This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

April 9, 2009
Wait…the surge in Iraq didn’t work?

General David Petraeus.

In Iraq on Wednesday, another bombing threatened security and raised new fears of violence between Sunnis and Shiites once American troops withdraw. Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner, the former deputy foreign editor of the Washington Post, discusses how the 2007 surge of American troops has fared.

Anyone bereft of a basic filing system, or who perhaps doesn’t take time to face reality in the form of Google searches, might just want to focus on the words of General David Petraeus exactly one year ago before the Senate Armed Service Committee.

Back then, Democrats found difficulty in criticizing the surge. Meanwhile, Senator John McCain was proud to declare that he was at the forefront of the idea to send 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq.

Despite the resident wisdom during the presidential campaign that promoted the success of then-President George W. Bush’s vaunted surge, Petraeus was closer to the ground, saying “We haven’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel” and warning that “Countless sectarian fault lines still exist in Baghdad and elsewhere.”

A year later, there seems to be surprise in the air every time a particularly bloody bomb attack is staged in Baghdad or other Iraqi environs. Petraeus wasn’t running for office and he was quick to mention that any U.S. successes in Iraq might be “fragile and reversible.”

The surge was a quick fix to be sure, and there are all sorts of statistics to show a decrease in violence. But in the long term, the battle lines are still drawn. Rival Sunni and Shiite factions keep their powder dry, but are still geared up for the coming battle whenever U.S. troops pull back. That’s mixed in with the baggage encased in a dilemma, one of many inherited by President Obama.

My friend and former colleague at the Washington Post, Thomas E. Ricks, describes the dilemma in his book, The Gamble, focusing on Petraeus and the surge. Commenting separately on the book, he has written that one basic problem is to understand what is meant by saying the surge “worked.”

“Yes, it did, in that it improved security. But it was meant to do more than that. It was supposed to create a breathing space in which Iraqi political leaders could move forward. In fact, as General Odierno [General Raymond T. Odierno, Petraeus’ successor as U.S. commander in Iraq] says in the book, some used the elbow room to move backward. The bottom line is that none of the basic problems facing Iraq have been addressed–the relationship between Shia, Sunni and Kurds, or who leads the Shias, or the status of the disputed city of Kirkuk, or the sharing of oil revenue.”

– Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Jon-Phillip Sheridan under a Creative Commons license.

bookmark    print




[…] same way the supporters of the Iraq war did back in 2007: “ZOMG, we’re so close – Double Down!!!” But supporters of abstinence-based education said that the new report shows that there is […]


Now that the Zionist lobby has seen that our invasion of Iraq was a blunder they should be encouraging us to get out of that whole area before we go broke. Instead, they now want us to invade Iran.


[…] The suicide bombing today in Iraq that killed five U.S. soldiers is another example of how deadly and dangerous Iraq remains, despite the success of the surge. Meanwhile, author Thomas Ricks has argued that while the surge improved security, it didn’t achieve a primary goal — creating space for Iraqi political leaders to move forward. “The bottom line is that none of the basic problems facing Iraq have been addressed — the relationship between Shia, Sunni and Kurds, or who leads the Shias, or the status of the disputed city of Kirkuk, or the sharing of oil revenue,” Ricks has said. […]


Thank you for reminding us of the problems that still exist regarding the “success” (or otherwise) of the surge. Public opinion appears to be easily swayed by those who have an interest in making more out the surge than the facts warrant.

Peter Eisner is an editorial consultant with Worldfocus and a 30-year veteran of international news. He has been an editor and foreign correspondent at The Washington Post, Newsday and The Associated Press. He co-authored “The Italian Letter,” which details fraudulent intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. He was founder and president of Newscom, an international online news service, and speaks Spanish and Portuguese.

Facebook Twitter YouTube

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2020 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television