I'd like to keep this thread as narrowly focused as possible, and on topic and not have it evolve into a free-for-all over the war in Iraq and whether we should be there or should have gone there, etc.... The fact of the matter is that we are there and I'd like to "win" and I think most people here would like that to happen as well. Those that don't, well they probably don't have much to contribute to this thread and perhaps might find another debate in another thread.

But, if we want to talk about winning and losing, how do we define such a thing in a war of the type that's being fought in Iraq, and in Afghanistan for that matter. What are the "indicators"? In another thread here (since closed), I defined the key indicator of progress as the quantity and quality of intelligence the US/Iraqi forces were getting from the civilian population. I chose this as an indicator because to me that seems to be a demonstration of the trust of the Iraqi people in their government and a desire for democracy to succeed in Iraq. But, there are other indicators that others are talking about as well. Here is a RealPlayer link to today's Pentagon Press Conference with Brig Gen. Perry Wiggins where this topic came up for discussion. A printed transcript for that briefing can be found here. From that transcript........



So, the questions posed here for debate are......

What indicators can we use to measure the success or failure of our operations in Iraq?

How do we measure them and why are they important?

Edited to add some additional background information......

The war in Iraq is not strictly a military operation, but a political and diplomatic one as well. This is something that is acknowledged and endorsed by Gen David Patraeus who spoke awhile ago to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Here is the transcript of that interview as well. And, for additional information and background, here is the transcript of the interview Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq had with Tim Russert on Meet the Press.


Aquilla

What indicators can we use to measure the success or failure of our operations in Iraq?


We all agree our mission in Iraq was, in part:

-to create a Mecca of democracy, if you will... a regional power to exert free market, anti-fundamentalist pressure on neighbors like Iran;

-to offer hope of a better material life to a part of the world whose rebellious underclass seems more interested in paradise now than a better material life


So, three indicators:

1.) Is Iraq becoming more or less safe for democracy?

2.) Is Iraq capable or becoming capable of exerting diplomatic pressure on autocracies like Iran or Saudi Arabia?

3.) Are Iraqis moving back into or out of Iraq?


Other indicators:
-Jobs
-Infrastructure (i.e. electricity)

Interesting ideas, Drew and some pretty good ones as well I think. But (and there's always a but), how do we measure some of them?

1.) Is Iraq becoming more or less safe for democracy?

What kind of evidence would you use to answer this question? What parameters would you use? Would it be voter turnout in elections? The establishment of local governments? Progress by the national government in terms of agreements with such issues as how to share the oil revenues?

2.) Is Iraq capable or becoming capable of exerting diplomatic pressure on autocracies like Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Good idea, but once again what parameters would you suggest we use to answer this question? That's what I mean by "indicators". For example, we've all heard that Iran is sending aid to certain de-stabilizing elements in Iraq. Were the government of Iraq begin applying pressure on Iran both on the diplomatic front and the military front in the form of stricter border control be an indicator for this one?

3.) Are Iraqis moving back into or out of Iraq?

This is a good one I think. Something we can certainly measure, as are your last two. We might disagree on what the numbers of those things should be in September, but I certainly agree those would be valid indicators of progress or lack of same.


Aquilla

My take on this: the safety of elected officials. I guess you could measure those with number of assassination attempts, and other odd, cumbersome stats.


You know a great mark would be? We use it to grade the progress of developing nations all the time:


1.) Time and capital it takes to start a small business

2.) success rate of small business

3.) number of small businesses growing.

Almost any criteria judging facets of everyday life -- disposable income, electricity, employment -- would show some baseline for stability and whether or not that stability is being eroded or not.

No mention of the death and carnage the US has inflicted in Iraq...since the early 90's! The US policy against Iraq killed a million people, half of them children. Recall Albright saying those innocent Iraqi children's deaths were worth it. Success would be peace and NO MORE KILLING. As long as the US is there the death continues....

Whoa! That is one terrific response, Drew! I don't mean to "insult you" in front of your liberal friends, but that is positively Reaganesque. That may be one of the best definitions of a measure of social progress I've ever seen, and it could even be applied here at home I think. It could, for example be applied to see how well we are doing with recovery from Hurricane Katrina, and it's a tangible, measurable kind of thing. The July report on Iraq is supposed to be out this week, parts of it have already been "leaked". It will be interesting to see if it contains any of the parameters you're described.


Aquilla

i'll take my nomination for the '08 bid graciously.

