The Surge
Mistakes have been made, and I'm glad that Bush has finally admitted that. In the planning and execution of Iraq, some things have gone wrong. That is not debatable. We were right in going into Iraq in the first place. That shouldn't be debatable. But no matter what one might think of Iraq, we are firmly committed now, and need to finish the job. Simply adding more troops will not solve the problem. However, changing strategy, which is what the administration is finally doing, just might get Iraq back on track. These added troops will be deployed in Baghdad, and along with the Iraqi troops, will hopefully secure the city. Changing the rules of engagement (ROE) will also help, and it sounds like that is finally going to happen also. Letting the troops do what they have been trained to do is a good thing. Yet it is going to take more than simply a military solution. The west is at war, as I keep saying and as people (especially politicians) keep forgetting. 9/11 was not the opening salvo in this conflict, but it was the event that finally woke the sleeping giant. We are at war with Islamic extremists who pervert their religion in order to justify murder, oppression, and destruction. Why do people not get this? How hard is it to see? Or do people intentionally ignore the enemy, in hopes that the problem will somehow disappear on it's own? Or maybe, like some Democrats, they only use the war for political gain, not caring about winning. Whatever that case may be, it will take determination, guts, political action, military action, and international cooperation. I hope we win, because we need to. Unfortunately, I fear that until Americans accept the fact that we are at war, we will continue to fight in a half-ass manner. Pussyfooting around will get us nowhere, and neither will appeasement. We need to step up, and that is what Bush is finally attempting to do. The question is, will Democrats follow suit, or will they continue to be weak and scared?
Linkage galore below the cut, I included both pro and anti-surge commentary.
CQ looks at Maliki’s response to Bush’s speech:
Bush and his team let it be known that the plan either came from Maliki or had his blessings during the leakfest that preceded last night's speech. The Maliki government could have left Bush twisting in the wind, but did not. That strongly indicates that they have an interest in getting more help to end the sectarian violence that has racked their capital.
Mohammed at Iraq the Model has a firsthand report from Baghdad:
From the above and from more that we heard we could see that there are different opinions even among members of a single bloc but I also see that a majority supports the new strategy while opposition is coming from extremists who realize that they will be the next target for the government and allied forces.
The Blackfive community weighs in, including Uncle Jimbo:
Previously we would clear an area of bad guys, turn it over to Iraqi forces and police and then head back to our bases. It has proven clear that the Iraqis cannot yet secure these areas after we leave. The change we are making now is to stay in these neighborhoods and well......hang out. Having US and Iraqi forces living in the neighborhoods would safeguard the civilians from militias and give them confidence that they can live reasonably normal lives.
B5 also provides a link to a great Jules Crittenden article.
In From the Cold looks at the supposed riff between Bush and some generals:
Which brings us to the purported rift between the Commander (and Politician)-in-Chief, Mr. Bush, and his senior military leaders. If you believe the WaPo, most of our military leaders are not in favor of this plan, realizing that it will put a further strain on our armed forces--particularly the Army and Marines--and result in more casualties. But that picture is more than a bit inaccurate. There are a number of senior officers who have favored a troop surge, and a more aggressive approach to the War in Iraq. ------
and also looks at the redeployment of Patriot batteries:
The U.S. seems concerned that our military build-up--or a preemptive Israeli strike--could trigger a backlash from Iran, prompting missile attacks against our allies in the region (air strikes are a much lesser threat, given the limited capabilities of the Iranian Air Force). Deploying Patriot batterys now would illustrate U.S. resolve, while providing a missile defense capability in areas that are currently unprotected.
Tigerhawk asks, “What’s the downside of the surge?”:
If the new plan demonstrably fails over the next six months or so, we can always then retreat. We will have lost very little. Unless I'm missing something, the worst the surge can do is cost a few incremental casualties and some additional money, in both cases a small addition to the sunk costs. Neither is the surge likely to make things much worse from Iraq's perspective. According to the anti-surge side of the argument, Iraq is already a humanitarian disaster, and nobody credible is really arguing that it will become less so after the United States withdraws. So again, why not try?
Giuliani and Gingrich write:
The American mission in Iraq must succeed. Our goal--promoting a stable, accountable democracy in the heart of the Middle East--cannot be achieved by purely military means.
Iraqis need to establish a civil society. Without the support of mediating civic and social associations--the informal ties that bind us together--no government can long remain stable, and no cohesive nation can be maintained. To establish a civil society, Iraqis must rebuild their basic infrastructure. Iraqis must take control of their destiny by rebuilding houses, stores, schools, roads, highways, mosques and churches.
Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt’s site has a surge FAQ:
The surge strength number comes from Dave Petraeus’ estimate of what will be necessary to win Baghdad. Petraeus is breaking Baghdad into nine neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will get a contingent of 2500 Iraqi soldiers (probably ones trained by Petraeus) supported by 600 American troops. This number, the plan figures, will be sufficient to clear the neighborhoods and then hold them. In previous encounters, we would clear and retreat. This is a very significant difference. The total surge into Baghdad, counting Iraqi troops, will be well over 40,000.
A discussion at Instapundit:
As Barnett notes, though, this is not merely an increase in troops but also, and more importantly, a change in tactics. Will it be enough? I don't know. I have to say, though, that it's been amusing to see the same people who were recently demanding that Bush send more troops suddenly reverse and criticize him for . . . sending more troops. The question of troop numbers is one where reasonable people can and do differ, but that doesn't mean that lame political oppositionalism isn't recognizable as such.
As always, Victor Davis Hanson has much to say:
But why believe that this latest gamble will work? First, things are by agreement coming to a head: this new strategy will work, or, given the current politics, nothing will. Second, the Iraqis in government know this time Sadr City and Baghdad are to be secured, or it is to be “see ya, wouldn’t want to be ya,” and they will be on planes to Dearborn. Finally, note the pathetic Democratic reply by Sen. Durbin, last in the public eye for his libel of American troops (as analogous to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others”). There was no response. ----
and here:
Instead only a four-pronged fundamental approach, much of which we are presently engaged in, will ultimately work: kill jihadists whether in Somalia or Anbar or the Hindu Kush; promote consensual government and market economies that so drive the jihadists crazy and offer a chance that some day the Middle East will achieve parity with other regions-and thus cease blaming the West for its self-induced failures; work with regional governments, whether the newly established Afghans or Iraqis, or the Ethiopians or the Jordanians or the Israelis to fight the jihadists; and collapse the world oil market though conservation, more exploration, alternative fuels, and nuclear power. 20 -dollar-a-barrel oil will take immediately nearly $500 billion a year out of the coffers of Middle East exporters-and with that loss, floating petrodollars for weapons and terrorists.
Ace has this to say:
Want to talk cowardice? Want to talk chickenhawk?
The Democrats are now actually trading American lives for votes.
And, on the other side, Sen. Coleman’s speech against the surge:
A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It will put more American soldiers in the cross hairs of sectarian violence, create more targets. I just don't believe that makes sense, Mr. President. Again, I oppose the troop surge in Baghdad because I don't believe it is a path to victory or a strategy to victory in Iraq.
Finally, how can I forget Kos?
I can't take anyone bellowing crap like "decisive ideological struggle of our time" seriously when they refuse to call for the sort of national sacrifice that a real "decisive ideological struggle of our time" would demand.
If Bush and his pals truly believe the fate of Western civilization hangs in the balance, they should show they mean it. Mobilize the country. Call for a draft.
If they don't -- and it's clear that "more troops equals victory" is the current solution to everything -- then they're revealed as cynical con men more interested in passing the buck to the next president than in any real "struggle" over anything more than Bush's pride.
Linkage galore below the cut, I included both pro and anti-surge commentary.
CQ looks at Maliki’s response to Bush’s speech:
Bush and his team let it be known that the plan either came from Maliki or had his blessings during the leakfest that preceded last night's speech. The Maliki government could have left Bush twisting in the wind, but did not. That strongly indicates that they have an interest in getting more help to end the sectarian violence that has racked their capital.
Mohammed at Iraq the Model has a firsthand report from Baghdad:
From the above and from more that we heard we could see that there are different opinions even among members of a single bloc but I also see that a majority supports the new strategy while opposition is coming from extremists who realize that they will be the next target for the government and allied forces.
The Blackfive community weighs in, including Uncle Jimbo:
Previously we would clear an area of bad guys, turn it over to Iraqi forces and police and then head back to our bases. It has proven clear that the Iraqis cannot yet secure these areas after we leave. The change we are making now is to stay in these neighborhoods and well......hang out. Having US and Iraqi forces living in the neighborhoods would safeguard the civilians from militias and give them confidence that they can live reasonably normal lives.
B5 also provides a link to a great Jules Crittenden article.
In From the Cold looks at the supposed riff between Bush and some generals:
Which brings us to the purported rift between the Commander (and Politician)-in-Chief, Mr. Bush, and his senior military leaders. If you believe the WaPo, most of our military leaders are not in favor of this plan, realizing that it will put a further strain on our armed forces--particularly the Army and Marines--and result in more casualties. But that picture is more than a bit inaccurate. There are a number of senior officers who have favored a troop surge, and a more aggressive approach to the War in Iraq. ------
and also looks at the redeployment of Patriot batteries:
The U.S. seems concerned that our military build-up--or a preemptive Israeli strike--could trigger a backlash from Iran, prompting missile attacks against our allies in the region (air strikes are a much lesser threat, given the limited capabilities of the Iranian Air Force). Deploying Patriot batterys now would illustrate U.S. resolve, while providing a missile defense capability in areas that are currently unprotected.
Tigerhawk asks, “What’s the downside of the surge?”:
If the new plan demonstrably fails over the next six months or so, we can always then retreat. We will have lost very little. Unless I'm missing something, the worst the surge can do is cost a few incremental casualties and some additional money, in both cases a small addition to the sunk costs. Neither is the surge likely to make things much worse from Iraq's perspective. According to the anti-surge side of the argument, Iraq is already a humanitarian disaster, and nobody credible is really arguing that it will become less so after the United States withdraws. So again, why not try?
Giuliani and Gingrich write:
The American mission in Iraq must succeed. Our goal--promoting a stable, accountable democracy in the heart of the Middle East--cannot be achieved by purely military means.
Iraqis need to establish a civil society. Without the support of mediating civic and social associations--the informal ties that bind us together--no government can long remain stable, and no cohesive nation can be maintained. To establish a civil society, Iraqis must rebuild their basic infrastructure. Iraqis must take control of their destiny by rebuilding houses, stores, schools, roads, highways, mosques and churches.
Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt’s site has a surge FAQ:
The surge strength number comes from Dave Petraeus’ estimate of what will be necessary to win Baghdad. Petraeus is breaking Baghdad into nine neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will get a contingent of 2500 Iraqi soldiers (probably ones trained by Petraeus) supported by 600 American troops. This number, the plan figures, will be sufficient to clear the neighborhoods and then hold them. In previous encounters, we would clear and retreat. This is a very significant difference. The total surge into Baghdad, counting Iraqi troops, will be well over 40,000.
A discussion at Instapundit:
As Barnett notes, though, this is not merely an increase in troops but also, and more importantly, a change in tactics. Will it be enough? I don't know. I have to say, though, that it's been amusing to see the same people who were recently demanding that Bush send more troops suddenly reverse and criticize him for . . . sending more troops. The question of troop numbers is one where reasonable people can and do differ, but that doesn't mean that lame political oppositionalism isn't recognizable as such.
As always, Victor Davis Hanson has much to say:
But why believe that this latest gamble will work? First, things are by agreement coming to a head: this new strategy will work, or, given the current politics, nothing will. Second, the Iraqis in government know this time Sadr City and Baghdad are to be secured, or it is to be “see ya, wouldn’t want to be ya,” and they will be on planes to Dearborn. Finally, note the pathetic Democratic reply by Sen. Durbin, last in the public eye for his libel of American troops (as analogous to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others”). There was no response. ----
and here:
Instead only a four-pronged fundamental approach, much of which we are presently engaged in, will ultimately work: kill jihadists whether in Somalia or Anbar or the Hindu Kush; promote consensual government and market economies that so drive the jihadists crazy and offer a chance that some day the Middle East will achieve parity with other regions-and thus cease blaming the West for its self-induced failures; work with regional governments, whether the newly established Afghans or Iraqis, or the Ethiopians or the Jordanians or the Israelis to fight the jihadists; and collapse the world oil market though conservation, more exploration, alternative fuels, and nuclear power. 20 -dollar-a-barrel oil will take immediately nearly $500 billion a year out of the coffers of Middle East exporters-and with that loss, floating petrodollars for weapons and terrorists.
Ace has this to say:
Want to talk cowardice? Want to talk chickenhawk?
The Democrats are now actually trading American lives for votes.
And, on the other side, Sen. Coleman’s speech against the surge:
A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It will put more American soldiers in the cross hairs of sectarian violence, create more targets. I just don't believe that makes sense, Mr. President. Again, I oppose the troop surge in Baghdad because I don't believe it is a path to victory or a strategy to victory in Iraq.
Finally, how can I forget Kos?
I can't take anyone bellowing crap like "decisive ideological struggle of our time" seriously when they refuse to call for the sort of national sacrifice that a real "decisive ideological struggle of our time" would demand.
If Bush and his pals truly believe the fate of Western civilization hangs in the balance, they should show they mean it. Mobilize the country. Call for a draft.
If they don't -- and it's clear that "more troops equals victory" is the current solution to everything -- then they're revealed as cynical con men more interested in passing the buck to the next president than in any real "struggle" over anything more than Bush's pride.