Was the surge a success?

Since the main rationale for the surge in Afghanistan is the putative success of the surge in Iraq, Diana West, a consistent critic of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, has begun a series of columns examining whether the Iraq surge was indeed successful. While she acknowledges that the first objective of the Iraq surge, to reduce violence and make normal life possible, was successful (or, as I and I think she would add, temporarily successful), she says that the second and larger objective of the surge, to bring about a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions and make Iraq an ally of the U.S., has been a complete bust.

In her first column in the series, West shows that, far from American companies profiting from America’s Iraq involvement, as the left (and the anti-war right) in their mindless hatred had always charged was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq (or, as the misnamed The American Conservative cutely summed up Bush’s and the neocons’ motivations, “Israel and oil”), U.S. companies are being systematically shut out of Iraqi investment opportunities in favor of Russia and China. She writes:

Remember “blood for oil,” the anti-war mantra of the Left? “Blood not for oil” is more like it. Not only did Paul Wolfowitz’s prediction that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction with oil revenue never come true; not only did the United States never get to fill up one crummy Humvee for free; but when Iraq staged one of the biggest oil auctions in history last week, U.S. companies left empty-handed. Russia, China and Europe came out the big winners.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 19, 2009 01:19 PM | Send