the main streets and roads in Hayaniyah,” one witness said. > > A British military spokesman in Basra, Capt. Chris Ford, said the battles marked the start of a “new phase” in the offensive launched March 25 by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki against Shiite militias. – Developing… As for the ‘success’ of Bush’s overall strategy, read this article: [Out of 658 attacks worldwide last year, 542 were in U.S.-occupied countries](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24194773) > [@](#): > > Suicide bombers conducted 658 attacks around the world last year, including 542 in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, according to data compiled by U.S. government experts. > > The large number of attacks – more than double the number in any of the past 25 years – reflects a trend that has surprised and worried U.S. intelligence and military analysts. > > More than four-fifths of the suicide bombings over that period have occurred in the past seven years, the data show… I can’t imagine how anyone can use those metric and turn them into a “success” story. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/44 "2008-04-19T16:18:31Z")
We were sold a cakewalk 6 years ago. This would be quick and cheap with practically no destruction. So 6 years down the line you are grasping at straws to say “see it is working”. No it is not. I could point out how many soldiers died last week which some critics use to say the surge is not working. But the end point has to be an Iraqi government which has the ability to lead and to exist in an unfriendly middle east. There is nothing to show that. The government has no respect. It provides no services or leadership. It is corrupt and most Iraqis see it as a puppet government of the US. The neighborhoods have broken down into feudal groups fighting for local control and hoping for more. People running around the green zone with helmets and flack jackets may be progress to you,but it shows there is no place to hide anymore. As our costs go into the trillions you say we need more. Nope, it is just ugly and there is no victory of any kind in the foreseeable future. There is still no electricity and plumbing. The basic needs of the people are not being met. This questionable surge"victory" is meaningless until the millions who have fled their homes feel it is safe enough to come home. It is not close. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/45 "2008-04-19T16:20:17Z")
Well, sure, **Red** , but notice! None of these stories has to do with AlQ! Which has been crushed! Success! We can stay as long as we like, now. Goody! ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/46 "2008-04-19T17:10:06Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] but notice! None of these stories has to do with AlQ! Which has been crushed! Success! [/QUOTE] [Al Qaeda planning Baghdad attacks, says U.S.](http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.attacks/index.html) > [@](#): > > updated 4 hours, 54 minutes ago > > Al Qaeda in Iraq is planning suicide attacks against Iraqis in Baghdad “in the near future,” the U.S. military warned Friday. > Information collected by coalition forces indicated that “numerous terrorists” had entered the Baghdad area to carry out attacks using vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices or suicide vests, according to a statement from the Multi-National Corps-Iraq. No details were provided. Progress! Just because Iran’s the new bad boy in Iraq, it doesn’t mean that al Qaeda’s off the hook. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/47 "2008-04-19T17:37:41Z")
Now, just a second here! Did they check their ID? Did they show their genuine, honest to goodness AlQ membership card? Not some phoney-baloney wannabe “AlQ in Mesopotamia” crap, but the genuine article? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/48 "2008-04-19T17:49:13Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Now, just a second here! Did they check their ID? Did they show their genuine, honest to goodness AlQ membership card? Not some phoney-baloney wannabe “AlQ in Mesopotamia” crap, but the genuine article? [/QUOTE] You are setting it up so that you simply won’t accept any evidence that doesn’t suit your bias. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/49 "2008-04-19T18:01:55Z")
