Is the Surge Working?

It seems as if the "surge" is reducing casualties and bringing more stability to daily life in Iraq. From this report we might conclude that this is progress. And it is, undeniably, progress of a sort.  If you compare the present situation to what went before, yes, progress has been made.  But is it progress in the right direction? And does it justify the awful price paid by thousands of Iraqis and Americans who have lost life and limb?

To answer these questions we need to articulate clearly the goals of American occupation of Iraq.  Alan Greenspan recently came out and said in his memoirs what no policy maker dares say openly:  the invasion of Iraq was undertaken to secure the region's oil resources.  There are other strategic concerns but the stability of world energy markets is of compelling interest to American policy makers of both leading political parties, not least because energy stability is directly tied to the world's financial stability.  The necessity to secure these resources is heightened by the expected depletion of these resources over the coming century: security of supply could mitigate price instability.

Why this geopolitical reality is never discussed, we can only speculate.  It is the failure to adduce clear justification that arouses resistance to the war policy.  Americans are not stupid people.  Tales of terrorists and bogeymen with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq do not ring true.  They cannot be expected to sacrifice sons and daughters to support a clearly dishonest policy.

On the other hand, does preservation of the prevailing world order justify the sacrifice of thousands of  lives?  Who is qualified to order that sacrifice?  Perhaps the moral cowardice of our ruling classes compels the obfuscation of the strategic motives of their military policies.  Is it that they lack conviction, or is it that they lack the confidence in their persuasive ability?  Or is it that they feel  realpolitik is incompatible with the precepts of open society, and must be concealed by rhetorical nods to "democracy" and "security?"

So the surge has made progress in quelling insurgency in Iraq.  Has it made progress toward the goals of American occupation?  Again, what are those goals?  If American troops are in Iraq to secure oil reserves, the answer is a qualified yes.  A stable Iraqi regime, even dependent on American military presence, does preserve, for the moment, the security of the oil reserves in Iraq, and affords a regional presence in case it becomes necessary to act in other places.  However, true stability is not likely to develop in a climate of dependence on American presence.  This creates a vulnerability for American interests in that financial and strategic resources must be committed to perform police duties, impeding the use of those resources to better effect elsewhere.  In case of conflict, armed or otherwise, with China, Russia, or some other power, Iraq will be a useful pressure point to deplete American resources through encouragement and financing of Islamic extremists. In the long view, the surge only underpins a high-risk strategy that sooner or later will have to be dismantled.  

If, however, the stated goal of "promoting democracy" is the actual goal, of course the entire mission is a failure.  Popular sovereignty cannot be imposed by a foreign army.  Iraqi political culture has not developed Anglo-American political values.  We should by now recognize that the adoption of constitutional forms such as presidents and parliaments by Asian and African nations does not translate into the practice of Anglo-American style representative government.  These forms are quickly adapted by traditional elites to their traditional purposes.  Iraq bears no special qualities to suggest any different outcome there.  While there is some reason to accept the sincerity of the stated intention to "establish democracy," it was never a realistic goal.

The real question, then, is not whether the surge is working, but whether the occupation is necessary.  A case has been made for invasion and occupation, but a weak and dishonest one.  The weakness of that case has undermined what domestic support there might have been for an American presence in Iraq.  A stronger case could be made, but this would require a frankness alien to American political discourse.  Perhaps this frankness is what is required to bring about the changes necessary to dismantle the fragile oil-dependent world order: it would certainly be an easier transition if policy decisions were not of necessity cloaked in ever more implausible deceptions.