The Surge

I am frankly mystified at the endless palaver concerning the surge which according to my recollections was an infusion of some 25,000 additional troops into Iraq last year. Such a decision was not a change in tactics nor certainly not a new strategy yet it is currently a subject of political debate as if such a decision was a stroke of military genius as to warrant a complete rewrite of the curriculum at West Point.

Surely using more soldiers to do more of the same thing with more emphasis had some foreseeable consequences, but the current crowing about it at least baffling.

Whether the “surge” was a late blooming recognition of the correctness of General Shinshecki’s opinion that our forces were greatly undermanned from the beginning, and the root cause of why things had gone badly for so long, or an inspired decision to provide a push to improve our military posture and at the same time motivate the Iraqis to move toward a reconciliation of their differences is largely academic. The latest spin on this issue is to characterize any suggestion that the surge was anything less than brilliant is to disparage the sacrifice of our troops and is fundamentally unpatriotic. What a cheap way to avoid analysis and criticism.

The Iraqis will solve their political differences at their own speed, irrespective of the numbers of American troops present. The big issue for the Americans to come to grips with is whether we will control conditions on the ground or let circumstances dictate our posture. It seems clear that decisive leadership compels the former.