Six years. How much evidence that we are going no where do you require? It has been a waste of blood and treasure. We fought an insurgency until they suddenly were called Al Queda again. You never question. As many times as they have lied,as often as they fire any one who doesn’t follow the script and say it is going well, you never question. Some of us see years of mistakes and lies. The surge success is just another one. They lie over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/50 "2008-04-19T18:19:07Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] Six years. How much evidence that we are going no where do you require? It has been a waste of blood and treasure. We fought an insurgency until they suddenly were called Al Queda again. You never question. As many times as they have lied,as often as they fire any one who doesn’t follow the script and say it is going well, you never question. Some of us see years of mistakes and lies. The surge success is just another one. They lie over and over again. [/QUOTE] Who are you talking to? I never question? Have you been engaged with someone else with my screen name in the past who argued dogmatically for the Bush administration? I can assure you that wasn’t me. What I am doing right now actually is questioning the accepted dogma that the Iraq war is simply unworkable, that there can never be a solution. Maybe there can, maybe I was wrong before when I assumed that it was just an intractable clusterfuck? Maybe I wasn’t, that remains to be seen, but I don’t think it’s quite as cut and dry as you would like to make it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/51 "2008-04-19T18:33:18Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_, the logical fallacy of presuming that because something happened after something else happened, it happened because of that something else. That involves a bit of hoodoo and voodoo, that the surge brought our troop presence to the magical level. 140,000 weren’t enough, but add another 30,000 and _mirabile dictu_! The magical level is acheived! and the ponies begin to rain down. [/quote] I guess this has to be repeated over and over again, but the ‘surge’ was NOT just about adding another 30,000 soldiers. Primarily, the surge was a change in tactics - a _critical change in tactics_. Before the surge, the U.S. had adopted a ‘run and gun’ strategy whereby soldiers would travel into an area, engage the enemy, then withdraw back to base. This was also called the ‘whack a mole’ strategy. The result was that the insurgents learned to fade away into the population, which was terrified to speak up against them because they knew that as soon as the U.S. soldiers left, the insurgents would come right back and kill anyone who helped. For example, before the surge the U.S. and Iraqi government found it almost impossible to recruit police officers. After the surge, the number of applicants to the police forces increased dramatically, and the performance of various Iraqi police has been improving steadily. The surge was a change in tactics - soldiers now go into an area and STAY there, protecting the population. The result is that the people feel more confident and start cooperating. Also, living within the population gives the soldiers the ability to spot things out of the ordinary and to form close ties with local leaders. This change in tactics required more soldiers. Therefore, there was a ‘surge’. The change in tactics was exactly what counter-insurgency experts had been calling for since the war started. It took Rumsfeld’s removal to make it happen, because he was the primary opposition to it. > [@](#): > > But what is the connection? Where is the evidence to say that these things only happened because of the “surge”? Where, conversely, is the evidence that they would not have happened otherwise? For that matter, where is the evidence that they would not have happened, and happened more quickly, if we were gone? Evidence that it would not have happened anyway? Other than the situation was deteriorating for several years without a change in tactics, then began to get dramatically better as soon as the change was made? Yes, I am aware that correlation does not equal causation. But it can imply it, and this is a pretty strong correlation. As for the claim that this is Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, that is weakened substantially by the fact that this effect was predicted before it happened, and the causal mechanisms for it happening were described. > [@](#): > > As I’m pretty sure you know, **Sam** , the alternative explanation is that ethnic cleansing has been largely accomplished, civilian deaths diminish because the number of available targes has diminished. You offer what evidence to suggest otherwise? That explanation has never held water, except in Baghdad. The ‘Surge’ has been working across the country, including areas that still have large ethnic mixes. Do you have evidence that it was ethnic cleansing that causes the downturn in violence? And it was just lucky that the ethnic cleansing campaign was completed just as the surge started? And that violence in areas where it wasn’t completed continued unabated? > [@](#): > > Would not similar results be expected if the alternative explanation is the more accurate one? Again, you are eager to interpret any positive trend as a result of the “surge”, but offer no reason to believe it beyond your insistence that it must be so. No, it wouldn’t. Again, if ‘ethnic cleansing’ was the reason, it should be pretty easy to do a study which looks at areas which were violent before, but which never did have a mix of Shiites and Sunnis, and see if they are still violent. Or you could look at areas that are still mixed, and see if they re still violent. In Baghdad, there’s