Geographer John Agnew and his UCLA colleagues have used satellite images of light emissions to track the effectiveness of the so-called “surge.” (h/t: Alison Kemper) Their conclusion: the surge has not worked to restore stability.
Night light in neighborhoods populated primarily by embattled Sunni residents declined dramatically just before the February 2007 surge and never returned, suggesting that ethnic cleansing by rival Shiites may have been largely responsible for the decrease in violence for which the U.S. military has claimed credit, the team reports in a new study based on publicly available satellite imagery … The night-light signature in four other large Iraqi cities — Kirkuk, Mosul, Tikrit and Karbala — held steady or increased between the spring of 2006 and the winter of 2007, the UCLA team found. None of these cities were targets of the surge.
Baghdad’s decreases were centered in the southwestern Sunni strongholds of East and West Rashid, where the light signature dropped 57 percent and 80 percent, respectively, during the same period. By contrast, the night-light signature in the notoriously impoverished, Shiite-dominated Sadr City remained constant, as it did in the American-dominated Green Zone. Light actually increased in Shiite-dominated New Baghdad, the researchers found. Until just before the surge, the night-light signature of Baghdad had been steadily increasing overall …
The full study is here.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I do find it quite amusing that every website/blog I frequent that is the least bit left-of-center is featuring this study. And about 10% of them have included any of the many previous articles on the surge and the remarkable successes it has *AT THE VERY LEAST* accompanied.
Of course, I understand the tendency to get excited over any study that might let the “leave-iraq-last-year” crowd save some face after this:
Harry Reid April 2007: “I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”
Obama has since said: “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.”
Of course, some people did anticipate the surge, which was a part of a larger new counterinsurgency strategy designed by Gen. Petraeus and company, would help bring about positive change.
Let us recall that one year ago the question was a) stay in iraq, 2) add troops to Iraq, 3) leave Iraq.
There have been incredible gains in the past year that should be celebrated after an absolutely disastrous first few years of the war. Instead, many on the left would rather question whether it was the additional 30,000 troops that led to the gains.
Of course, these same folks wanted to leave a year ago, but shhhh! Let’s just look at the pretty picture!
(And before anyone gets too excited, this is coming from a Gore/Kerry/Obama voter who didn’t want to go to Iraq in the first place, but realizes that simply leaving so we can forget about it sooner isn’t necessarily the right answer)
September 21st, 2008 at 11:53 pm
This is an interesting study.
Yet, focusing on the surge distracts from that which is hardly done anymore: making an argument against the war, and our continued involvement, on principle. As in, it is morally wrong to be there, so we should leave. Or, at the very least, we should do exactly what the Iraqi people want us to do. If they say “leave now”, we should do that. If they say “stay, pay us reparations, rebuild our country and then get out”, we should do that. The point being, we should not assume that it is – or should be – up to us to decide what to do in somebody else’s country. What right do we have to be there in the 1st place?
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
How can we continue to support people who don’t want to be helped? Their government is as lazy as ours! They adjourn for 2-3 months at a time. Could you imagine if our Founding Fathers had stopped to take breaks during the formation of our country? Their heads were worth money, yet they still met under the worst conditions to form this great Union. I for one, cannot support another government that doesn’t work. This one is bad enough!
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
[...] interesting program evaluation (HT) addthis_pub = ‘meatyreads’; addthis_brand = [...]
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Publlius – Quick correction. I absolutely did NOT post this out of some political or ideological bias. I posted it for one reason: to show how geographers are making innovative use of night-time light emission data. My team also uses light-emission data to determine regional economic levels form metro and mega-regions globally.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Richard, I appreciate the explanation. Now that you mention it, since reading your book I’ve actually been looking for high-res captures of light emissions graphics in your book (I’ve since lent it out, I seem to remember a source somewhere in the book).
Would you be able to guide me to online versions?
Also, any advice on locating maps that visualize the cost and/or speed of transportation between global locations as distance?
I like your idea of mega-regions, and believe you could find some powerful data by calculating cost/speed to cities (weighting the cities based on their production or income).
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
They should be at whosyourcity.com or atcreativeclass.com via the link for Who’s Your City.