The Surge Has Failed By: Mark W Adams

Don't argue with me. Deal with it. It was always a dumb idea.

I think I can safely conclude that the political reconciliation the "Surge's" relatively lowered level of violence was supposed to facilitate has hit a rather significant, uhhm ... catastrophuck.

The attempt of parliament to meet and take up the issue of the battle with the Mahdi Army failed when the federal legislature could not muster a quorum. The session then turned into a mere discussion session. Al-Hayat, writing in Arabic, says that one reason that parliament could not get a quorum was that the Kurdistan Alliance and the United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite) support al-Maliki and boycotted the session.

For those who are paying attention, note that the phrases "sectarian violence" or "ethnic violence" are no longer operable since this is purely a Shia on Shia conflict. The Sunni don't seem to have a dog in this hunt and the Kurds have their own problems since, as Cernig points out, Turkey is far from done making mischief in the North.

Far be it from me to throw a wet blanket on the well deserved flames Fred Kagan is getting for pronouncing The Civil War in Iraq is over -- a war the neocons never wanted to admit existed (kinda like not admitting we're in a recession until the recovery starts). However, a civil war implies two different sides, at the most maybe three. We've got at least six separate entities lobbing bombs at each other -- almost all of whom have no qualms about putting our troops in the crossfire (or deliberately in the cross-hairs). This is armed chaos, gangland style anarchy.

Some very big brains are still making the same old arguments why we should get out against the same old arguments why we should stay. I think one look at the current situation tells the story in a brand new light. It doesn't matter if we stay or go.

If we left Iraq today, the Kurds would still be taunting the Turks and getting bombed for their troubles. The battle between the Badr Corps and Mahdi Army would continue just as today but without Teh Awesum aerial bombardments we supply. The Sunni "Crips" would probably make nice with the al Queada in Iraq "Bloods" since their raison d'entre, our occupation, would dissolve their venom for everything and anything, leaving Sheiks and Thugs looking to weigh in with the Shia faction that makes them the best offer. And just as they are now, Iran would be covering all bets, backing everyone so the eventual winner will feel all warm and fuzzy towards Teheran.

Explain to me how this would have played out worse if we weren't there? That fact that we implicitly have Maliki's back surely emboldened him to go into Basra with an obviously inadequate force while we bottled up Sadr City and provided air support in the south. The only real utility I see for our presence in the current conflict is Iran is quoting Rodney King ("Can't we all just get along") and supplying arms to the Sadrists (and everybody else for that matter) instead of making a move themselves.

Maybe embolden is the wrong word, since to me it's inconceivable that this operation wasn't green-lighted in Washington. It smells of arrogant incompetence -- a specialty of the Bush Administration. Anything that can keep us there for any reason but the real one, control of that mountain of oil, is good enough for loyal Bushies everywhere -- cuz we ain't going nowhere.