no question in my mind that some of the decrease in violence was due to ethnic cleansing having been completed. You’re right about that. But since then (Dec 2007), violence has continued to fall, even though ethnic cleansing is no longer going on. Anbar province, which has seen the most dramatic gains, was always primarily Sunni (95%). And it still is. There have been reports of ethnic cleansing there in a couple of places, but the high levels of violence in the region was not primarily a sunni-shia clash in the first place. It was al-Qaida in Iraq. A big factor in the downturn in violence was the ‘Awakening Councils’, which turned against AQI and started working with Americans instead of against them. In Ramadi, Sunnis actually fought to protect Shiites against AQI. From the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081301209.html): > [@](#): > > **Iraqi Sunnis Battle To Defend Shiites** > _Tribes Defy an Attempt by Zarqawi To Drive Residents From Western City_ > > Rising up against insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi, Iraqi Sunni Muslims in Ramadi fought with grenade launchers and automatic weapons Saturday to defend their Shiite neighbors against a bid to drive them from the western city, Sunni leaders and Shiite residents said. The fighting came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of six American soldiers. > > Dozens of Sunni members of the Dulaimi tribe established cordons around Shiite homes, and Sunni men battled followers of Zarqawi, a Jordanian, for an hour Saturday morning. The clashes killed five of Zarqawi’s guerrillas and two tribal fighters, residents and hospital workers said. Zarqawi loyalists pulled out of two contested neighborhoods in pickup trucks stripped of license plates, witnesses said. AQI had posted bulletins in Mosques demanding that the 3,000 Shiites in Ramadi (of 200,000 total citizens) leave or face execution. As a result, Sunnis in the city banded together to protect the Shiites. For more background, you might like to read this photo-essay by Michael Totten: [Anbar Awakens - Part 1](http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001514.html). Totten has lived in the Middle East (Beirut), and has been embedded in Iraq several times. The photos are very interesting as well. > [@](#): > > Progress to what, **Sam**? What would success look like? Are we still talking about a federal Iraq, with a unified central government? Given the demographics, wouldn’t that pretty much have to be a Shia dominated state, with close ties to Iran? I think the best chance is for a federated Iraq - not a completely unified single state government. That seems to be pretty much what the people want. But there would still be a fairly strong central government and agreements and treaties which bind the people together. If you look at that survey from March I posted yesterday, the vast majority of Iraqis want Iraq to remain together. As for shias being tightly aligned with Iran, I hope you know that not all shias want Iran involved in their affairs. The recent violence in shia areas, in fact, is between the Mahdi army, which has close ties to Iran, and groups which do not and which do not want those ties. > [@](#): > > What happened was al-Malilki tried to crush a poltical rival with the troops we have spent years and $billions “training”. It was a sorry spectacle, as I’m sure you know. That’s how you see the current conflict with the Mahdi army? Or are you talking about something else? > [@](#): > > Why, thank you, **Sam** , yes, we will. But what brings in the “if you want” phrase? Do you think this is a matter of political preference, we only blame Bush because we _want_ to? Who do you blame, **Sam**? Kerry? The dirty fucking hippies? Given that this strategy is the child of the same fuckups who initiated this debacle, you are suggesting that we should trust their judgement and wisdom? Why? The military fuck-ups from before were primarily the result of Rumsfeld and his refusal to adopt the military’s own counter-insurgency strategy, because it required more soldiers and he was trying to prove his theory that a modern lean army could take on the world. He was wrong, he was shitcanned, and people who know what they are doing were put in charge. General Petraeus’s record in Iraq since the start of the war has been extremely good. Using the strategies he is using now, he was the only regional commander who got his areas primarily under control and peaceful after the war. But he conflicted with Rumsfeld’s ideas, and was removed from Iraq and sent home (and his region fell apart again under new command). Now he’s back and running the whole show, and getting the same results now that he was getting in his own region of Iraq four years ago. > [@](#): > > Anything is possible, **Sam** , such is the nature of things political. The question isn’t what is possible, the question is what is feasible, the question is how much we invest simply because something is “possible”. You are reluctant to offer us an answer, how many more Friedman Units before the Day