What about the “surge” in troops in Iraq? Has it worked? Like so many things, it depends on the metrics and definitions.
Everyone — almost unanimously — agrees that the violence (by all measures) has come down sharply since the surge infusion of troops in Iraq. It is reasonable to state that surge has been one of the major determinants — if not the only determinant — in lowering the violence in Iraq. Of course, there have been other factors for this reduction — most notably slightly better understanding of the realities on the part of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
While John McCain does not want to acknowledge this fact except most tangentially, Barack Obama probably understates the critical importance of the “surge” of troops.
However, so-called political progress has been less evident. Reconciliation among sunnis and shias, training of the police and security apparatus, and formalization of political structures have been pretty sluggish in Iraq. So, if the success of the surge of troops is measured in terms of political progress there is not much to report.
The problem is that every one is right on this matter — it depends on how you define “progress.” That’s why we have the fair but indeterminate political debate. John McCain proclaiming his vision in advocating a surge in troops in Iraq, and Barack Obama asserting that surge or no surge very little political progress has been made. Unless the conditions change dramatically, all things being equal, Iraq as a political issue in the U.S. Presidential elections may be a draw.
In any case, there could have been no political progress without reduction in violence. Now that there has been substantial reduction in violence, it is probably time to measure progress in the political dimension.
Tags: Barack Obama, Iraq, Iraq plan, Iraq timetable, John McCain, Kurds, President George W. Bush, Shiites, Sunnis, Surge in troops, Troops withdrawal
