We aren't hearing much about the fact that the security situation in Iraq is much improved. Conservatives will tell you that this is because of a liberal bias in the media. The real reason is that in news, conflict sells. No conflict, no story. You know the old adage "if it bleeds, it leads" that the news business is famous for.
So what does the security situation improvement tell us?
First, it proves that we didn't send in enough troops to begin with. Some may remember when the general who said it would take more troops to occupy Iraq was later forced out of his job. Well, the surge clearly shows that more troops have had a good effect. I would have liked to see president bush travel around the world on bended knee asking every major power for troops to help a real coalition.
Second, it proves that there was incompetence at the top. For years after the invasion, rumsfeld, bush, and generals talked about the "insurgency". However, they were not using counter-insurgency tactics. As a strictly amateur military history buff, I remember thinking this odd. The "bunker, green zone" mentality with surgical operations into Baghdad struck me as a new version of "search and destroy" (as the vietnam war era tactic was known). I guess if you don't have enough troops to "clear and hold" then you are forced into using search and destroy. I have a copy of the book and video series Vietnam: The Ten Thousand Day War by Michael Maclear. Rewatching the series recently, I was amazed at how many times I felt I could simply replace "vietnam" with "iraq" when they talked about tactics and strategy (and the failures of).
Third, the success of the surge shows us that real success in this war is not about the military. Yes, the security situation is improved, but that does not mean we are any closer to getting out of Iraq. If you look at the politics, you see that divisiveness reigns and the 3 major groups in Iraq are not much closer to reconciliation. We cannot win this war militarily. This means we need to engage Iraq's neighbors even if we don't want to. I am no fan of regimes such as Syria and Iran. But we will never leave Iraq as long as we don't have active engagement of Iraq's neighbors good and bad.
So we have a real counter-insurgency in place, we have (at least temporarily) enough troops to provide security, and the American people, while not happy with, are still supporting the policy. Now is the time to push for dramatic diplomatic and civilian efforts to improve Iraq internally.
So what does the security situation improvement tell us?
First, it proves that we didn't send in enough troops to begin with. Some may remember when the general who said it would take more troops to occupy Iraq was later forced out of his job. Well, the surge clearly shows that more troops have had a good effect. I would have liked to see president bush travel around the world on bended knee asking every major power for troops to help a real coalition.
Second, it proves that there was incompetence at the top. For years after the invasion, rumsfeld, bush, and generals talked about the "insurgency". However, they were not using counter-insurgency tactics. As a strictly amateur military history buff, I remember thinking this odd. The "bunker, green zone" mentality with surgical operations into Baghdad struck me as a new version of "search and destroy" (as the vietnam war era tactic was known). I guess if you don't have enough troops to "clear and hold" then you are forced into using search and destroy. I have a copy of the book and video series Vietnam: The Ten Thousand Day War by Michael Maclear. Rewatching the series recently, I was amazed at how many times I felt I could simply replace "vietnam" with "iraq" when they talked about tactics and strategy (and the failures of).
Third, the success of the surge shows us that real success in this war is not about the military. Yes, the security situation is improved, but that does not mean we are any closer to getting out of Iraq. If you look at the politics, you see that divisiveness reigns and the 3 major groups in Iraq are not much closer to reconciliation. We cannot win this war militarily. This means we need to engage Iraq's neighbors even if we don't want to. I am no fan of regimes such as Syria and Iran. But we will never leave Iraq as long as we don't have active engagement of Iraq's neighbors good and bad.
So we have a real counter-insurgency in place, we have (at least temporarily) enough troops to provide security, and the American people, while not happy with, are still supporting the policy. Now is the time to push for dramatic diplomatic and civilian efforts to improve Iraq internally.