What If the Surge Had Not Happened

Despite the success of President George W Bush’s Surge strategy in Iraq, those of the “progressive” persuasion are still reluctant to recognize it and give due credit to the former President.

So what if the Surge had not happened? What if for example John Kerry had won in 2004 and decided to pull out of Iraq in 2006 or '07 once it got unpopular.

Most likely without the support of the US at that time Iraq would have fallen into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and chaos comparable to possibly Rwanda. Iraq would have split into three states-a Kurdish state in the north clashing with Turkey and Iran, some sort of a Sunni state in the the center (could be either extremnist or moderate), and an Iranian Shiite puppet in the south. In addition a defeat in Iraq would give us another Vietnam syndrome after the first one had been cured by Grenada and Desert Storm.

What leads you to believe that that won’t happen after U.S. troops withdraw?

Never mind. (And you forgot Panama.)

US troops withdrew in the summer of 2010 (under Obama it should be noted), and the government is firmly in place.

Nothing would have changed. The ethnic cleansing died down because it succeeded. There was no one left to displace or kill in the disputed areas. Not that we ever cared about stopping it.

You’re too quick to give credit to The Holy Surge. The Sunni Awakening had a whole lot more to do with Iraq becoming somewhat more stable than Bush could ever be responsible for.

True, if the Iraqi people hadn’t wanted peace there wouldn’t have been peace no matter how hard the US tried. But the Sunni Awakening occurred with US support.

heh. Some 50,000 troops remained in Iraq following that “withdrawal” in an “advisory” capacity. (Speaking of Vietnam.)

I would hardly term a government that needed eight months following the elections to be agreed upon to be “firmly” in place.

Where do you get this shit from?

Same case in Japan, Germany, and Korea.

That’s political gridlock not that the government is about to collapse into civil war or be taken over by Islamists or whatnot.

US support = pallets of cash

When that stops, the bloodletting will resume.

It’s perhaps worth noting here that I really don’t care what the Surge may or may not have accomplished, and whether Bush the Younger deserves credit for it.

The invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed, and ill-legal. Bush deserves all the blame for that. If you’re attempting to rehabilitate his reputation, at least have the good sense to wait until after he’s croaked. You’ll outlive most of us; you’ll have that chance.


I agree the Iraq War was probably a mistake based on faulty intelligence and miscalculation but not an intentional war out of evil reasons. However once it happened what are you supposed to do. We should clean up the mess,

Those troops are still there.

So, you’re saying that Bush was a great President because (in your opinion) he cleaned up a mess (that you admit) he never should have made in the first place?

You can’t see the difference? What’s wrong with you? Who’s offered to attack Iraq? (Besides us.)

Why would Kerry pull out of Iraq?

These are two separate issues.

Not likely anywhere close to Rwanda as the conditions were not similar or comparable.

In point of fact, the Surge did help stabilize the country. However, pretending that “it” did the job is nothing more than wishful thinking. Several other factors were at least as important, (and, in many cases, more so).

In the period running up to the Surge and continuing through it, the Allies were making a considered, (if rarely publicized), effort to “neutralize” the mid-level leaders of excessively violent factions. People like Muqta al Sadr were left alone rather than spurring major riots by capturing or killing him, but a number of lower level leaders were silenced, through incidents that led to their imprisonment or death. This activity was not carried out by more troops, but by units already engaged in those actions.

As to ethnic cleansing, it may have been the most important source of the current “stability,” since it was nearly completely successful. While there was far less of the sort of bulldozing of homes and murder or people that we have seen in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, what happened, instead, was that in every neighborhood that was integrated between Sunni and Shi’a, whichever group was the minority in that place was threatened with death if they did not leave. The result was a major shift in population with people leaving their homes and moving to neighborhoods where they simply took over the abandoned homes of people from the opposite sect, resulting in a nearly completely segregated society. The violence died down when there was no point to attacking one’s neighbors because they all shared one’s own beliefs. In fact, much of the military action of the Surge was nothing more than overseeing these forced relocations to ensure that they took place peacefully. U.S. troops did not engage in threatening people or telling them to move, however, when a family finally decided they could take it no longer and left their homes, U.S. troops often guarded them to make sure that they were not harmed during the move.

If that is the criteria for declaring the Surge a success, I am not at all sure that we should be proud of it.

Credit? He’s the one who invaded under false pretenses in the first place! The further his policy was from full withdrawal, formal apologies, and mass reparations the more blame he deserves.

It’s its own mess, because of your man Bush. No need to compare to anything else, the results of Bush’s policy are bad enough in and of themselves.

I have no dog in that fight. Or, who cares?

That’s fine with me.

No good came of Bush’s foreign policy. No good at all.

Because that’s exactly what he and the vast majority of Democrats advocated by 2006.

I agree. I’m using the Surge to mean not just the Surge itself but in general America fighting on in Iraq.

Which would not have happened if US troops had not been deployed.

That is sadly true.

If that is the criteria for declaring the Surge a success, I am not at all sure that we should be proud of it.


Again :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I thought you were being Helen Lovejoy of the left above by talking about Bush’s wickedness and the suffering of the Iraq people.



Surge= buying off the opposition fighters with American tax money.

Yes, Bush had faulty intelligence, but he was born that way he couldn’t help it. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry don’t really have an excuse.

Seriously, do you really believe that story? Their was no intelligence that indicated a need to invade Iraq, or a predicted a good outcome. That stuff was all manufactured.

Back to the surge. Yes, if we had not paid those guys to stop planting bombs it would have been a mess. Happy now?

You’ve convinced me.

Again, I bow before your superior knowledge.

Your man Bush got hundreds of thousands killed and destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands more. That’s far more important than you not liking lines on a map.

No. Basically, no good came of your man Bush’s foreign policy. I’m not going to credit him for any damage control when he was responsible for the damage in the first place. That would be silly.