I've never heard of those criteria being applied to a war zone before, but Iraq is no ordinary war zone. It'll be interesting to see how they stack up... given the vacated middle class in the country, I wouldn't have my hopes up, but you never know. Euntreporilnerial (HOW THE GREAT HEAVENS DO YOU SPELL THAT WORD) spirit is by no means limited to the middle class, or to the denizens of peaceful places.

Entrepreneurial

Hard word to spell, hard thing to do. But, I do think it is a great indicator because it doesn't depend on polls and things people say so much as it does on what they actually do. To coin a phrase. "Actions speak louder than words". And, you're right, Iraq is no ordinary war zone. If we do see positive signs based on your indicator, it might have a chance though. If not, I don't think so. Hopefully something along the lines of your indicator will be included in the July report and for sure in the September one.


Aquilla

What indicators can we use to measure the success or failure of our operations in Iraq?

One indicator would be getting Iraq into a position where they can defend themselves without our help, thats actually not the case as of now and I think its important for them and us that we continue to support them until they reach certain benchmarks. If Iraq becomes a true mid eastern ally on terror, rather than a sponsor for terrorism, it will help take us out of the loop and fulfill the promises we made to them at the same time, not to mention helping turn the momentum against Al Qaeda, and Iran. Stabilizing Iraq is important, if we leave their in defeat it will probably come back to haunt us in the end and eventually bring us back to the same place in the future to finish the same job, but with more mess, and more resistance, as well as less confidence in us.

How do we measure them and why are they important?

Its hard to explain why progress here important, many people just don't want to hear it and have given up hope. Ive been called a fear monger, war monger, war hawk, a chump, and even a moron for the stance I take on this issue. Many Americans have either deemed this whole war unnecessary or have given into the rhetoric that we have been fooled somehow into fighting for lies, I call that ridiculous. Personally I don't think this war has been fought with strength and leadership, but its important we win for more reasons I can list in a short post, most of all its because the reality is we made our commitments, and we are now fighting a war. America should not be in a position now deciding whether or not to fight, we already committed, we should be in a position of figuring out the best way to actually fight it, because everyday we sit on top the fence in denial wondering where we belong and what way to go, we fight a weaker war than we can be, and more people die as a result.

For lack of a better analogy I compare America today to a well known little league team that is known for being on top, and like some who are young and not accustomed to losing, whenever we do get into a difficult situation millions of people start griping and moaning, looking to hide under their mommies skirts, I say finish the job when things get tough, I say when things get more and more difficult thats a sign for anyone to fight that much harder, and that goes for anything in life, especially war when nations and lives hang in the balance. You seem to understand that well, so keep up the optimism not everyone has given up hope with this, I don't even think its as much as some on the far left would like us to think. Many Anti-war enthusiast simply are the ones barking the loudest, they are less willing to debate openly and civilly so they get heard by pointing fingers and placing blame on anyone who doesn't agree with them politically. I believe the support for this war is coming more from those who are reserved and in many cases older and more rational.
Less out to point fingers and blame everyone else in otherwords, but our silence could one day be the thing that has us overcome.

Those in my parents generation who understands the sacrifice of war, and understands that this country has both had to fight to be free in the past and fight to do what is right for the wellbeing of those who cant help themselves like the Jews just haven't done near enough to educate a younger generation that is very corrigible. I'm only 25, but I feel I live in a generation of people who have been largely mislead, So what we need to do is speak out like this. Its healthy to debate this war, and its about time more on the right stood up and speak out.

What indicators can we use to measure the success or failure of our operations in Iraq?



I agree- one indicator in this category that I would use is the integration of the armed forces -- how well do the armed forces reflect a desire for Iraqi national unity, and how much of the forces are just Sunni militants in uniform... or Shia militants, in the case of the uniformed lynch mob that hung Saddam while shouting the praise of Moktada Al Sadr.

So, I would like at the percent of Sunni/Shia figures fighting in the same outfits, etc. But that might be tricky indicator because it also asks Sunni to move to Shia areas and be a soldier where they aren't wanted. Strange how this bleeds into our debate over minority-to-majority busing.




Despite being one of the anti-war enthusiasts you speak of, I too desire a succesful end to this conflict... We differ whether we can achieve this by leaving, or sticking around, and the truth is, I hope our politicians are saavy enough to negotiate a creative solution to ending this war that salvages something from the wreckage. Dipping out is no more a strategy than keepin' on keepin' on. Unfortunately, we as a country haven't, to my mind, been presented with any compelling alternative strategies: none that make the mainstream news, anyway.

