Anbar Awakening successful because of local tribal leadership and American troops, but mostly American troops.
July 24th, 2008
This chicken & egg argument about the Surge vs the Anbar Awakening, and how this is a major McCain gaffe is truly bizarre. No matter how desperately the Obama camp wants to steal this issue from McCain–and no matter how screechy the Obama fanboi sounds in the MSNBC message board–it is simply not factual to say the Awakening happened without American involvement! Technically, it may have happened before the first Surge brigades set foot in Anbar, but guess what? The tribal sheiks that provided momentum in the early, dark days of the Awakening were already working with American troops.
Related posts:
I think I sidetracked you.
The meme:
The intent of this statement is to characterize the awakening as a spontaneous occurrence happening independently of American involvement, ignorant of a seminal event, the outreach to Sunnis in 2005. But more importantly it is intended to diminish the overall success of the Surge. Although you and I can easily go a little deeper than most, the argument is left open without Obama having to explain anything more than a sarcastic regret that McCain is too old to get a simple timeline straight.
The effect of this quote on debate is that our military does not get any credit for exploiting the chaotic circumstances in late 2005 by fostering the right relationships with the right sheiks and then uniting the tribes against foreign islamists.
By omission, the meme denies the military credit for the genesis of the awakening strategy. Looking back, I realize that the columnists I linked don’t.
Conason actually gets some of this right, but . . uh. . .what do you really think caused the tribes to unite quicker and fight harder in January 2006: A) some psychic ability to forsee the 2006 election results or B) getting their kids decapitated and blown apart at the market that morning?
Cole, well, I guess he figures bribes have more of a calming effect than suicide bombs, too. It’s odd that he should be so dismayed by a more expansive definition of “surge” tactics by, er, a senior Senate Armed Forces Committee member who actually participated in the long term development of the current counterinsurgency strategy.
Obama? Well, I’m just glad he thinks the troops should get some of the credit.
I’ve scanned all four of the links you provided and see no claim by any of the people you are accusing that there was “little or no American involvment” in the Anbar Awakening.
Conason makes the point that military commanders in Anbar used the impending US departure to convince tribal leaders to turn against AQ. His argument hinges on American involvement.
Juan Cole, insofar as he discusses Anbar, focuses on the chronology of events and the faulty logic of those who are attempting to expand the Surge definition at their convenience. He points to the role bribing (American involvement) played in the Awakening and that it would have happened with or without troop escalation… which is verifiably true because the bribing began prior to the troop escalation.
as for Obama…
MR. BROKAW: “And the Anbar awakening, most people believe, was successful in large part because the American troops did come in and make it possible for them to have the kind of political reconciliation…”
SEN. OBAMA: “As I said before, our troops made an enormous contribution, but to try to single out one factor in a very messy situation is just not accurate, and it doesn’t, it doesn’t take into account the larger strategic issues that have been at stake throughout this process.”
I see no denials of American involvement in the Anbar Awakening by any of the accused.
Obama for one, Joe Conason for another, and Juan Cole for yet another. According to these guys, the Sunni sheiks made this incredibly easy decision to stop fighting Americans and redirect their sights on Zarqawi’s group, with little to no American involvement. This is a false accusation intended to obfuscate debate and use McCain’s strength on the subject against him. Of course, McCain could help himself by getting the timelines right. . .
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/07/25/mccain_and_iraq/
http://www.juancole.com/2008/07/social-history-of-surge.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872804/
http://www.slate.com/id/2196068/
There would have been no Sunni Awakening without American involvement (a point which you seem to agree) The earliest significant awakenings occurred as early as summer 2005, and were the result of some level of cooperation with or influence by American action.
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1625893,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120100271_pf.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/29/world/fg-insurgency29
Who’s making the argument that the “Awakening happened without American involvement!”? Or this just another foot soldier in your army of strawmen? And how did you arrive at your “mostly American troops” conclusion with regard to the success of the Anbar Awakening? It seems to me that without American troops there is no Awakening and without tribal leadership there is no Awakening.