The Anti-Surge, The Surge, and Results
Via Think Progress, an article in the International Herald Tribune:
Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.
The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad’s Green Zone.
“We thought, ‘If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?'” Binns said.
Britain’s 5,000 troops moved out of a former Saddam Hussein palace at Basra’s heart in early September, setting up a garrison at an airport on the city’s edge. Since that pullback, there’s been a “remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks,” Binns said.
I don’t know what percentage of violence against civilians has disappeared, take a look at Binns’ question again.
If there is more of a reduction in violence where the opposite of the Surge has happened than where the Surge has taken place, what does that say about the effectiveness of the Surge?
And if its not the Surge, what has caused the drop in violence?