LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Issue date: 12/5/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
I honor In Motion writer Dan Niemann and his grandfather's service to our country. Because of these and similar sacrifices, we enjoy the freedom to express our positions.
In a recent article, In Motion posits the surge's ineffectiveness by citing May and June 2006 as two of the Iraq War's most violent months. However, this analysis is unsound.
First, it is outdated by at least three months. Recorded violence nationwide fell 43 percent from 5,300 attacks in June to 3,000 in September according to the Government Accountability Office. Second, the surge did not take full effect until mid-June, when operations went into full-swing, according to Patraeus' September report. Since then, as mentioned above, violence has decreased considerably.
Is progress in Al Anbar province linked to the surge? The article proposes that this argument stands on "shaky ground." Consider though, would the regional Sunni leaders have risen up against Al Qaeda without the support of thousands of United States Marines? The statistics you cite of US casualties in Anbar could arguably be attributed to a cooperative American/Sunni push against Al Qaeda and the consequent sacrifices made in securing the region.
The article states, "It can be argued that the progress (in Al Anbar) instead proves a real possibility that if we withdraw our forces, Iraq may not be left simply as a wasteland to the terrorists." In the context of Anbar, this could soon come true. In fact, that very contention could prove that our strategy has in fact succeeded! Al Qaeda has become the common enemy of the Anbaris and the US, thereby fostering an alliance. A similar future may await the rest of Iraq.
Even Baghdad is recovering. Damien Cave writes in the New York Times that the U.S. commander in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., reports "Murder victims are down 80 percent" (in Baghdad) from peak levels. Attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent. Cave continues, "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad" (according to Fil).
The article states, "General Patraeus' analysis is not without merit, but he does currently work for the Bush Administration." Is this meant to infer that Patraeus consciously and favorably biased his report? Whatever the answer, he testified before congress that his report had "not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress" before its delivery. The report itself is not completely rosy, either.
This article also suggests that other generals possess a more objective view of the situation in Iraq. This is interesting, considering the generals referenced. Gen. Clark never served in this Iraq War and neither Gen. Sanchez nor Gen. Batiste has served in Iraq since the new strategy took effect. In contrast, Patraeus adds more contextual experience to his assessments because he has seen both strategies first-hand. He served in Iraq during the former failed strategy and now commands the new, successful one. Really, whose view is logically the most informed and objective?
If, as cited, so many service members in Iraq favor a pullout within one year, why did Army elements in Iraq achieve "well over 130 percent of the re-enlistment goals in the initial term and careerist categories and nearly 115 percent in the mid-career category" three weeks before the end of the fiscal year (in October), as Patraeus reports? Furthermore, if America elected the Democrat-controlled congress to pull out promptly, as some Democrats have claimed, why hasn't congress cut funding for the war when doing so would force a pullout and (possibly) dare President Bush to veto the measure?
A possible answer: Iraq is turning around. Arguments concerning formerly-stated goals for Iraq and rationales for war are inconsequential. What matters now is securing the country. The nation was nearly torn apart by violence beginning in 2006 mostly because of the Samarra Mosque bombing and US strategic mistakes. Now, however, real progress is seen and the aforementioned trends indicate a possible turning point. The prospect of a sustainable stability seems more reasonable than perhaps ever before - the conclusion of a worthy fight to secure a troubled nation.
--Reagan Lynn
Editor's Note: Lynn is a junior at the University of Central Florida majoring in Finance
In a recent article, In Motion posits the surge's ineffectiveness by citing May and June 2006 as two of the Iraq War's most violent months. However, this analysis is unsound.
First, it is outdated by at least three months. Recorded violence nationwide fell 43 percent from 5,300 attacks in June to 3,000 in September according to the Government Accountability Office. Second, the surge did not take full effect until mid-June, when operations went into full-swing, according to Patraeus' September report. Since then, as mentioned above, violence has decreased considerably.
Is progress in Al Anbar province linked to the surge? The article proposes that this argument stands on "shaky ground." Consider though, would the regional Sunni leaders have risen up against Al Qaeda without the support of thousands of United States Marines? The statistics you cite of US casualties in Anbar could arguably be attributed to a cooperative American/Sunni push against Al Qaeda and the consequent sacrifices made in securing the region.
The article states, "It can be argued that the progress (in Al Anbar) instead proves a real possibility that if we withdraw our forces, Iraq may not be left simply as a wasteland to the terrorists." In the context of Anbar, this could soon come true. In fact, that very contention could prove that our strategy has in fact succeeded! Al Qaeda has become the common enemy of the Anbaris and the US, thereby fostering an alliance. A similar future may await the rest of Iraq.
Even Baghdad is recovering. Damien Cave writes in the New York Times that the U.S. commander in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., reports "Murder victims are down 80 percent" (in Baghdad) from peak levels. Attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent. Cave continues, "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad" (according to Fil).
The article states, "General Patraeus' analysis is not without merit, but he does currently work for the Bush Administration." Is this meant to infer that Patraeus consciously and favorably biased his report? Whatever the answer, he testified before congress that his report had "not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress" before its delivery. The report itself is not completely rosy, either.
This article also suggests that other generals possess a more objective view of the situation in Iraq. This is interesting, considering the generals referenced. Gen. Clark never served in this Iraq War and neither Gen. Sanchez nor Gen. Batiste has served in Iraq since the new strategy took effect. In contrast, Patraeus adds more contextual experience to his assessments because he has seen both strategies first-hand. He served in Iraq during the former failed strategy and now commands the new, successful one. Really, whose view is logically the most informed and objective?
If, as cited, so many service members in Iraq favor a pullout within one year, why did Army elements in Iraq achieve "well over 130 percent of the re-enlistment goals in the initial term and careerist categories and nearly 115 percent in the mid-career category" three weeks before the end of the fiscal year (in October), as Patraeus reports? Furthermore, if America elected the Democrat-controlled congress to pull out promptly, as some Democrats have claimed, why hasn't congress cut funding for the war when doing so would force a pullout and (possibly) dare President Bush to veto the measure?
A possible answer: Iraq is turning around. Arguments concerning formerly-stated goals for Iraq and rationales for war are inconsequential. What matters now is securing the country. The nation was nearly torn apart by violence beginning in 2006 mostly because of the Samarra Mosque bombing and US strategic mistakes. Now, however, real progress is seen and the aforementioned trends indicate a possible turning point. The prospect of a sustainable stability seems more reasonable than perhaps ever before - the conclusion of a worthy fight to secure a troubled nation.
--Reagan Lynn
Editor's Note: Lynn is a junior at the University of Central Florida majoring in Finance
Be the first to comment on this story