Saturday, November 24, 2007

On the Surge in Iraq

Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, and even the libs in the MSM continue to spin the fiction that the "surge" is working. While it is true that safety has returned to parts of Baghdad, such tactical success in no way implies that strategic objectives are being met. Read this analysis from

But however great, small or in between you care to measure the military performance of late in Iraq, the surge's successes have been at the tactical level, and we're long past the point in this war where tactical victories can be touted as signs of strategic progress. The surge's stated aim was to provide breathing space for Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki's unity government to get its act together, and there's no sign of that happening. As Thomas E. Ricks of the Washington Post wrote recently, "Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq." Even Kimberly Kagan confesses that "Whether the political developments that were always the ultimate objective of the surge can be brought to fruition remains to be seen."


Blogger Donald Douglas said...

The surge is working. But it's not good to count your chickens before the eggs are hatched. Remember "mission accomplished?"

You're on the wrong side of things if you're intent to keep making this argument.

6:39 PM  
Blogger Darrell said...

Mr. Douglas--I hope that you're right, but I'm certain that you are not.

Again, on a tactical level, there may be some success. But just this morning my local paper had a report, probably from the NY Times, that the administration is simply going to scale back political objectives. If the intent is to declare victory and go home, I'm all for it.

But warfare is the extension of politics, and we are not, and will not meet our political objectives.

Our problem is and remains a stateless movement of Islamists, that is best counterbalanced by having states in place to challenge them.

I would suggest you read--always--the analysis of William Lind.

8:08 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home