Asking 'Surge'-ical Questions
You can't see it with the naked eye but orbiting 516 miles above the Earth's surface is Satellite F16. It's part of the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), Operational Linescan System.
The satellite is equipped with infrared sensors that can measure the amount of electric night-light emanating in a 1.75-square-mile area. Cool, right?
Well, this team of UCLA geographers, using "geo-referenced coordinates," took those DMSP readings and laid them over preexisting NASA satellite maps of Iraq in the daytime. They had this simple and scientifically-reasonable idea: an increase in household electrical power use would be an objective way to measure stability in Baghdad. While the political establishment argues about a metaphorical "surge," the UCLA team zeroed-in on actual electrical surges.
What they found (http://www.envplan.com/epa/editorials/a41200.pdf) is evidence that calls into question the Bush administration-conceived/uncritically reported/McCain campaign mantra "the surge was a success."
The team of researchers - led by John Agnew, a UCLA professor of geography and an expert on ethnic conflict - took the satellite maps and examined the sectarian makeup of the 10 security districts encompassed by "the surge." They focused on four clear nights between March 20, 2006 - before "the surge" - and Dec. 16, 2007, when "the surge" ended.
And guess what? Night-light in mostly Sunni neighborhoods, specifically the Sunni-dominated enclaves of East and West Rashid, declined between 56 and 80 percent, just before the February 2007 "surge." It never returned to normal.
By way of comparison, the Shiite sanctuary of Sadr City - Baghdad's "ghetto" with even shoddier electricity service - registered a steady "night-light signature."
In other words, the residential night-lights were flicked off before the "surge" and were never turned back on in the very neighborhoods Gen. Jones identified in his "Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq" as neighborhoods that experienced heavy sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing.
Meanwhile, the "night-light signature" in four other Iraqi cities outside the "surge" zone - Kirkuk, Mosul, Tikrit, and Karbala - remained steady, or increased, during that same time period.
All of that, Agnew says, suggests that ethnic cleansing by rival Shiites may have been what was behind the decline in violence for which Bush, and now McCain, take credit.
"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," Agnew said in a university press release this week, in advance of the study being published in a leading peer-reviewed journal, the October issue of Environment and Planning A.
"The surge really seems to have been a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted."
Accounting even for the on-again/off-again electricity in Baghdad, the study also found the dim light signatures in Baghdad's Sunni neighborhoods came before Gen. Patraeus erected those concrete blast walls as called for in the "surge" plan.
"The U.S. military was sealing off neighborhoods that were no longer really active ribbons of violence, largely because the Shiites were victorious in killing large numbers of Sunnis or driving them out of the city all together," Agnew said in the press statement, noting that most of those Sunni refugees from Baghdad fled to Jordan and Syria.
From the report's conclusion:
"In classic Clausewitzian terms, the surge was an extension of politics by other means. It was never primarily about reducing US military casualties but about abetting a political process in which while the US handled 'security' that would see an improvement in the quality of everyday life the various groups would come to a political reconciliation that would in turn make it easier for the US government to withdraw its troops from Iraq.
"Our findings suggest that in these terms the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for a process of ethno-sectarian neighborhood homogenization that is now largely achieved but with a tremendous decline in the extent of residential intermixing between groups and a probable significant loss of population in some areas."
If the moderators for this Friday's foreign policy "debate" are on their game, they'll ask McCain and Obama about the UCLA study and whether or not either them has a new understanding of the so-called success of the "surge."
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
7 Comments so far
Show AllThe whole point of the surge to begin with was to buy the Bush White House eighteen months' of additional time to tinker with the counterinsurgency tactical mix on the ground in Iraq before the 2008 election. For just this once since the 2003 invasion, luck and timing was on the US occupation force's side. The surge was thus wildly successful in achieving what was always its primary goal - tamping down domestic antiwar sentiment among American voters, by creating the illusion that raw militarism still might work to accomplish positive things in the Middle East if we only hunker down and stay the course.
All factions of the Iraqi civil war glanced at the calendar and decided the surge's announced time frame created a window of opportunity for everybody to temporarily de-escalate the violence, regroup, reorganize, marking time to see what US policy would become once Bush finally left office in January 2009. Petraeus proved to be a skilled opportunist where the Anbar Awakening was concerned, promptly covering US bets by adding Sunni sectarian militia groups to the DIA and CIA's payroll, parallel to the Shiite militias and death squads loyal to the collaborist Maliki regime who were already on the pad.
A lull in the killing inside Iraq was mutually advantageous for all politically concerned: for Bush's legacy, for McCain and the GOP's talking points, for the Shiite majority Iraqi government, for the Sunnis, for Moktada, for the Iranian mullahs, and especially for the international jihadis (who could shift focus over to the Pakistani border regions all the better to suck more US and NATO troops into the quagmire). Even Barack Obama got tossed a bone, when Maliki publicly endorsed his time deadline framework for US combat troop withdrawal.
For my money, rather than framing the question for debate as an issue of how successful the surge has been, we should all be talking instead about the justification, utility and blowback consequences of waging preemptive war under the Bush doctrine in reaction to the threats of international terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
Bill from Saginaw
This should have been part of Obama's response. It was known before this data was available. Also, a Lt Col or Col had started the process of working with the Sunni insurgesnts, 11,000 of which were put on our payroll (just heard the Iraqi Gov't is going to take this over. Obama should have said "More like a splurge than a surge"
Unfortunately, you won't see this on any of the Sunday morning talk shows given by network Republican apologists. If we are lucky, after the coming crash, they may not have their jobs anymore.
That would be an excellent question, but the chances of our mainstream press asking this are pretty close to zero. You're just not supposed to cast any doubt on the accomplishments of our military and if some brave reporter did ask this question, he or she would be denounced from one end of the country to the other.
Obviously McCain would claim all the credit for his beloved surge. But so would Obama, unfortunately, even though he opposed the troop increase, because of the political reaction if he were to be honest.
This isn't even about "accomplishments" of our military, but perceived accomplishments. Our troops just take orders, it's all those political operatives in Washington that package the results of what ever happens. Did our leaders know or do they just have their heads so far up their asses that they think it all about them and their decisions?
I am shocked! The US government involved in ethnic cleansing? I never would have imagined it!
How much TV and radio news do you tune to everyday? In any case, it doesn't matter how much you tune to the TV and radio because they're not going to report the real news but instead lies and spin like they've always done for decades.