Now, having said that, we have to leave someday, probably in the next president's first term: we have neither the money, nor the national will, nor the international goodwill, nor the goodwill of the Iraqi people to stay indefinitely. Behind this debate -- which has been extraordinarily civil, thankfully -- these indicators are about defining where we can have success, whether that success is important enough to mitigate the costs, how we're doing currently, and how we can achieves those successes.

In other words, it's about setting a goal for the Iraq war after 4 1/4 years of confusion from both parties as to what exactly our primary objectives should be.

I think, to responsibly leave Iraq, the left needs those goals as badly as the right needs them to argue for a continued presence. Since 9//11 -- in Afghanistan as well as Iraq -- we've over-estimated and mis-interpreted the capacity of the US military to affect social change. Hopefully, this has been a learning lesson, and as the parties sit down to negotiate an end, they can set goals -- indicators of progress -- that more fitfully reflect the strengths and weaknesses of America's armed forces.

And that's a conversation I think is long overdue. And like you, I wonder if America has the leadership to lead that debate.

drewyorktimes




Thats fair, and from what you wrote, it seems we are not that far apart for a democrat and republican in our ideologies on this particular issue. I do disagree that we set any written in stone cut and run dates simply because there is no telling how long this will take, but I agree that we can not be there forever.

However before we leave we have a war to win, and its not just a war in Iraq as many focus on, its exactly what its labeled as, " The war on Terror " We will never get rid of all radicals, but I believe we can turn the momentum against them at the very least, and the goal is to get the decent people in the middle east including in Iraq, working together against Islamic fascist to give them the upper hand so we can in fact get the hell out. It wont be easy, but then again war never is. War is unpredictable, and its a time of sacrifice and I think things becoming as out of hand as they are now is a reflection of our lack of commitment in recent years, one they are now trying to correct if they are not cut short.

What indicators can we use to measure the success or failure of our operations in Iraq?

Well, this bar has been lowered and lowered- though, most of us get a big "I told you so" to the other side, considering that the bar was set to high to begin with -

I think another "I told you so" is due considering the admin has NEVER clearly defined a "win" either- and that is why WE are debating this instead of, you know, the poeple prosecuting this war telling us these points?

That "I told you so" being said- I will give it my best shot

The fact that American forces can not move without prospect of getting killed, ANYWHERE they go, INCLUDING the green zone, 3 years after the invasion, is a clear indicator of total failure. When you defeat the regular forces so easily, yet are not safe FOR ANYONE and commerce and business has never really been able to thrive due to violent instability and fighting 3 YEARS LATER- after defeat of the mlitary regulars- is clear indicator of defeat.

Right now- there are exactly 0 ready brigades of the army- and both police and the military are completely infiltrated with partisons for one side or the other.

The goverment can, in no way, survive a day after we leave- a VERY obvious indicator that we have not accomplished, in any form, a free and fair democracy for the rest of the middle east to emulate

So- I would say

1) Infrastructure rebuilt to pre-invasion levels- WITHOUT fear of having them destroyed within a month
2) INfrastructure maintenance and oversite to be provided by the locals without need for protection from the occupying forces
3) Day to day policing to be done by the actual Iraqi police- without need to be re-inforced by occupying forces
a)- subset here- the police need to be able to be non-partisan- still not accomplished
4) Ability of a small business (along the lines of drewyorktimes comments) to function in a safe and reasonably not-corrupt business enviroment.
5) Ability of lawmakers to be able to stay in power WITHOUT personal armies or security by foriegn forces.

NONE of these conditions have been met, obviously.

Look- I have been in a number of third world countries, with massive poverty, a corrupt goverment, and ALOT of issues- but outside forces don't need to be there to keep it running in a reasonable fashion, as best can be expected- heck Aquilla- if it is as stable as, oh, say East Timor, Bangledesh or Pakistan, that would be a plus, don't ya think




How do we measure them and why are they important?


Measured as noted above- and they are important, because we need a coherent exit strategy- one of the most salient points we learned, prior to the current moron-in-chief anyway - from our own failues in Vietnam.

Quite frankly- I think the connection to vietnam failures are less relevent than the Russian's failure in Afghanistan- the paralells are staggering- the quick overthrow of the forme leaders, the devolving into chaos outside the most protected areas (in Kabul in this case) and the obvious instability of the puppet goverment.

So- unless we want to keep bleeding for a country that doesn't want us there in the first place, and it's never ending black hole of failure, we nee to have some very, very clear exit strategies and benchmarks in order for us to say " okay foks, we got rid of the main bad guy- from here on out, you are on your own"

Great topic, Aquilla!