of Jubilee? Oh, those Friedman units are useful to bash any excuse for staying, aren’t they? And I know this isn’t going to be a satisfying answer, but you stay until conditions indicate you can leave without everything going to hell. Maybe it’ll take a dozen Friedman units. Maybe two. I don’t know. All I can say is so long as the trend lines are moving in the right direction, you stay on course. If things start falling apart again, and you can’t come up with a plan to fix it, then it’s time to cut and run. If opinion against the occupation was rising rapidly, that would be another reason to leave. If there was evidence that the presence of Americans was part of the problem, that would be reason to leave. None of that is the case today. Opinion of the coalition has been improving since the surve. The number of Iraqis in opposition to it has been declining. U.S. casualties are way down. Given those statistics, it seems reasonable to press forward with the new strategy. > [@](#): > > This is beneath you, **Sam**. If it isn’t, do work on that, won’t you? It’s a serious question. I would take seriously an argument for withdrawal based on a chain of logic which says that it’s the best course of action at this point for America and for Iraqis. Metrics like the ones I just mentioned above would be a good place to start. Show me evidence that five years from now the Middle East will be a better place if the U.S. withdraws today than it would be if the U.S. remains and tries to build a stable government. But I just keep hearing, “the war is lost! Bush sucks! Get the troops out!” And the strong evidence that things may be turning around gets ignored. Not by everyone - a lot of people bitterly opposed to the war have accepted that the surge is having a positive effect and needs to be given a chance. The results of failure are just too drastic to not pay serious attention to any evidence that there may be a way out. > [@](#): > > The classic phrasing is “light at the end of the tunnel” Its the same light as “on the horizon”. Things have improved from wretchedly awful to not very good. But again, who’s to say that this is the result of the “surge”? Had there been no “surge”, and the same events occurred, wouldn’t you be here telling us we should stay because…well, exactly the same thing you’ve just said. Simply because something occurred after a given event is not proof of causality. Not all good things happened because of the surge. The Sunnis began turning away from al-Qaida before the surge started. The Mahdi army’s cease-fire coincided with the surge, but I can’t say that the surge caused it. Nonethess, I’ve tried to read as many accounts as I could from all sides, and I’m satisfied that the surge is having a positive effect. > [@](#): > > And “crushing Al Queda”? You’ve got to be kidding. Do you want those same cites again, about how little significance AlQ has in Iraq? Please tell me you already know this. No, I don’t. Because the stuff I’m reading says the opposite - especially in Anbar and Baghdad. Go read the article on Ramadi. Let me quote from it: > [@](#): > > Some in the United States are unconvinced that Al Qaeda was really at the center of the conflict in Anbar. So I asked Colonel John Charlton how the Army knows Al Qaeda is really who they have been dealing with. He was supremely annoyed by the question. > > “We know it’s Al Qaeda,” he said. There is no controversy whatsoever about this in Iraq. My question seemed to him as if it had come from another planet. “They self-identify as Al Qaeda. We didn’t give them that name. That’s what they call themselves. We have their propaganda CDs which have Al Qaeda written all over them.” > > It’s not a dumb question, though, if a substantial number of Americans aren’t sure what’s going on in a bottomlessly complicated country eight or more times zones away. And not everyone who underestimated Al Qaeda’s presence is a fool. > > I briefly met Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Eric Holmes from Dallas, Texas, while he was on his way home after volunteering to serve in Ramadi for six months. “I didn’t realize until I got here that the problem in Anbar Province was 100 percent Al Qaeda,” he said. “The old Baath Party insurgency here is completely finished. That war was won and Americans, including me, had no idea it even happened.” > > Al Qaeda was initially welcomed by many Iraqis in Ramadi because they said they were there to fight the Americans. The spirit of resistance against foreign occupiers was strong. But the Iraqis got a lot more in the bargain than simply resistance. > > “Al Qaeda came in and just seized people’s houses,” said Army Captain Phil Messer from Nashville, Tennessee. “They said we’re taking your house to use it against the Americans. Get out.” Al-Qaeda in Iraq had previously been thought to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000-2000 fighters, and accounted for less than 10% of the violence as measured by number of attacks. But that doesn’t really indicate the effect they were having, because their attacks were often designed to catalysts in sparking more sunni-shia conflict. And 1000 terrorists who have serious backing are a huge deal - it only took 20 in the U.S. to cause 9-11. Al-Qaida attacks are often high-profile attacks on Sunnis or Shiites, carried out in ways that maximize sectarian tension. Whereas much of the other violence was a mix of opportunism, tribal conflict, revenge killings, criminal activity, and sectarian violence. So it’s hard to state with certainty the effect of al-Qaida on the overall stability in Iraq, which gives partisans on both sides ammunition to either inflate it or minimize it. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/52 "2008-04-19T19:02:14Z")
