I'm told we are winning in Iraq. It appears our national victory prize is for violence in Baghdad to return to 2004 levels, coupled with an large occupation force that will last five more years:
About 75% of Baghdad's neighborhoods are now secure, a dramatic increase from 8% a year ago when President Bush ordered more troops to the capital, U.S. military figures show.(…)
The data given by the military to USA TODAY provide one of the clearest snapshots yet of how security has improved in Baghdad since roughly 30,000 additional American troops arrived in Iraq last year.(…)
The 310 neighborhoods in the "control" category are secure, but depend on U.S. and Iraqi military forces to maintain the peace.
If we know the escalation is working because violence levels in Baghdad have been reduced from its peak levels, and if the presence of American troops is required in order to keep violence levels at those somewhat lower rates, then it appears our entire purpose in Iraq, and national reward for winning in Iraq, is to have a large American occupying force in Iraq that maintains 2004 levels of violence in Baghdad.
The reasoning behind the "successful surge" narrative is that less violence in Iraq equals progress in Iraq. So, if the surge worked because violence levels in Baghdad have dropped slightly, then everything that has happened in the Iraq war so far was done in order to reduce the levels of violence in Iraq. And here is what has happened in Iraq so far:
In other words, hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq in order to achieve the progress of reduced violence the levels of violence in Baghdad.
If progressives want to defeat the "surge is working" narrative, we need to keep pointing out that the humanitarian, military, financial, and international costs of the war are not all worth returning violence levels in Baghdad to 2004 levels. That is exactly in line with public opinion, as well. Over the past twelve months, the ABC-News / WaPo poll has shown two steady trendlines in public opinion: the number of people who think that Iraq is seeing a drop in violence has increased from 32% to 42% (it is still in a clear minority), while the number of people who think the war was worth the costs has increased from 58% to 64%. In other words, Americans don't think that reducing violence levels in Baghdad to 2004 levels is worth the costs of the war. That isn't a surprise, since 'm not clear on how ethnic cleansing and hundreds of thousands of deaths justified can be justified by a reduction of violence levels in Baghdad that can only be maintained by an enormous American military occupation.
If progress in Iraq is measured by a reduction of violence in Iraq, then how can anything we accomplish in Iraq ever be worth the violence that has already taken place in Iraq over the last five years? I doubt leading Democrats will ever pick up on this simple point, no matter how in line it is with American opinion, because they fear it will somehow make them appear to be part of an anti-military, 70's style love-in. After all, I can't remember and prominent Democrats pointing out that violence in Basra has dropped more dramatically than in Baghdad as a result of British withdrawal. However, the premise of is a straightforward argument in line with public opinion: the reduction of violence in some parts of Iraq is not even close to being worth the costs of the war. We didn't start a war in Iraq in order to reduce violence in Iraq. Instead, we invaded Iraq to do some other things, but right now for the life of me I just can't remember what those things were.
STATE BLOGS
