The Surge in Iraq
Is the
“surge” in Iraq
working? And, is that really what
we should be arguing about at this point?
The preponderance of those who are asserting that the
“surge” has already failed before the additional troops even
reached their assigned positions in Iraq are disingenuous at best, naïve
at worst.
How anyone
can declare that a particular military strategy or tactic has failed before it
has even been fully launched is beyond understanding. Perhaps those who are so
quick to declare defeat know something the rest of us don’t, which suggests
that the issue of the “surge” is merely being used to influence
public opinion for political purposes.
But, the
argument over whether the “surge” has already failed is about more
than sending some additional troops to Iraq. It’s also part of the larger issue
of what our overall strategy in Iraq
should be.
A New Strategy in Iraq
We keep
hearing that a “new strategy” is needed in Iraq. But, aside from the usual political
posturing, no one has adequately explained what that should be. Meanwhile, the
list of those who are calling for a new strategy is growing and now includes a
number of adherents from the Right, such as Senators Pete Domenici (R-NM),
Richard Lugar (R-IL) and George Voinovich (R-OH).
But,
politics aside, I believe the problem is that most people have no idea what is
meant by a “new strategy,” other than that we should just pull out.
The differences between the parties and their various factions on this issue
seem to boil down to nuances that focus primarily on when and how fast we
should bring our troops home.
It’s become something of a race to the rear.
The “Surge”
So, just
what is the “surge” supposed to accomplish and whose idea was it? Lorie Byrd tells us that increasing the
number of troops in Iraq
is just part of a larger counter-offensive that was requested by General Petraeus and that it “was one of many
components…or ‘strategic shifts’ … necessary to
implement the sweeping new strategy…” She adds, “Too many Americans
believe (because they have been misled
to believe) – emphasis mine –
that the surge is simply a matter of throwing more troops into a losing effort
to make the same mistakes over and over again, rather than a completely new
strategy that is already yielding some progress.” (Townhall.com, July 13, 2007)
Charles
Krauthammer recently noted (Townhall.com,
July 13, 2007), “Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what
works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence
report declared Anbar province (which comprises about
a third of Iraq’s
territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now,
in what the Times’ John Burns calls an ‘astonishing success,’
the tribal sheiks have been joining our side and committed large numbers of fighters
that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out
al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi
into one of the most secure cities in Iraq…The same has started happening
in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala
province – just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar….”
Pulling Out of Iraq
Pulling
out prematurely could well be a formula for disaster, the likes of which might
be far worse than most people realize, especially those political leaders who are
leading the charge to the rear. Retreats have a way of turning into routs that
often result in major casualties.
Warring factions rarely spare the enemy when they are retreating, so the
trick is really how to stage an orderly withdrawal and protect our troops in
the process. Furthermore, we also need to find some way of preventing Iraq from
degenerating further into mass chaos, violence and destruction.
Military Goals in Iraq
Trudy
Rubin, a syndicated columnist with the Philadelphia
Inquirer, who has visited Iraq
and the Middle East on a number of occasions,
recently commented in the Sacramento Bee
on the situation over there:
- “U.S. military forces in Iraq are pursuing far more pragmatic goals
that the public needs to be aware of….What is the military now
trying to achieve in Iraq?
Even the White House agrees
there is no purely military solution to the Iraq mess.”
- “The push for
reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite factions has long been a basic
premise of Bush policy….So the Bush team, and Democratic legislators
have set out benchmarks for Iraqi political leaders to meet….Well,
here’s the bad news.
Forget about reconciliation.”
- “….it is useless
to base U.S.
policy on of national reconciliation under Maliki. The benchmarks won’t be
met. U.S.
military commanders understand this.”
- “….So what are the
U.S.
military’s actual goals in the coming months? Military commanders say they
believe there will be a sizable drawdown of U.S. troops in 2008, not just
because of domestic political pressures but because the army is severely
overextended.”
- “But the
military’s aim is to create a sufficiently stable security situation
so that a drawdown would not cause a rout as U.S.
forces are reduced, or precipitate a worse calamity inside Iraq and
in the region.”
- “Toward this end, the
goals are as follows: Prevent the establishment of any al-Qaida safe havens in Iraq;
prevent the worsening of Iraq’s
civil war, or a spillover of the Shiite-Sunni power struggle into the Mideast region; Ensure that oil continues to flow.”
- “The military’s
premise is that, if al-Qaida is badly damaged,
Iraqis themselves can better cope with the ongoing internal struggle for
power. The main goal –
before a U.S. troop drawdown – is to lower the chances that Iraq
will become a failed state, where terrorists train….This strategy is
far more realistic than much of the discussion in Washington. It speaks to
many of the concerns of those who fear that Americans are trapped in Iraq with
no hope of an exit. I believe
it deserves a chance.”
- “Meanwhile, if Washington polls
adopted the practical approach of the military, they might find a
bipartisan strategy they could agree on.”
- “The time for fantasies
is past. The goal now must be
to prevent the chaos from becoming much worse.”
Conclusions
In my view,
the situation as it is currently being played out in the daily news is more
about politics than winning or losing the fight in Iraq. Politicians, along with the
media, started complaining that the “surge” had already failed
before all the additional troops had even arrived overseas. They may be playing politics or actually
believe we have already lost before our own commanders in the field, especially
General Petraeus, have had time to fully implement
their strategy and report back to the President and the Congress in September. They
are so anxious to score political points that they are unwilling to wait even 90
days to hear the General’s report.
The
dispute between Congress and the President is also about who is in charge, or
should be, during times of war, whether Congress or the President (in his
capacity as Commander-in-Chief), together with the Military, should determine
and direct war-time strategy.
I wonder
what the American public will think if we pull out prematurely and Iraq
disintegrates further into mass killings and destruction. Just how comfortable
will we in this country be if we are once again forced to witness horrors like
Vietnam, Cambodia and Rwanda, or Darfur, where many Americans are urging the
U.S. to intervene and stop what is clearly the attempted genocide that has been
taking place there? If they want to intervene in Africa now, what might they
say about Iraq
later? That we should go back in?
©
2007 Haris R. Sherline, All
Rights Reserved