For my reading choice as the war started,I read 3 blogs by people who were actually living there. But they became more intermittent as the electricity and services decayed. But reading the fear of those who were experiencing it was far different from what Bush and his army of paid propagandists described. However the bloggers ran . Baghdad Burning writer fled to Syria with about a million and a half of her countrymen. The author of A Family in Baghdad fled also. Millions of educated and professional people are gone. They certainly can not come back to that hell hole we created. I am amazed what some people can call a success. The insurgency has been financed by Saudi Arabia. Most of the insurgents came from there, Does that mean anything to you? We are not even dealing with the problem yet you see success. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/53 "2008-04-19T20:32:56Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] …Evidence that it would not have happened anyway? Other than the situation was deteriorating for several years without a change in tactics, then began to get dramatically better as soon as the change was made?.. [/QUOTE] Just this, for now. I owe a fuller explication, but just this point for now. That’s mighty interesting time line you got there, **Sam**. Everything was shit until the Surge Ex Machina, and then…a dramatic turnaround. Not how I recollect it. I recall, as the surge was being implemented, complaints that no such effect was to be seen. And the excuse offered was, well, the surge isn’t complete yet, when the surge is complete, _then_ the wondrous effects will manifest. Mighty damned convenient, don’t you agree? So, according to your approved time line, when did the surge happen? Apparently, it happened at a measureable moment, rather like 2 pm on Sunday, surge is complete, 3 pm, miraculous effects occur. So, when, exactly, was the surge completed, and what immediate wonders were made manifest? And if, as you say, the change in strategy is the crucial point, then they were full of beans, no? Because if the strategy were effective, the effects would have been felt wherever and whenever it was implemented. If the surge strategy were targeted at fifteen locations, then we should have seen improvement as soon as any one of those fifteen were “surged”. At least in that location, no? Did we? Why then were we offered excuses? And this… > [@](#): > > …All I can say is so long as the trend lines are moving in the right direction, you stay on course. If things start falling apart again, and you can’t come up with a plan to fix it, then it’s time to cut and run… All the trend lines? Some of the trend lines? Remember those benchmarks we were assured so gravely were the measuring stick? Remember how miserably those benchmarks were failed? Remember how we were offered precisely your rationale: well, _some_ of the benchmarks were met, that’s progress, so we should stay. And we can’t leave because things will get a lot worse, we have that on the authority of people who haven’t been right yet. But its that last bit. If things go to hell, we get to leave _unless_ someone can come up with a New! Improved! Strategy! In which case we have to stay to allow that new improved strategy to take effect. Have you any doubt, even for a moment, that a new improved strategy will be produced? And another, and another, and another? So the only time we can “cut and run” (as you insist on framing it, adding insult to injury…) is when we cannot find anyone to come up with a “new strategy”? No. Just no. Six years is not “cutting and running”. Six years is slogging through a turd-infested fever swamp. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/54 "2008-04-19T20:37:13Z")
