In January of this year, against the wishes of the American people and the American Congress, the Bush administration chose to launch a 'surge' in United States troops raising our presence in Iraq to over 160,000 pairs of boots. The driving force behind the surge, in the words of the Bush administration, was to improve the security situation to the point at which Iraqi political reconciliation could take place at the national level.
Over the past few weeks, the surge has received increasing coverage in anticipation of Gen. Patraeus' progress report. The general consensus is that Petraeus will claim the surge has improve security, reduced civilian casualties, and allowed for unprecedented cooperation with former Sunni insurgents in the effort to rid Iraq of foreign fighters.
There are two questions to ask prior to this assessment. The first of course is concerned with the accuracy of the information and the context in which it is presented. The second question is a bit broader. Does any of this matter?
Regarding the first question, we are invariably faced with claims whose accuracy is difficult to assess. Security is not the most tangible notion, and the general's report will no doubt rely on statistical claims that will be called into question by some. Civilian casualties, which are particularly challenging to ascertain, will also form a basis of the report.
The reports by Reuters, Iraq Body Count, Iraq Coalition Casualty Count and others vary to different degrees and inevitably fail to account for some measure of civilian deaths. In so far as they accurately reflect monthly trends, they are not encouraging.
According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, whose information is readily available at icasualties.org, the monthly civilian casualties have been significantly higher in 2007, during the surge, than in 2006. In 2006, five months recorded civilian fatalities greater than 1,500. In 2007, seven out of the eight months so far have met the same barrier. The trend of high civilian fatalities that began in August 2006 has continued pretty steadily over the past year. The reader can further explore the statistics on this and other sites, but it goes to challenge the notion that we have made measurable progress in reducing the number of civilian fatalities.
That being said, the Washington consensus seems to be that the effects of the surge have been positive and that a withdrawal remains out of the picture. The American public, on the other hand, has not moved with the Washington tide.
According to the results of a recent poll by The Washington Post, reported on Sept. 9, 58 percent of Americans–a new high–favor a troop reduction. Fifty-five percent support "legislation that would set a deadline of next spring for the withdrawal of American combat forces." Those who think the U.S. is losing the war has dropped under 50 percent, but more than 60 percent still believe the war is not worth fighting.
Which brings us back to our opening question. Why are we in Iraq? There is no inherent virtue in a sentiment simply because it is expressed by a majority of people, but in an ostensibly democratic country one has to wonder why our leaders and the media have so little concern for what the American people think. If the foundation that our government rests upon has lost its appetite for this war, by what right can President Bush claim to pursue it?
Perhaps a better question to consider is in what way the American populace and/or government can best aid the Iraqi people. It is my contention that they are not best served by a contingent of 160,000 people with guns.
It is now believed that more than four million Iraqi's are either external or internal refugees. They flee Iraq by the tens of thousands into Syria, Jordan, Iran, Lebanon and other neighboring countries. And yet the U.S. has made no effort to welcome these thousands to our own shores, nor have we come to the aid of the overburdened neighbors who have been forced to accommodate hundreds of thousands of refugees in need of shelter, medical care, work and education.
Within Iraq families flee en masse and find themselves in similar situations, but the U.S. effort has not provided for them. Nor has it prevented a conflict that over the past few years led to anywhere between 70,000 and a million fatalities.
The concern that massacres will follow our departure is not to be taken lightly. Unfortunately, it rests on the premise that our troops are capable of preventing violence on a large scale. As we have seen, they are not. A 160,000 contingent is not capable of preventing violence across a country the size of Iraq, and we can testify to the fact by the deaths that have occurred and continue to occur during our watch. The idea that we would be abdicating our responsibilities by letting the Iraqi's die is flawed because it presupposes we have the power to do so, whereas the past four year experience has taught us that we do not.
Ultimately, an independent and functional political system in Iraq is unlikely to form as long as it has the crutch and impediment of the U.S. occupying forces. The most effective way to help the desperate Iraqi people is to withdraw our troops and turn our effort to a massive influx of humanitarian relief. The Iraqi people need it more than they need guns and tanks. And the resources we can provide in this manner will be immeasurably cheaper than what we can ever provide through the deployment of a high-tech military.
You might be interested in...- Letter: Celebrate the holidays however you see fit
- Local GOP cleaning house, aiming high
- ACC weekend preview: Four conference battles elsewhere