I'm still working on my response to the questions, but I thought for a sake of information I would provide the current 18 benchmarks being used to measure progress. Perhaps they can serve as a comparison point. <link>

Some of these are admittedly horrible from a measurement perspective.

Interesting list, Doc, thanks for posting it. What bothers me about it though is that much of it consists of pure political "goals" and I don't know if that's the best measure of progress. As we have seen in our own country, politicians can pass just about any legislation and herald it as a great "victory" when in fact, it doesn't mean a thing. Were I a member of congress I could introduce legislation today that would "forbid drunk driving" and claim that I had eliminated drunk driving by my brilliant bill. Of course, people would still do it.

That's why I asked for "indicators", not generalities. Drew's indicator of small business activity is such a good one because it's a true measure of social progress and confidence of the Iraqi people in their own future. My indicator of intelligence is an indicator of the willingness of the Iraqi people to fight back and build their own country. I am disappointed that those two indicators are not on the list you posted. I am also disappointed that so many here who have already declared defeat in Iraq haven't posted here to define what they would consider a victory or at least signs of progress.


Aquilla

Here's the fairest (or most fair) yardstick in relation to US success in Iraq. Since the official policy line is that the US is trying to help the Iraqis ( ) gain a better life in a stable Iraq, the yardstick ought to be: When Americans can safely walk through the streets of Baghdad, unarmed and unafraid, with no one trying to kill them. Fair enough? Once Americans can walk the streets of Iraq safely.

Well, that would be nice and a good thing were it to happen. But, is it truly a realistic indicator or goal? I can't even walk safely through some of the streets of Los Angeles and consider myself completely safe - armed or not. Do we declare LA a lost cause? Nevermind that rhetorical question.

But, forget for a moment about the American troops walking the streets and instead consider the Iraqi people instead. Who is blowing them up? Who is committing suicide in order to kill Iraqi civilians? It ain't the Americans. Rather, it's the "Freedom fighters" (as TruthMarch has termed them). It seems to me that every one of these savages that we can capture or kill before they kill innocent civilians would certainly be something of an indicator of success in Iraq.


Aquilla

While I understand the sentiment, unfortunately it is a terrible indication of success. Take a moment to place yourself in the position of an Iraqi civilian. A US platoon comes in and kills some dude who is accused of being a "savage"/suicide bomber/terrorist/bad guy. The Iraqi civilian sees the fact that some dude has been killed -- someone who may or may not be innocent of the crime he's been killed for. Certainly, soldiers make mistakes; or perhaps not. It doesn't matter. The Iraqi civilian sees some dude killed. What an Iraqi civilian comes away with is not how great the US is for killing some dude who the US accuses of being a bad guy. Instead, the Iraqi civilian begins to distrust the US because it may or may not be making a mistake. The Iraqi civilian can't know -- he would have to *trust* the US in order to presume the US is correct. But, it's the *trust* which is the whole issue in the first place.

This is the difference between war and civil society. During war time, we do things that a civil society cannot tolerate. But, in order to have a political win in Iraq, you need to have a civil society. In order to have a military win in Iraq, you need to have a military engaged in war. A civil society cannot by definition tolerate war (within its borders); thus, it cannot tolerate a military engaged in war.

What I'm trying to say is: Military success and political success are mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion although your premise is most certainly a valid one. It is indeed a matter of trust between the general population and our military and I don't think that's mutually exclusive. That's why I listed intelligence as a key indicator of progress in Iraq. The prime target of violence from the terrorists (or as TruthMarch refers to them "freedom fighters") are Iraqis. People trying to make a life. That's the SOP of a terrorist. They tend to pick on soft targets and a frontal attack on a Marine combat unit is not a soft target. It's a whole lot easier to blow up a market place and kill a bunch of innocent civilians. At some point people are going to say, "Enough is enough" and they're going to turn to people who can help them put an end to the violence. In order to do that they need to know those people are serious about ending it. That's the military side of the surge equation. They don't have to like us in order for this to work, they just have to dislike us less than they do the terrorists who are killing their friends and neighbors.


Aquilla

That assumes the civilian populace is monolithic in its thinking -- which it isn't. Some percentage of the population will not see things the way you've laid it out. Thus, the cycle of civil war is reinforced. But since you disagree with my conclusion, tell me how a civil society and war "society" can co-exist?

Thoughtful post. Have to think on this one.....

I don't know that we need a monolithic civilian population for the surge to work. Somewhere between nobody and everybody is a critical mass and that's kind of the thing I'm attempting to define here. I think if we see an increasing number of the people willing to give the US/Iraqi forces information on the bad guys- that's progress. If we take Drew's suggestion and see how many people are starting and succeeding at start-up small businesses - that's an indicator of social progress. I'm interesting in hearing more ideas of indicators.

