How Important Was the Surge?

Dylan Matthews and Ezra Klein of The American Prospect compile answers to this question from a panel of ten experts on Iraq from all over the political spectrum. Though there is some variance in importance given to factors among members of the panel, a loose consensus appears to conclude that the following elements worked in a synergistic manner to reduce violence in Iraq.

* The "surge" of an additional 30,000 US troops beginning in the spring of 2007 and primarily deployed to Baghdad and vicinity.

* The "Anbar Awakening" composed of former Sunni insurgents turning against al-Qaeda in western Iraq in the fall of 2006 and accepting payment, arms and training from the US to fight and provide intelligence on AQI.

* The cease-fire called by Moqtada al-Sadr in August 2007 that stood down his Mahdi militia that had been responsible for 60% of attacks on US troops in 2006.

* The change in tactics by US troops to a counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy emphasizing protecting and developing relationships with civilian Iraqis.

* Displacement of large numbers of Sunni Iraqis from mixed Baghdad neighborhoods by 2007 ("a polite way to say a sectarian cleansing campaign" according to one panelist, Baghdad moving from a 65% to a 75% Shiite city according to another). This created separate sectarian enclaves that US troops were then able to wall off with concrete barriers to keep rival groups away from one another.

Multiple panel members noted the "fragile" nature of these security gains. Reasons given include the failure of the Iraqi government to incorporate Sunnis from the "Anbar Awakening" into the national security forces as promised and the possibility that Moqtada al-Sadr might suspend his Mahdi Army ceasefire now that the "surge" has ended. Several panelists also noted that progress toward political reconciliation given as the original purpose for the surge has lagged behind improvements in security.