Did We Need The Surge To Reduce Violence In Iraq?

Barack Obama has taken a myriad of hits for his so-called refusal to admit that the surge has been a success in Iraq. Obama’s take on the surge has been that the Sunni awakening along with political shifts in the Iraqi government has played a monumental part in getting Iraq to where it currently stands. In examining the facts, I agree with his position.

Its too easy to only survey the surge and give it all of the credit for the plummet in violence in Iraq. Until Obama brought up the Sunni awakening, the media said very little about just how deeply those actions affected violence in Iraq. More than 80,000 Sunnis went from attacking coalition troops along side of al Qaeda to attacking al Qaeda. That many enemy combatants changing sides to become allies had a vast influence on conditions in Iraq that cannot be abated. These circumstances give the impression of being absent to John McCain. Remarkably, he (with a straight face) credits the surge for the Sunni awakening despite the fact that it occurred a year before the surge. On what planet does that make sense and why does the media let such a falsification of the facts be articulated without being repudiated?

Which had the greater effect? The adding of 25,000 more troops or 80,000 newly allied fighters no longer going after our troops. 80,000 supplemental forces suddenly going after our cardinal antagonist, al Qaeda? There is no way of determining which had the biggest impact, especially when people outside of and not closely connected to the United States military are not actively studying the culmination of these and other events.

Another pivotal change in tactics came when we set in motion a system of paying these Sunni forces for NOT fighting against us. For a mere $10 a day we bought the friendship of the largest group of Iraqis who were opposed to the occupation by U.S. forces. Bribery goes a long way, even in a war zone. Too bad the established press has spoken very little on this form of spending. We could have just as easily bankrolled or purchased the adherence of those U.S. allied Iraqis. $80,000 a day sounds like a lot of money (well, because it is) but it pails in what we paid (I mean borrowed) for the surge. I'm only speaking of the fiscal cost. Seriously, lets say we spent 2, 3, OK let's go as high as 10 times that $80 k rewarding (paying off) Iraqis to turn their guns IEDs away from our troops. That $8 million a day is a far cry cheaper than the close to HALF A BILLION (yes, half a BILLION) dollars we are spending EACH AND EVERY DAY that we stay in Iraq.

In addition to Sunni forces joining out fight against al Qaeda, prior to the surge, U.S. ground forces made sharp changes in strategy. We completely refashioned how we dealt with Shia extremist. The use of Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams, also known as the civilian surge, made immense transformations for the people of Baghdad, They acted as liaisons between Iraqi citizens and our troops. EPRTs went into Iraqi targeting the more compliant, pro U.S. citizens to be more immersed in the local leadership. They then connected local leadership to the national leadership, a concept that had been unheard of to the people of Iraq. The work of the EPRTs should not be discounted or overlooked. Essentially these small groups successfully worked as problem solvers aimed at stimulating Iraq growth and development through its citizens.

Am I saying that the surge did not hasten these successes? No. Am I saying that the surge would have not been a success without these other exploits? NO ONE KNOWS. Has Barack Obama repeatedly given credit to the contributions that the ancillary infantry gave to these staggering developments? Yes he has! Notwithstanding, I think it is very credible that we could have aided these triumphs in absence of the surge. McCain and the media are quick to assail Obama for his view that possibly the surge was not the only or the predominant reason for the welcomed improved conditions in Iraq.

The surge is about all that McCain has to stand on. What's the media’s excuse?