Recently, we've had no less than four reports on the progress of the Baghdad surge. They've all referred to it as a tactical success.
So was Tet. A tactical success is certainly a success, but we ought to weigh how much progress is still needed in Iraq.
Consider, first, the Jones report, headed by the eponymous retired Marine Corps general and constituted of retired military and police officials. While lauding the progress of the Iraqi army, the report asserts that Iraqis are still incapable of running security in their own country for 12-18 more months. This is not the first time we have heard the 12-18 month figure. Moreover, the Jones report calls for the disbandment of the entire Iraqi police force, judging it to be irretrievably corrupt. The Pentagon has refused to do so.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, focused on the progress of the Iraqi government, was rather negative; according to the document, the Iraqis have failed to meet a majority of the benchmarks set by Congress to measure progress. Only two of nine benchmarks relating to security were met. Comptroller General David Walker, summarizing the findings, said, "...the [Iraqi] government is dysfunctional."
The National Intelligence Estimate, a product of sixteen intelligence agencies, notes that the surge has contained the "spike" in violence, but adds that Prime Minister Maliki is failing to govern effectively. His position may become more tenuous in the months to come, which would not aid efforts to unify the Iraqis behind a single government.
Finally, the Petraeus report, released only a few days ago, presents an upbeat assessment of the surge. Petraeus noted that the extra troops have reduced sectarian killings by 50% nationwide and 80% in Baghdad (Walker, the GAO Comptroller General, questions the report's methodology.) Petraeus is conscious, however, of a lack of corresponding success on the political side; in a letter to his troops this summer, he noted, "it has not worked out as we had hoped."
Thus we have four reports that give cautious reports of increased security, but give a bleak picture of Iraq's political status--the very situation the surge was meant to solve.
I should state, for what it's worth, that I trust General Petraeus. He's an experienced counter-insurgency expert, and he's assembled a brilliant team under him. I don't believe he's a political puppet; rather, he's a competent officer with an impossible task: to "fix" Iraq's political problem with infantry brigades. No amount of force can create a democracy.
The plan he's laid out, and the plan President Bush is likely to endorse on Friday, Sept. 14, is to withdraw 30,000 troops by next summer; in other words, it will be a return to the status quo. The US military has no choice but to do so; it cannot maintain the surge.
When those troops come home, the insurgents will come out of hiding (I don't dare believe that they've all been killed or captured) and retake the neighborhoods we've pacified at such cost. Petraeus will lose his job and most likely his career, and we'll be no better off than when we began this in January of this year — or in March 2003, for that matter.
I'll close with what I feel was General Petraeus speaking at his most frank in his testimony to Congress this week:
WARNER (R-VA): "Does [achieving our objectives in Iraq] make America safer?"
PETRAEUS: "Sir, I--I don't know, actually..."
Seth Pate thinks that, party affiliation aside, John Warner's southern drawl is far easier to listen to than Ted Kennedy's raging bluster. Disagree with him at: spate@asu.edu.
