|
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
At All Costs, We Must Avoid a 'Surge' in Afghanistan
Share and save this post:
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Going to College & Grad School Looks Like a Disaster
Nan Mooney
Democracy and Elections:
More Unfinished 2008 Election Business: Verifiable Vote Counts
Steven Rosenfeld
DrugReporter:
California Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Compassionate Care
Tamar Todd
Election 2008:
Clues Obama Won't Govern Center-Right
Robert Creamer
Environment:
The Many Ways Our Future is a Mess
Michael T. Klare
ForeignPolicy:
A Diplomatic Storm Is Brewing over Pakistan and India After Mumbai Attacks
M.K. Bhadrakumar
Health and Wellness:
Obama's Plan to End the HIV/AIDS Crisis
Kaytee Riek
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Immigration Pathway Still Looks Uphill
Kirk Nielsen
Media and Technology:
Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives
Doron Taussig
Movie Mix:
Love Bites: What Sexy Vampires Tell Us About Our Culture
Sarah Seltzer
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Economic Downturn Hits Women the Hardest
Brittany Schell
Rights and Liberties:
Obama: Close, Don't Repackage, Guantánamo
Michael Ratner, Jules Lobel
Sex and Relationships:
Virtual Sex: How Online Games Changed Our Culture
Damon Brown
War on Iraq:
Would You "Shoot an Iraqi" in Cyberspace?
Gabriel Thompson
Water:
Water Neutral: Is the Latest Eco-Term Just Corporate Hype?
Jeff Conant
The Iraq war has been replaced by the declining economy as the most important issue in America's presidential election campaign, in part because Americans have come to believe that the tide has turned in Iraq: the troop "surge" has supposedly cowed the insurgents, bringing a decline in violence. The implications are clear: a show of power wins the day.
It is precisely this kind of macho reasoning that led America to war in Iraq in the first place. The war was meant to demonstrate the strategic power of military might. Instead, the war showed its limitations. Moreover, the war undermined America's real source of power -- its moral authority.
Recent events have reinforced the risks in the Bush administration's approach. It was always clear that the timing of America's departure from Iraq might not be its choice -- unless it wanted to violate international law once again. Now, Iraq is demanding that American combat troops leave within 12 months, with all troops out in 2011.
To be sure, the reduction in violence is welcome, and the surge in troops may have played some role. Yet the level of violence, were it taking place anywhere else in the world, would make headlines; only in Iraq have we become so inured to bloodshed that it is a good day if only 25 civilians get killed.
And the role of the troop surge in reducing violence in Iraq is not clear. Other factors were probably far more important, including buying off Sunni insurgents so that they fight with the United States against al-Qaida. But that remains a dangerous strategy. The US should be working to create a strong, unified government, rather than strengthening sectarian militias. Now the Iraqi government has awakened to the dangers, and has begun arresting some of the leaders whom the American government has been supporting. The prospects of a stable future look increasingly dim.
That is the key point: the surge was supposed to provide space for a political settlement, which would provide the foundations of long-term stability. That political settlement has not occurred. So, as with the arguments used to justify the war, and the measures of its success, the rationale behind surge, too, keeps shifting.
Meanwhile, the military and economic opportunity costs of this misadventure become increasingly clear. Even if the US had achieved stability in Iraq, this would not have assured victory in the "war on terrorism," let alone success in achieving broader strategic objectives. Things have not been going well in Afghanistan, to say the least, and Pakistan looks ever more unstable.
See more stories tagged with: war, afghanistan, election 2008
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate, is a professor of economics at Columbia University.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
EMAIL
PRINT
42 COMMENTS
