In every way that I look at the effects of the troop surge, I cannot find an ounce of success.

Did the Iraq war troop surge succeed? Many newspapers and media moguls, including those traditionally considered supporters of liberal ideals, have touted the surge as a success. These pundits contend that the “lower” troop death-count in July for American forces as well as a newfound security in Baghdad are signs that the surge is working.

Yet, in every way that I look at the effects of the troop surge, I cannot find an ounce of success.

The purpose of the surge, according to many conservative analysts who still support this mess of a war, was to give the Iraqi government “breathing room” to pass legislation that would allow them to govern themselves more freely. Yet the current Iraqi government under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is too weak to make any substantial reforms. Because of their lacking confidence in al-Maliki, many Iraq party blocks in the Iraqi parliament have removed their support of the current government. This leaves al-Maliki in a vulnerable position: He cannot make the decisions necessary to effectively lead Iraq in the right direction if he thinks his moves will affect his position in parliament. So in this sense, the surge has not succeeded.

Then there is the argument that the surge has increased security within the region. While it is true that the areas where the surge took place are more secure, that is hardly the case everywhere else in Iraq. In fact, violence has gone up. At present, 62 Iraqis die daily, with the Associated Press reporting that, “the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.”

One such example of this rise in violence could be seen in the coordinated attacks that took place just weeks ago, where four car bombs killed between 250-500 people in a single day. How could anyone say that the surge was a success in this respect? Finally, there are the rising U.S. troop deaths to take into account. During the entire surge period, from February to the time of this writing, 207 days have passed in which 646 U.S. troops have died. That’s over three troops per day.

The last time troop death levels were that high was during the time considered to be “major combat operations.” Prior to the surge, troop death levels were just over two troops per day. So, in terms of keeping our troops alive, the surge has clearly not succeeded in that respect either.

At the end of July, conservative talking heads and other members of the media cited, among other things, the lowered troop deaths at the end of July as proof of the surge being successful: Just 79 U.S. troops had died within that month, which had been a stark change from the previous three months that had seen over 100 deaths each.

The average monthly death toll for soldiers during the surge has been around 90 troops per month. So it is understandable that some people may think the surge is finally working when only 79 troops die in a single month.

However, the average monthly death toll for U.S. troops during the entire war has been 69 troops per month, making July a month that was still more deadly than usual. It cannot be said, then, that the surge is successful on this front either; July may be just an anomaly within the war in Iraq.

We cannot begin to say whether or not the surge is a success. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that it is not working out as originally planned. The evidence in favor of it working is based on a month where more soldiers died than average. That hardly seems to me like evidence of accomplishment.

> Comments