Now, as far as your question concerning civil society and a war society is concerned, I would submit that at least on the surface, we have co-existance right now here in the US. We certainly have that here in Los Angeles were certain parts of the city are literally war zones. Innocent people, usually kids getting shot in the streets for no reason at all. People afraid to talk to the police about it for fear of retribution from the gangs that rule some parts of this city. One of my best friends at Disney lived in South Central and used to sleep in his van so it wouldn't get stripped at night, and he used to sleep with a .357 under his pillow. Kinda sounds like something of a war zone to me, but we've made some progress. Community based policing programs have very gradually increased the trust between law enforcement and the local populace. And it's working, more and more often the police are getting information when a drive-by happens about who did it. Now I'm not comparing LA to the situation in Baghdad by any means, but it does seem to me that there are some parallels that can be drawn there. I think it's important that we give the current plan a chance.


Aquilla

Aquilla, I'll give you the increasing number of people willing to pass along important information to the Iraqi/US troops, to take on the bad guys. If you have a quantifiable way of showing that it's really helping. Bear in mind that those reports would have to produce tangible results in terms of decreased deaths among civilians, US troops and Iraqi police - something I've yet to see in any sustainable amount.

One of the biggest benchmarks for me would be the readiness of the troops to engage the insurgents - you know, that whole "We'll stand down when they stand up" thing? Heard much about that lately? No. Why? Is it maybe because their troops are less "ready" now than they were just 2 years ago? Is it maybe because we are spending as much time fighting militia infiltrated police and Iraqi troop patrols?

But getting back to your benchmark, then, how can we ever expect to gain the trust of the civilian population, when we can't even gain the trust of the Iraqi military or security forces there? Or trust them to do the right thing for the country, over their religious and ethmnic differences?

That's certainly a bottom line, maybe THE bottom line goal, but I have a problem with using violence against troops and civilians as an indicator. That allows the enemy to control the situation - never a good idea. In the kind of war we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the enemy that often determines the battle field, the when and where if you will. That's the nature of asymmetric warfare. I have no doubt that at some point between now and September we will see an attempt made on the part of the bad guys to mount something of a Tet-type offensive against US/Iraqi forces and/or the civilian population. It will be their own "surge" in a sense and will be designed less to achieve some sort of military victory than to achieve a political one here at home. If we attempt to use "body counts" as an indicator of failure or success I think we're setting ourselves up for failure. That gives control to the enemy. To use stock market terms, it's a lagging indicator, not a leading one.

If, on the other hand we look at the quantity and quality of intelligence we're getting from the Iraqi people which will allow us to pre-empt attacks, that becomes a leading indicator because its net effect will show up down the line in the form of your indicator. I'm not entirely sure though how to measure this, have to think on that one.







That's the billion dollar question isn't it? Can Iraq ever really achieve some semblance of a democratic society? It might not look like ours, probably won't, but something? I think it can if they get enough help from the rest of the world in the form of protection while they go through their growing pains. As far as the benchmarks are concerned, there have been some interesting developments recently particularly in the Anbar province where local militias have stopped fighting against us and have turned their guns against the terrorists who are blowing up their children. Might not be the ideal situation in our eyes, but hey. If it works.


Aquilla

Sorry Sir but your response seems typically American. YOU ask what success means for the US in Iraq, and YOUR yardstick doesn't include the US. It's the Iraqis who have to make security. It's the Iraqis who are blowing up innocent people, which is not true by the way. A percentage of GI's in Iraq knows who is giving their huys up in those attacks.
http://judicial-inc.biz/cia_in_gaza.htm
"The logistics of this are impossible. You need to know the CIA are in Gaza, the route, the time, the particular vehicle, and the Palestinians wouldn't have access to that information"<---too true.
Aside from that, to say success in Iraq is up the Iraqis is biased and all too American. America lies about Iraqs scary WMD, illegally invades a sovereign country, kills hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, decimates their country (since the sanctions of 91 which ups the death count substantially), and the solution for success doesn't involve the US itself? Some would call that insane or delusional.

Truthmarch - you must admit that your response seems typically.....well....truthmarch-ish. Can you expand upon the theory that you obliquely refer to when you write the following:

Errr... Maybe because I am a typical American. If this was meant as some sort of "insult", not to worry. It wasn't.




Sure it does. The debate over US policy is happening right here at this moment in the US. What are we going to do in Iraq? How will we know if it's successful or not? That's the debate.




