Surging to Defeat
I've read a few articles over the last couple of days regarding the so-called plan to "surge" US forces in Iraq to accomplish some semblance of stability in Baghdad, which will then somehow magically transform the rest of the country into a peaceful, prosperous. pro-US utopia, after which it can began its magical effect of transforming the rest of the Middle East.
The first and probably best was by W. Patrick Lang and Ray McGovern from whom the title to this post is borrowed. Some excerpts:
A generation from now, our grandchildren will have difficulty writing history papers on this oxymoronic debate on how to surge/withdraw our troops into/from the quagmire in Iraq. Historians will have just as much trouble, especially those given to Tolstoy’s theory that history is ruled by an inexorable determinism in which the free choice of major historical figures plays a minimal role.
. . .
A “surge” of the size possible under current constraints on U.S. forces will not turn the tide in the guerrilla war. Reinforcement of Bagdad several thousand U.S. troops last summer simply brought on more violence. Those who believe still more troops will bring “victory” are living in a dangerous dream world and need to wake up.
Moreover, major reinforcement would commit the US Army and Marine Corps to decisive combat in which there are no more strategic reserves to be sent to the front. It will be a matter of win or die in the attempt. In that situation, everyone in uniform on the ground will commit every ounce of their being to a hope of “victory,” and few measures will be shrunk from.
Analogies come to mind: the Bulge, Stalingrad, the Battle of Algiers. It will be total war with all the likelihood of excesses and mass casualties that come with total war.
Fred Kaplan at Slate gave one of the most succinct summaries of the whole idea with this:
The upshot is that Kagan's surge involves more troops than the United States can readily mobilize and fewer troops than it needs for the kind of victory he has in mind.
That's it in a nutshell, particularly considering they aren't even talking about actual additional troops here. They don't have any. They'll just be sending some sooner than planned while keeping others there from going home. The US can't win with the troops they have and they can't even sustain a small increase for very long. As even Bush said, they're not winning and not losing. They're stale-mated, and Bush is hoping he can keep it that way until January 2009 when his successor can lose the war he can't win.
