In Iraq: is the violence increasing?
there are growing signs of backsliding in Iraq—even before the surge brigades depart in July....
Iraq security statistics over the past 13 weeks, obtained exclusively by The Washington Independent, tell the tale. In Baghdad, improvised-explosive device (IED) detonations explosions in Baghdad have ticked up slightly to 131 in January from 129 in December—and the last week of January is not included in these latest figures. Countrywide, there was an increase in IED explosions to 2,291 in December from 1,394 in November, followed by a dip to 1,270 in the first three weeks of January. But the week ending on January 25 saw seven suicide explosions Iraq-wide, the most since the week ending Dec. 21, 2007.
It is too early to conclude that the security gains of the surge are unwinding. But they’re being put under stress in a manner not seen since the so-called "Surge of Operations" began in mid-June.
St. John McCain has made his enthusiasm for The Surge the centerpiece of his argument about why he should be Grand Moff CIC. This strikes me as risky -- it's putting all his eggs in one basket, and it's not even his basket. The people holding it are the Iraqis, and if they want to ramp up their civil war, they will, and all the preznit's horses and all the preznit's men won't be able to keep them from blowing the shit out of each other. Then McCain will have egg on his face. Also there will be many, many dead people.
Also Teh Surge! ends in the summer. Right before the September-November campaign season gets going. A hell of a time to be running on War Forever, as McCain is doing.
So he's in trouble. Of course the GOP candidate was always going to be a total fucknozzle, anyhow.
(Also at Pax. If you're coming over from Wolcott, please also check out Pax!)
I've been saying for some time that I'm deeply unimpressed with McCain's chances against any Democrat. If it turns out to be Obama, you can especially stick a fork in him.
Posted by: Me | January 31, 2008 at 12:26 PM
McCain, rationally, bet that Bush was going to listen to his daddy's minders back in fall 2006. Remember that worthless Iraq Study Group? McCain made a safe bet: Bush was going to back down in Iraq and start getting out. Thus, McCain could afford to blow hard about "staying the course" to "victory," knowing full well he'd never have to back up that talk.
Then Bush did the unthinkable: he doubled down and gave his daddy the finger. McCain was caught -- he had to keep taking the crazy militarist positions to stay to Bush's right.
And now, here he is. All invested in the Surge, nice and cozy.
Posted by: stickler | January 31, 2008 at 12:59 PM
I don't know what to think. In an McWar vs. HillCo contest does McCain's unabashed, continuous war-mongering force Hillary to finally turn down the Hawk or triangulate toward some "stay-in-Iraq" center? Jesus, exactly what % of voters have to oppose a war before out elected officials start to notice?
Posted by: tim quick | January 31, 2008 at 02:12 PM
If the violence goes back up, all McCain has to do is call for another surge. It's become the conventional wisdom among all news sources from Jim Lehrer to Brit Hume that the surge reduced violence in Iraq. Now St. McWalnuts will just say "the first surge reduced violence in Iraq, now it's time for a second one."
A lot of people, including just about every TV news personality, have a personal stake in the idea that "surge = less violence". They're not going to admit error, they're going to say the surge worked and the problem is that we ended it too soon.
Posted by: Midwest Product | January 31, 2008 at 02:37 PM
Well, MP, that sounds great. But even McCain knows that there's nothing to surge with. The Surge was a one-shot deal, a heroic stretch for the Army that would -- by necessity -- come to an end this spring.
Without a draft, there are no more surges.
Posted by: stickler | January 31, 2008 at 04:05 PM
They're not going to admit error, they're going to say the surge worked and the problem is that we ended it too soon.
Exactly. How much of this is just setting up the Dolchstoßlegende for after we lose Iraq?
Posted by: SteveB | January 31, 2008 at 05:54 PM
McC's already figured this one out - he's said that he's measuring success by the decline in AMERICAN casualties, knowing full well that most people here could give a rat's ass how many Iraqis get blowed up.
Posted by: LA Confidential Pantload | January 31, 2008 at 10:17 PM
The insurgents have McCain's balls in their hands, a consequence of his unthinking belligerence.
Posted by: bob h | February 01, 2008 at 10:35 AM
If you're coming over from Wolcott, please also check out Pax!
WTF? Another Wolcott link? You suck!
Posted by: The Kenosha Kid | February 01, 2008 at 11:02 AM
There's another FU coming, Thers.
Posted by: actor212 | February 01, 2008 at 11:57 AM
The Vietnamese sure had a long range plan with McCain. Did they come up with it alone or did they get help from the Chicoms?
Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | February 01, 2008 at 05:14 PM
If McCain is the nominee, I hope the Democrats take "We may be in Iraq for 100 years" and stick it up his wrinkled old ass sideways.
Posted by: Bitter Scribe | February 01, 2008 at 05:33 PM