Yes it is. When they are capable of doing that, our people come home. If they prove to be incapable of doing that then we should know that based on the indicators people have been discussing in this thread so we can stop wasting our blood and treasure on a lost cause.




So American soldiers are blowing themselves up in market places? You have to be out of your fricking mind if you think anyone here is going to buy that kind of garbage.





Yeah, yeah, yeah. Those evil sanctions which were a result of Saddam invading a sovereign country sure put a dent in his palace-building activities. I heard he even had to buy a cheaper brand of caviar because of those mean ole Americans. And you want to talk about "decimating a country"? Catch a clue here pal. If the US wanted to decimate Iraq it could have carpet bombed the place into oblivion. You ever seen what happens when a B-52 pukes its guts? It ain't a pretty sight especially if you're underneath it at the time.

Well, we didn't do that. Instead we put our best and brightest into harm's way in an attempt to rid the Middle East and most especially the Iraqi people of an evil tyrant. We did that and this thread is an attempt to figure out what we do next and how do we know if we're on the right path. Ultimately the future of Iraq is up to the people of Iraq because we're not staying there forever. Do they wish for a democratic form of government or will they instead choose to follow radical fanatics like yourself bent on anti-US and anti-Israel hatred? I don't know, but there will be consequences down the line either way.


Aquilla

Nice try Aquilla, but it won't wash.

I'm telling you that things are so bad that we can't even trust the police and Iraqi army troops we're supposed to be fighting with (and not against), and you give me civilians that will trust us enought to give us better intel. But you can't quantify how to measure that.

Here's a clue:


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...70713-voa02.htm

Does this sound like we're getting reliable intel from the civilians in the area? Or even the security forces?



Sorry to rain on your parade there, Aquilla, but we're really not accomplishing all that much, even in this area. Yes, one area has some militia fighting to get rid of the terrorists in their neighborhoods. But you and I know that will only last as long as it takes for those terrorists to move someplace else for a while. And they will move someplace else for awhile. In fact, they are doing it right now:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ir...=la-home-center

Sorry, Aquilla, but we are still playing "whack-a-mole" in Iraq, and it will take a whole lot more troops than anyone in this country, besides Bush, is willing to send over. And years longer than anyone is willing to take.

And I would agree with your contention that we need more help from the rest of the world in terms of Iraq. In fact, we could have used a lot more help right from the beginning. However, our ham-handed handling of this entire affair has done more to make us world-wide parriahs when it comes to Iraq than it has engendered offers of aid and support. The world right now is more than content to sit back and sing that old country classic "It's Your Baby, You Rock It". Can you blame them?

We've already had benchmarks in place, most of them, military and political, that were established as what was needed to bring Iraq to a successful conclusion as far as we were concerned, and with assurances that there would be no problems meeting those benchmarks by September. But there have been problems, mostly of the political kind, to be sure. But militarily, they've not been completely successful either.

The question really is - with more benchmarks unfullfilled than filled, with the US still fighting not just insurgents, but the very people who are supposed to be "standing up", and with the surge just moving the terrorists around again, like some bizarre version of musical chairs, how long are you willing to keep throwing good money after bad, and killing off our sons and daughters?

Yes, a critical mass of folks unwilling to put up with civil war is what you would need to end civil war. By all accounts, almost all Iraqis want the war to end -- that's not the problem. The problem is that Iraqis don't agree on the best way to end the war. Should they back the US? Should they back the Iraqi security forces? Should they back a sectarian militia? All it takes is enough people who want to end the civil war but believe attacking the institutions they don't agree with as a means to end the civil war. Paradoxically, this results in *more* civil war and not less.

Keep in mind, that *trust* is ultimately the only way the US (or any partisan group for that matter) can even possibly begin to think about achieving success in Iraq. It is the only way. But every attack a partisan group makes (such as the US) will alienate the fence-sitters and further entrench those who have chosen a side already. Now, the fence-sitters may choose to take a side OR the more likely scenarios are: they will either isolate themselves or flee. There's ample evidence this is occurring right now in Iraq. Those who are left will either be interested in furthering their partisan aims or in not participating at all.


I feel like I keep saying the same things and you keep not reading what I'm saying. Let me put it simply. Iraqis don't believe the US are good guys; they don't believe the US are necessarily bad guys. Iraqis believe the US has its own motivations for Iraq -- motivations that the Iraqis don't trust. Without trust, there is no solution.


