Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Pushing the Surge

In anticipation of U.S. Gen. David Petraeus' final report on Iraq, supporters of the troop surge have been busily trying to set...

Print Friendly

In anticipation of U.S. Gen. David Petraeus’ final report on Iraq, supporters of the troop surge have been busily trying to set the stage for the report that they believe will refute their opponents. But the media blitz in Washington is unfolding under the backdrop of dwindling domestic and international support for the ongoing U.S. presence in Iraq.

In a worldwide poll released September 7 and conducted by the BBC World Service, GlobeScan, and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), 67% of international respondents and 61% of U.S. citizens think the United States should withdraw within a year.

Progress in the troop surge has been slow, and Petraeus’ July interim report found mixed results, with only 6 of 18 congressional benchmarks for success in Iraq being met.

Last Thursday, the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI)—which has generally supported the George W. Bush administration’s decisions in Iraq—put on a marathon 3.5 hour series of panel discussions to promote AEI resident scholar Frederick Kagan‘s recent report, "No Middle Way: The Challenge of Exit Strategies From Iraq."

Kagan challenges another recent report by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which proposes a phased withdrawal from Iraq and a shift from the current U.S. role of performing security operations to an advisory and support role for the Iraqi police and military.

Kagan believes that the CNAS report, "like most middle-way strategies, mistakes the conditions that would make such a transition successful: when basic security has been established. Instead, it suggests than an immediate transition to an advisory role—driven by hopes for bipartisanship in Washington but irrespective of the security situation in Iraq—would allow the United States to withdraw most of its combat forces without compromising its interests."

"That conclusion is false," writes Kagan.

The "No Middle Way" kickoff included surge heavyweights such as Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon, retired U.S. Army Gen. Jack Keane, and AEI’s Danielle Pletka and Gary Schmitt. "Middle Way" proponents, however, did get their say, with James N. Miller, the coauthor of the CNAS report, titled "Phased Transition: A Responsible Way Forward and Out of Iraq," defending his work in one of the two panel discussions.

The lead-up to the Petraeus report—which, the Los Angeles Times reported, "would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government"—has fanned the flames of debate over whether the surge is actually having its desired effect.

All the speakers at the AEI event, minus Miller, painted a positive image of post-surge Iraq, citing a decrease in sectarian violence and the impossibility of starting an immediate phased withdrawal based on timelines instead of improvements on the ground, both political and security related, which, they claim, would only lead to failure in Iraq.

Meanwhile, public support for the U.S. military presence in Iraq is continuously dwindling. Proponents of the surge point to statistics showing decreases in sectarian bloodshed, but serious questions have been raised about the validity of this data.

Petraeus, in his upcoming report, is expected to cite a 75% decrease in sectarian attacks and a 17% decline in civilian casualties from December 2006 to August 2007.

However, an Associated Press (AP) report last week said that 1,809 civilian deaths occurred in August, making it the highest monthly casualty count of 2007, with 27,564 civilians killed since the AP began its data collection in April 2005.

Furthermore, a General Accountability Office (GAO) report—criticized at the AEI event—found that the "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007."

Kagan, Keane, and O’Hanlon discount such dire statistics as not being representative of the Iraq they have witnessed during week-long tours of the country.

Graham summed up the situation as one in which the United States either continues with the surge and emerges victorious, or chooses a middle ground and faces certain defeat.

"My last visit convinced me more than anything else that the biggest benefit from the surge is to take the men and women on the frontlines and change their attitudes about their mission," said Graham. "They’ve gone from riding around waiting to be shot to feel like they’re kicking their ass. God bless," Graham concluded.

But troop morale is likely far from being "sky high" or "through the roof," as Graham claimed in his remarks last Thursday. According to a report in the August 25 Los Angeles Times: "The latest in a series of mental health surveys of troops in Iraq, released in May, says 45% of the 1,320 soldiers interviewed ranked morale in their unit as low or very low. Seven percent ranked it high or very high."

Eli Clifton writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/).

Citations

Eli Clifton, "Pushing the Surge," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, September 12, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share