Decision ‘08

Patrick Ruffini: Surge Off To A Good Start

An old friend of this blog’s, Patrick Ruffini, has got himself a column at Townhall, and his first installment looks at the surge:

A gloomy haze has settled over the nation’s prosecution of the War on Terror as of late. It seems like we can only watch helplessly as Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha size up new angles of attack for undermining the war effort. The media is chomping at the bit the tell the story of an America, bruised and humbled and exhausted, heading for the exits in Iraq.But something interesting is happening on the way to the “new direction.” Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn’t been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it’s safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.

In Iraq, there’s a sense that change is in the air — literally. Omar of Iraq the Model spots a B-1 Bomber in the skies of Baghdad for the first time since the end of the major combat. On the ground, Omar writes that the signs that Iraqis are getting serious about security are more palbable. With the help of Compstat-like technology, security forces are cracking down at checkpoints (even ambulances are getting stopped) and getting nimbler about locating them strategically so the terrorists don’t know what to expect. This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media’s near-deafening silence. If it seems like you’ve heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what’s happening. Time magazine worries that it’s “Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet.” That’s right — a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.It’s too early to claim victory just yet; the operation is just two weeks old. But U.S. troops have been able to accomplish all of this with just one more brigade in-country, with four more on the way by May. These encouraging early returns show the potential for success when we apply concentrated military force to the security problem. When the Army and Marine Corps are on offense, carrying out combat operations and clearing out insurgent strongholds, we win. When we lay back, carrying out routine patrols and playing Baghdad beat cop, we lose.

Read the rest…

UPDATE 1:40 p.m.: And yet, as so often happens in Iraq good news is soon followed by bad; another truck bomb with high fatalities, though outside of Baghdad…

8 Responses to “Patrick Ruffini: Surge Off To A Good Start”

1 jpe Says:
February 24th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Good news and bad news will happen. All that counts is if a space is opened up for the Iraqis to take over their own country within a reasonable time.
2 Paul Dirks Says:
February 24th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
It hasn’t been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%,

Of course such statments carry no meaning whatsoever unless they carry phrases like “compared to the prior month” or compared to 3 years ago. That’s why actual reporting is so difficult.
3 Mark Says:
February 24th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Good point…
4 too many steves Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 6:00 am
Just speculating here, but isn’t it possible that the insurgent’s strategy might look something like this:

1. Raise havoc by blowing people and stuff up in order to exacerbate and take advantage of declining support for the War among the US populace.

2. Lay low upon the commencement of the surge - a few biggish attacks are ok - to give the US the feeling that it is working and, besides, we can’t defeat them in a direct combat.

3. Hope that what appears to be success of the surge results in the American’s (and Iraqi government) thinking Iraq is stable and they can afford to go home.

4. Once the Americans are gone, topel the Iraqi government.

Too cute, too clever, too risky?
5 d Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Yes, I’m eager to find out what the “source” for this 70% figure might be — aside from the former webmaster for the Bush-Cheney campaign. It’s being cited all over the place, but it appears to be . . . um . . . not reliable. Not only isn’t it being “widely reported,” but it isn’t being reported AT ALL.

Other things not being reported:

(1) Bin Laden has been captured;
(2) A missile took down the twin towers;
(3) Scarlett Johansson is a man;
(4) The moon, after careful study, appears to be made of some sort of green cheese.
6 Mark Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Well, it may not be the most objective source, but the original claim that I saw was from the Iraqi defense ministry, and it said attacks in Baghdad were down 80%, not 70%…
7 Mark Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 10:19 am
too many steves, it’s quite possible (even probable) that something similar to that is happening..but the problem is infrastructure and ammunition. The insurgents and the militias both are losing a lot of weaponry and safe houses, so even if that is the plan, we’ll still come out better than before…
8 Mark Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Oh, I see Ruffini said murders down 70%, attacks down 80%, so he probably was referring to the same article from Iraq the Model, which unfortunately referenced a source in Arabic…