There are two counter arguments to your comparison between LA and Iraq:

1. Inner city LA is not a warzone; it is not even close. Yes, there are drive-bys. Yes, there are gangs. Yes, there is lawlessness. But, inner city LA doesn't have artillery shelling, it doesn't have IEDs, it doesn't have airstrikes. Inner city LA does have a viable infrastructure, it has power, it has water, it has a working transportation system. People in inner city LA may be dying by the hundreds per year but they are *not* dying by the 1000s per week or month. Simply put, to compare inner city LA to a warzone is naive.

2. Even if inner city LA *were* a warzone, it still doesn't compare to Iraq. The difference is that a warzone *inside* a civil society is fundamentally different from an entire country engaged in war. The structure and fabric of civil society still exists. It is only the one place where it doesn't. If inner city LA did in fact break out into something like Iraq, we would send an *overwhelming* number of troops to quell the violence: probably something on the 1 soldier to 3-4 civilians level. This would tamp down on the violence within days. In fact, this is precisely what happened in the aftermath of Katrina. Note that after the soldiers quelled the violence, they withdrew and the police force took over. In other words, the warzone became a civil society again.

I think drewyorktimes suggested some of the best indicators in this thread:


That last one is particularly useful. It's measurable, and it aggregates the information that's held in the minds of millions of individual Iraqis. I'd love to see some good news there, but it looks very bleak, given the number of Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan, and elsewhere.


Do you think it's possible to create that trust, at this point, logophage? I'm guessing not, since I think it's become nearly impossible, and I've always been the optimistic one when we've debated this war in other forums. If you don't mind, I'll borrow your cynic's hat, and propose an Indicator of Less Complete Failure in Iraq:

How many religiously mixed neighborhoods remain in Iraq?

Less is better, unfortunately. I'm a believer in liberalism and pluralism, but it's the mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods where most Iraqi civilians have gotten killed. Millions of Iraqis have fled neighborhoods where they're in the minority sect. Many of them have fled the country entirely.

American troops have worked hard to suppress sectarian militias, and kept the civil war at a relatively low level, but they're not going to be there forever. Most American troops will probably be gone within a year or two. The formerly mixed neighborhoods that have now been "cleansed" of either Sunni or Shia are unlikely to have a lot more sectarian violence after American troops are withdrawn.

I agree that Iraqis returning to Iraq is a good metric. I also agree that based on this metric it's looking pretty bleak. I'd go one step further and say that it indicates that the US has failed.


I don't think it's possible to create trust using military means. Thus, we would need to remove the military from Iraq in order to begin to create trust. Every time the US uses its military assets in Iraq to enforce a checkpoint, to take out snipers, to do door-to-door searches, to fight insurgents, the US loses. The US loses because Iraqis see soldiers with guns who destroy their neighborhoods in order to take out other people who are destroying their neighborhoods. It does not matter who is "right". I challenge anyone, absolutely anyone, to live in a warzone and try to maintain a philosophical attitude over the "rightness" of any partisan group while people you know are dying and your neighborhood is being destroyed.

So, to answer this question more directly, no. The US's extended military mission to nation build has failed. It will not succeed. If the US had sent 300-400 thousand troops to Iraq in 2005, then it may have been possible to completely lock down the country and institute a civil society -- a civil society which would only now (2 years later) have been germinating.


I agree with this read. But, the US would lose here too. As the US could easily be seen as the catalyst, if not the cause, of ethnic cleansing in Iraq. The US would not only have lost yet another war (of nation building) but also its status as a humanitarian nation.

Well, sure. If the big bet -- Iraq as a model democracy -- didn't pay off, the US was going to lose one way or the other.

If we pull out and a civil war kills millions, the US is responsible for those deaths. If we aim for an orderly partition, we're responsible for ethnic cleansing. If we hadn't removed Saddam Hussein, but kept economic sanctions in place, we'd be responsible for millions of dead Iraqi babies (um, ask TruthMarch). If we'd listened to France, Russia, and China and lifted the sanctions, Saddam would be in a race with Iran for who gets the second Islamic Bomb. (Pakistan's got the first. When there are three or more, you get into the realm of plausible deniability...)

Alternative history aside, I'm leaning toward "orderly partition" at this point, for the same reason I support a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine. I don't like bloodbaths.

That is a most excellent criterion for the success the U.S. project in Iraq, and really, it is the only true one. Its impossibility of ever being satisfied, at least while U.S. combat forces remain in Iraq, demonstrates the gap between reality and the official justifications for our presence there (which we imposed upon the Iraqi people, let us all admit, by force). If we actually were welcome, the insurgency would not exist. Since we are not welcome, our claim that our presence somehow benefits Iraqis is seen to be false, and all of the blather about our responsibility to protect Iraq from this and that and the other thing is shown to be so much hypocrisy.