And this just in… [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap\_on\_re\_mi\_ea/iraq](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq) > [@](#): > > Anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened a new uprising Saturday if U.S. and Iraqi forces persist with a crackdown against his followers. > > The statement, which was posted on his Web site, accused the U.S.-backed government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of betraying the movement and the Iraqi people. > > “So I direct my last warning and speech to the Iraqi government to refrain and to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people,” al-Sadr said in the statement. “If the government does not refrain and leash the militias that have penetrated it, we will announce an open war until liberation.”… Anyway, didn’t mean to interrupt. You were saying? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/55 "2008-04-19T22:37:51Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] And this just in… [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap\_on\_re\_mi\_ea/iraq](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq) Anyway, didn’t mean to interrupt. You were saying? [/QUOTE] Sadr tries any of the crap he proposes (from hiding in Iran, no less) and his touted Mahdi Army gets the same treatment the vaunted Republican Guard got: elimination, and some at the hands of fellow Iraqis that are sick of his fomenting unrest. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/56 "2008-04-19T22:44:30Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] And this just in… [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap\_on\_re\_mi\_ea/iraq](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq) Anyway, didn’t mean to interrupt. You were saying? [/QUOTE] A recurring loop is not a _good_ thing to impose on the hamsters. ~Red \<— Here since _before_ the invasion. Deja vou all over again. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/57 "2008-04-19T23:07:56Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] Sadr tries any of the crap he proposes (from hiding in Iran, no less) and his touted Mahdi Army gets the same treatment the vaunted Republican Guard got: elimination, and some at the hands of fellow Iraqis that are sick of his fomenting unrest. [/QUOTE] Hmmm. So you thlnk bitch-slapping Maliki’s army around might have tired them out? You know, the guys we trained. And trained. Not the French. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/58 "2008-04-19T23:11:57Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] his touted Mahdi Army gets the same treatment the vaunted Republican Guard got: elimination, and some at the hands of fellow Iraqis that are sick of his fomenting unrest. [/QUOTE] Who is going to do _most_ of this elimination? Who is going to pay for it? Will the eliminator recieve any benefit for its troubles, or is this strictly a humanitarian elimination mission you’re suggesting here? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/59 "2008-04-19T23:45:46Z")
Well, maybe. This just in on top of whats just in. Or something. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?\_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) \*\*Iraqi Army Seizes Basra From Militia as Cleric Threatens New Uprising \*\* > [@](#): > > Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against the fighters… Huh? Wha? > [@](#): > > …The developments followed a pattern that has been seen again and again in the Basra fighting, where Mr. Sadr’s Mahdi militia has battled Iraqi government troops to a standstill and then retreated. Why his fighters have clung to those fight-then-fade tactics is unknown… > [@](#): > > ..The combination of the Iranian ambassador’s stance and the retreat of militia fighters in Basra may give fuel to accusation by some American and Sunni officials that Iran has taken a powerful and increasingly open role in Iraqi politics. > > Mr. Maliki’s abrupt assault on Basra last month has been widely criticized as being poorly planned. But it is believed to have been encouraged by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a crucial element of his governing coalition. Many members of the armed wing of the council, called the Badr Organization, joined the government’s security forces early in the Iraq conflict, and have been battling the Sadr-led forces. Mr. Sadr’s political movement is also an important rival of the Supreme Council. > > Because leaders of the council and its armed wing spent years and sometimes decades in exile in Iran during Saddam Hussein’s regime, it was assumed that the silence of the Badr Organization during the Basra offensive indicated that Iran had given at least tacit approval for the move… WTF? Dunno. Don’t know if anybody does know, outside of the certainty that it shows how well the surge is working. For the Iranians, at least. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2008, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923/60 "2008-04-20T00:13:44Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Who is going to do _most_ of this elimination? Who is going to pay for it? Will the eliminator recieve any benefit for its troubles, or is this strictly a humanitarian elimination mission you’re suggesting here? [/QUOTE] The US, of course, and at this point, cost isn’t really an issue anymore, is it? And I am not suggesting specific elimination unprovoked, I am suggesting sending a crushing message to Sadr and his handlers in Iran to quit fucking with Iraq if Sadr follows through with what he claims he is “going to do”. The guy is a fucking coward. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-surge-some-more-michael-yon/445923.md?page=4)