The Goal in Iraq Wasn't to Reduce Violence

Yesterday, a friend asked me why no one is talking about Iraq anymore. All we could come up with is that the economy is tanking and the surge has reduced violence in Iraq.

Chris Bowers has a must read post at Open Left that tells why the surge in Iraq is not working. Bowers argues that the only thing the surge has done is to reduce violence in Iraq and if that was the goal in the first place then why did we start the war?

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:

• Between 104,000 and 1,220,000 Iraqis have died violent deaths since March 2003.
  
• The ethnic cleansing of Baghdad
  
• 1.8 million Iraqis have become refugees
  
• Over 4,000 American soldiers and contractors have died in Iraq since March 2003.
  
• Over 30,000 American soldiers and contractors who have been wounded in Iraq during that same time period.
  
• 247 media and aid workers have died in Iraq
  
• The war has already cost $487,000,000,000, and the will eventually cost over two trillion.
  
• Most of the world now views the United States less favorably than it did before the war.

In other words, hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq in order to achieve the progress of reduced 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.

My posts on Iraq have slowed down the past few months with all the excitement of the caucuses in Iowa. Now that the circus has left town, I will be posting more about the occupation, the need to withdrawal our troops from Iraq, and the need to refocus our national security strategy.