Success in Anbar had nothing to do with the troop surge
The Bush Administration is latching onto any talking point that will keep Congress from ending the war. One of their claims is that the troop surge is responsible for the progress in Anbar Province. But actually, according to the , western Iraq began to see the results even before the troop increase was implemented:
In truth, the progress inAnbar was initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himselfmade, saying the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control fromal-Qaida many months before Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marinesto Anbar as part of his troop buildup.
So much for that argument.
Besides, the Republican rhetoric on the surge has been lop-sided ever since February. Before June, the Administration told Democrats to not judge the surge until all additional troops were in place. Then in July, only two weeks after all the extra soldiers reached Iraq, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on and suddenly proclaimed that Anbar was saved because of the troop escalation. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) reminded him that the change in Anbar happened over a longer period of time, before the surge began.
GRAHAM: The surge has been in place for two weeks, and we have done more in Anbar in --
WEBB: We didn't do that in two weeks.
The military stability in Anbar was caused by political stability, not visa versa. There is political stability because local insurgents are tired of al Qaeda foreigners, and they want to flush them out. It is not because we sent more US forces there.
If just sending more US forces into a particular area is a precursor to political stability, then how come political stability is still a problem in Baghdad, Diyala and up north?
Comments