We are not the fathers of the Iraqi people, and the pretense that we are merely prolongs the destructive upheaval that we caused by invading the country in the first place. The notion that the brown people of this planet need white fathers is a rather outmoded one in any case, and in its heyday only served to perpetuate precisely the same kinds of colonial evil that we now impose on Iraq.

Indicators of success? Hmmm……with so many possible course of action that this episode could take, it’s hard to predict what indicators could even be counted on, so as not to pontificate on pie in the sky theories.
The indicators would have to be a mix of military and political, the obvious human rights issues notwithstanding.
The main military indicator from my point of view, would be that the ISF can competently manage operations in the cities in the three component areas; tactically, logistically and administratively. Since the ISF encompasses the Iraqi Army (IA), the Iraqi Highway Patrol (IHP), the Iraqi Police (IP) and the National Police (NP), this is problematic as of now. Only the Iraqi Army has a grasp on all three components. The Iraqi Army Special Operations Forces (ISOF) are even more competent and dependable.
At the time of this post, however, the IP and NP remain apathetic, corrupt (mostly JAM) and in many cases, outright hostile. Many NP commanders use their units as personal militia to defend their little neighborhood fiefdoms.
Another military indicator would be the disarming of the insurgents. In this area, we are seeing some indicators of success. Much is obviously classified, but I can say that we are interdicting Iranian weapons and munitions from captured and dead insurgents, still with packing grease evident. This tells us that the need for weapons to replace captured or inoperative is great. IED’s are being constructed increasingly using home made explosives (HME), usually a Urea Nitrate compound. This tells us that military grade munitions are becoming scarce.
We continue to seize and detain a large number of cell leaders. Persons responsible for Extra-judicial killings, IED cells and finance and intelligence. I am left wondering if we will finally detain enough influential people to put a damper on the recruiting efforts of the various insurgent groups.
We can always measure the degree of military success by the impact we have on certain types of operations. AQI’s modus operandi is VBIEDS; JAM’s is IED’s, RPG attacks and sniper fire; 1920 and Omar Brigade favor small arms fire. When combined with other intelligence indicators, we know what kind of impact we’re having on whom. But overall, it can start to resemble whack-a-mole.

I don’t consider myself smart enough to speak meaningfully on the political situation in any depth, beyond what most people can read in the newspaper. The high level meeting minutes and summaries that I have read convince me that most Iraqi politicians are little more your stereotypical third world power hungry con men. The petty bickering that I hear about only reinforces my disgust that guys are dying to theoretically give them a chance at democracy.

The only real indicator that matters to me, is if/when we turn over key portions of Baghdad to organic ISF control, and the violence decreases. Of course, when the NP’s are in control of a Shia neighborhood with heavy JAM influence, there’s likely to be little violence anyway…….it would be fratricide…….

Not so sure that a lot of our politicians here in the US wouldn't fall into that category as well. Stephen Hadley was on Face the Nation last Sunday and talked a little bit about the political indicators that the President may well be considering. He referred to political progress as both a "Top down" and a "bottom up" approach. The top down is obviously the national government and their ability to get things together and that really hasn't happened very much. But there has been more success in the bottom up area which is local governments being formed in towns and communities. Given the ethnic differences in Iraq it would be natural to think that a local community of people living together might stand a better chance of electing a government which actually achieves progress. According to Hadley, that has happened in quite a few places in Iraq and maybe that's the approach we should be taking or at least emphasizing with our Iraq policy. Maybe instead of concentrating on the so-called "big picture" which is the top down approach, we should instead concentrate on the little picture and spend more time working with local leaders to help them make the "trains run on time" in their community.


Aquilla

Too late to edit my previous post, so I'll do a rare double post here with some new information on what we've been talking about in this thread. When I originally started this thread I identified the quantity and quality of intelligence against the enemy as an indicator of whether or not the surge is working. Others here have chimed in with ideas on other indicators, some of them really excellent measures, but I don't think anyone has taken issue with the intelligence one. So, for the moment I'll assume (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know about assume) that people generally agree that the quantity and quality of intel is a decent measure of success. Well, if we can agree on that, this article from the London Times might offer some hope that the surge is indeed working. From this article......



Now, we can debate about whether or not the surge itself is causing this to happen, or if the brutality of Al- Qaeda is responsible or a little bit of both, but it does seem to me that this is a good indicator that things might be changing for the better in Iraq.


Aquilla