Evidence on the Iraq surge

The surge of troops to Baghdad in Iraq is two months old and it's clear that it will take a higher level of commitment from U.S. troops to see it through. However, is the strategy paying off? Can it end the cycle of violence perpetuated by the problem of "too few fingers in the dike"?

In Baghdad, the surge seems to be working to reduce militia-style killings.

Maj. Gen. William Campbell, the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said Wednesday militia-related murders in Baghdad had dropped by 26 percent in March compared with the record highs of February.

And as Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted in a new study published Tuesday, "February and March saw a 50 percent decrease in sectarian execution-style killings" in the Iraqi capital of 6 million people.

The Christian Science Monitor has a more anecdotal assessment, noting that despite the quantitative reduction in deaths, insurgents have managed to strike deep in the Green Zone as well as recently destroying a major bridge in Baghdad.

The first article also highlights the shift in insurgent strategy:

At the same time that the numbers and rate of militia-type killings in Baghdad have started falling dramatically, another violence benchmark figure has been rising fast.

"Iraq deaths (from car bombs) increased 15 percent from February to March," Cordesman wrote in his CSIS study, entitled "Iraq's Sectarian and Ethnic Violence: Developments Through Spring 2007."

An excellent NPR interview with retired Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army, covered much the same territory. The general noted that the surged troops are enabling U.S. soldiers to actually occupy large swaths of Baghdad, instead of operating from large bases, as they've done in the past. His conclusion: "it's much to early to be predictive about [the surge]."

I'll make this prediction: if we're not willing to keep those boots on the ground in those neighborhoods, they'll revert to insurgency. But that's a long-term occupation, which Americans certainly don't have the stomach for after four years of - as the general called it - failed strategy.

Iraq War: is this a surge or an escalation?

Today Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he was extending tours of duty in Iraq for troops deploying soon and for troops already there, from 12 months to 15 months. The policy is intended to guarantee 12 month stays at home between deployments, a necessary step with the recent addition of more than 20,000 troops to Baghdad in hopes of securing the city.

So is this really an escalation of the war?
The troop "surge," which some soldiers opposed, was suggested as a short-term solution to the rising violence in Baghdad. However, extending deployments in order to maintain troop levels suggests that this surge is longer-lasting. That's an escalation.

Other Iraq questions roundup:

1. Is there any reason why, coming in to the fifth year of the Iraq War, we are still funding this through "emergency appropriations"? This analysis from the Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee looks at the complex definition of emergency and the overuse of the term for many spending items. One excerpt:
   

Labeling war costs as an emergency is not consistent with the President’s proposed statutory definition: while the 2007 and 2008 costs of the war may be necessary and ultimately not permanent, they are not sudden, urgent, and unforeseen, since the war in Afghanistan commenced in November 2001 and the war in Iraq commenced February 2003.

2. Just when does President Bush have to start answering the "do you support the troops?" question? The President has threatened to veto the Iraq spending bill (bill summary - pdf) that Democrats have ushered through Congress because he doesn't want deadlines. Is he failing the troops by vetoing the money they need to keep fighting? Let's say the Democrats send a second bill with deadlines to the President later this spring when the Pentagon is much closer to running out of money for the war (July, by the way). President Bush can still support the troops and get them the money he needs, he just has to compromise. Of course, there's also the theory that "you can't hurt a troop by defunding a war." So really, Bush can support the troops by signing or vetoing the appropriations bill.
   

Bush's new plan

In case you missed Bush's speech on the "new" Iraq strategy, you can find the transcript here. The big question left unanswered is whether 20,000 troops can make up for coming into Iraq with some 200,000 fewer troops than General Shinseki and others felt would be necessary to have adequate security. Bush notes most of these troops will go to Baghdad, to help secure the city. But what about the destabilized areas in the rest of the country?

The American Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, just released a report that said that U.S. troops need to increase by 30,000 per year for the next two years to safely secure the country.

Ironically, the smaller surge proposed by President Bush could still put a strain on the army. To have 20,000 more troops in Iraq, the Army will either have to extend deployments or return troops before their leave is up.

The surge also goes against the advice of the Joint Chiefs, who feel that any surge in troops should be large and long-lasting, to guarantee an impact.

Conclusion? The surge was the most political palatable option for staying the course when so many Americans want to bring the troops home. And yet, it may be one of the dumbest ideas because it will put more troops in the line of fire without necessarily securing the country. Steve Sack (once again) may have said it best: