RSS 2.0
Finally, Someone is Saying It: “The Surge Worked”
Of course, we’ve known and been reporting this for months: the Surge worked.
When will Harry Reid eat his words? When will Nancy Pelosi praise the American military and the Iraqi people for defeating al Qaeda?
We won’t hold our breath.
The Surge Worked
By JOHN MCCAIN and JOE LIEBERMAN
January 10, 2008; Page A15It was exactly one year ago tonight, in a televised address to the nation, that President George W. Bush announced his fateful decision to change course in Iraq, and to send five additional U.S. combat brigades there as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy and under the command of a new general, David Petraeus.
At the time of its announcement, the so-called surge was met with deep skepticism by many Americans — and understandably so.
After years of mismanagement of the war, many people had grave doubts about whether success in Iraq was possible. In Congress, opposition to the surge from antiwar members was swift and severe. They insisted that Iraq was already “lost,” and that there was nothing left to do but accept our defeat and retreat.
In fact, they could not have been more wrong. And had we heeded their calls for retreat, Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran.
Instead, conditions in that country have been utterly transformed from those of a year ago, as a consequence of the surge. Whereas, a year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq was entrenched in Anbar province and Baghdad, now the forces of Islamist extremism are facing their single greatest and most humiliating defeat since the loss of Afghanistan in 2001. Thanks to the surge, the Sunni Arabs who once constituted the insurgency’s core of support in Iraq have been empowered to rise up against the suicide bombers and fanatics in their midst — prompting Osama bin Laden to call them “traitors.”As al Qaeda has been beaten back, violence across the country has dropped dramatically. The number of car bombings, sectarian murders and suicide attacks has been slashed. American casualties have also fallen sharply, decreasing in each of the past four months.These gains are thrilling but not yet permanent. Political progress has been slow. And although al Qaeda and the other extremists in Iraq have been dealt a critical blow, they will strike back at the Iraqi people and us if we give them the chance, as our generals on the ground continue to warn us.
The question we face, on the first anniversary of the surge, is no longer whether the president’s decision a year ago was the right one, or if the counterinsurgency strategy developed by Gen. Petraeus is working. It is.
The question now is where we go from here to sustain the progress we have achieved — and in particular, how soon can more of our troops come home, based on the success of the surge.
Gen. Petraeus has already announced that five “surge” brigades will be withdrawn by mid-July. The process is now underway. The Pentagon has also announced that it is conducting a series of internal reviews to examine whether and when additional troops can be withdrawn — with Gen. Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Central Command each asked to offer their own analysis. As the president awaits these recommendations, it is important for the rest of us to keep some realities in mind.
First, it is unknown whether the security gains we have achieved with the surge can be sustained — and deepened — after we have drawn down to 15 brigades. Until we know with certainty that we can keep al Qaeda on the run with 15 brigades, it would be a mistake to commit ourselves preemptively to a drawdown below that number.
As the surge should have taught us by now, troop numbers matter in Iraq. We should adjust those numbers based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders in Iraq — first and foremost, Gen. Petraeus, who above all others has proven that he knows how to steer this war to a successful outcome.
Every American should feel a debt of gratitude to Gen. Petraeus and the great American troops fighting under him for us. This gratitude is due not simply for the extraordinary progress they have accomplished in Iraq, but for what they have taught us about ourselves.
If the mismanagement of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2006 exposed our government’s capacity for incompetence, Gen. Petraeus’ leadership this past year, and the conduct of the troops under his command, have reminded us of our capacity for the wisdom, the courage and the leadership that has always rallied our nation to greatness.
As Americans, we have repeatedly done what others said was impossible. Gen. Petraeus and his troops are doing that again in Iraq today.
The war for Iraq is not over. The gains we have made can be lost. But thanks to the courage of our troops, the skill and intellect of their battlefield commander, and the steadfastness of our commander in chief, we have at last begun to see the contours of what must remain our objective in this long, hard and absolutely necessary war — victory.
pwk110
January 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The Surge has not worked, it IS working. There is still a long road ahead. Thankfully we have President who does what is right and not what is poltically expedient like the prior administartion.
Thankfully we have a military that is second to none.
Archie
January 10th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I am waiting to see the Dem’s response. Especially that of HRC and Mr. Obama. They will have to rebut and deny, their base will revolt if they don’t! Should take them about 24 hours . . .
Low Hanging Missles
January 10th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
McCain and Lieberman are not so much wrong as beside the point.
Troop numbers do matter. The successes of the past 6 months, however, are due less to numbers than the critical decision to work with members of the Iraqi resistance against AQI. Why do McCain and Lieberman fail to acknowledge this decision, the diplomatic overtures of Maliki to Iran, the sectarian cleansing of Baghdad, Al Sadr’s restraint, or the British draw-back in Basra based on the realization that their presence was attracting the greatest proportion of attacks?
The answer I suggest is simply that McCain and Lieberman believe that American military power, rather than Iraqi political decisions, are responsible for the current (fragile) trends. We’ve finally got the right strategy and the right commanders; all we need do is stay the course.
They couldn’t be more wrong. The present course will eventually lead to a blow-up. Armed-up Sunni militias will return to resistance and insurgency unless Iraqis, with American prodding and assistance, come up with a political path to a viable future. Part of the path has to be the end of the occupation - not a complete withdrawal of US forces, but a redifinition of the mission such that we are no longer responsible for policing Iraq. Crocker and Petraeus are our best and they’re doing their damnedest, but Iraqis are barely responding.
In McCain and Lieberman’s OpEd, one word in particular stands out as dangerous: “victory”. They do not define victory, which leaves us open to the kind of mission creep that foredooms our efforts. Some kinds of victory we have achieved: We overthrew the Saddam regime. Other kinds of victory are impossible: the conversion of Iraq into a liberal Western nation-state with free markets, allied with the US against Iran.
Our current mission in Iraq is unsustainable. These senators fail to acknowledge this, or to tell us how they would adapt it as the situation evolves. They would rather throw a little red meat to the dogs, and in pursuit of an unqualified victory, guarantee failure.
Low Hanging Missles
January 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
David Kilcullen
BBC Radio 4’s Analysis: David Kilcullen will be broadcast on Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 20:30 and repeated on Sunday 4 November at 21.30 GMT
In a frank and outspoken interview, David Kilcullen, who has just become policy advisor to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, outlines his view of the conflict in Iraq and the future of the struggle with militant jihadism.
He tells the BBC’s security correspondent Frank Gardner that the coalition is achieving success by a radical change in its tactics in Iraq.
It must find and cultivate local partners and demonstrate to them that their interests are best served by allying themselves with the US-led coalition.
Dr. Kilcullen says this has led to a “tribal revolt,” starting in Al-Anbar province, in which local tribal leaders have turned against Al-Qaeda. This change has now spread to half the provinces in Iraq.
The US must continue to engage in “kinetic warfare” - which he defines as “killing the enemy and breaking their stuff” - in order to demonstrate to the Iraqi population that it has the upper hand.
However, this is not a war that will quickly be won. Dr Kilcullen predicts that quashing the insurgency in Iraq will take between 11 and 15 years.
He concedes that his strategy means that the coalition effectively has to abandon its original ideals of creating a Western-style secular democracy in Iraq.
David Kilcullen has an unusual background for a US military strategist.
He is an Australian reserve officer with a Phd in anthropology. He served as chief advisor on counterinsurgency to General David Petraeus, who heads the US forces in Iraq, and has just been appointed as policy advisor to Dr. Rice.
On a wider level, he says that the West is losing in the wider conflict with militant jihadists - especially when it comes to the war of information.
He says he learned from watching the Taliban that their military operations function primarily as opportunities for propaganda, and that the West has been failing to respond to this strategy.
Dr. Kilcullen predicts that there will be three future flashpoints in what he calls “the long war” against insurgents.
Pakistan is the most likely territory, followed by Bangladesh and Europe.
Dutchman
January 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
What you really mean is one year ago bush fired the political general and put f fighting man in his place. America always tkes its time to find fighting men to lead its troops, at great cost to the men. the only exception is WW1 when Wilson sent Gen. pershing to Europe over the heads of a lot of senior generals because pershing showed in Mexico he knew how to kick butt. It proves that just because you have a high title, like general, professor, or maybe Senator from Illinois or NY, does not mean you know jack about the job.
Steve C
January 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
This article is self serving propoganda! What were the measures of success going into the surge? Where are those measures now? The benchmarks have not been met. Don’t get me wrong -I am grateful for our dedicated troups doing the right things for the wrong reasons. Get out now! Stop bankrupting our country nation building! Go Ron Paul!
William M
January 10th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Our 21st century “victory” is defined as an unfunded trillion dollars spent by our govt with results of a more powerful Iran, incipient civil war to occur as soon as we exit, 4000 American and more than 100000 Iraqi deaths, and an unrealized hope of more Middle East oil- only a civilization in decline could celebrate such a pretentious lie.
Low Hanging Missles
January 10th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Those who favor military “solutions” will always be able to find reasons to keep our troops on the ground; their opponents will always be able to find reasons to withdraw.
The rest of us have a harder task than simply cheering narratives of success or failure - discerning whether the mission is the best way of pursuing our national interests, whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
“The surge worked” - great. What did it accomplish? How do those accomplishments further our strategy? What is our strategy? (Ricks and DeYoung’s WaPo article suggests it is now “let the Iraqis do it their own way.” How much support should we be giving the Iraqis to do it their own way?) What national interests does the strategy serve?