Kagan: The surge is working
posted at 12:19 pm on March 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not Fred Kagan, the AEI scholar who co-authored the surge strategy on which the military’s own plan is based, but Robert Kagan, author and WaPo columnist. There’s not much new here and arguments can certainly be made the other way, but it’s getting some buzz around the ’sphere and good news is always welcome. So here you go. Sample:
A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, “many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city,” the Fadhils report. “This change in mood is something huge by itself.”
On the flip side, more stuff that we already know:
The US army is lagging behind Iraq’s insurgents tactically in a war that senior officers say is the biggest challenge since Korea 50 years ago…
In Vietnam, the US was eventually defeated by a well-armed, closely directed and highly militarised society that had tanks, armoured vehicles and sources of both military production and outside procurement. What is more devastating now is that the world’s only superpower is in danger of being driven back by a few tens of thousands of lightly armed irregulars, who have developed tactics capable of destroying multimillion-dollar vehicles and aircraft…
The military is also hampered in its attempts to break up insurgent groups because of their ‘flat’ command structure within collaborative networks of small groups, making it difficult to target any hierarchy within the insurgency…
The remarks were made by senior US generals speaking at the Association of the US Army meeting at Fort Lauderdale in Florida and in conversations with The Observer. The generals view the ‘war on terror’ as the most important test of America’s soldiers in 50 years…
Other officers said coalition rules of engagement were being used against the forces fighting the insurgency. ‘They know when we can and cannot shoot, and use that against us,’ said one officer, reflecting the comments of US soldiers in the field. Another said recent video footage of an ambush on a convoy, posted on the internet, was evidence that insurgents were filming incidents to teach other groups about American counter-measures.
Update: 58 killed in attacks today, including 31 in a car bomb in Baghdad.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
What a load of tripe. The US military is in no danger of being “driven back” whatsoever. As if our forces were on the verge of being routed and preparing to retreat under the force of the enemy’s assault.
The only thing capable of “driving back” US troops in Iraq is lack of morale here at home and spineless politicians pandering to the wishes of the addled anti-war lobby.
Citizen Duck on March 11, 2007 at 12:29 PM
This is what happens when you fight a war to win philosophically instead of militarily. When we fought our way up the Italain pennisula and across Europe from Normandy, the primary concern was utterly and unquestionably killing the enemy and his ability to wage war. Social work wasn’t the primary mission.
I swear to God, we’re only a few years away from having entire combat divisions named Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services.
SailorDave on March 11, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Doesn’t matter if there is any success, the Dems will shout louder making it clear to the enemies that they don’t even have to apply the “divide and conquer” strategy, because they (the Dems) are doing it for them back here in Washington. The “pull out” shouts will get louder the media will help, the enemy will recognize that they’re winning this thing in Washington and we’ll be back in the same place. Probably some more bogus allegations of Gitmo abuse will come out and possibly more Abu Ghraib photos released. The media will hope this will stir up more anger and violence in Iraq and all over the middle east so that the the Dems can say “see” when it appears the surge can’t work.
Of course I hope I’m wrong, but the Dems and the media have made this war what it is today, and I see no sign of change.
RightWinged on March 11, 2007 at 12:37 PM
That’s Italian peninsula, for those of you not drinking.
SailorDave on March 11, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I am shocked to hear that when you address a problem, there might be some good results.
infidel on March 11, 2007 at 12:40 PM
WWII was fought philosophically — it was a philosophy based on the American idea that freedom and reason and individualism are better than enslavement and irrationality and collectivism, and that as defenders of the only proper way for man to live, American lives are non-negotiable. Our philosophy was that a tyrannical threat must be utterly and swiftly destroyed.
We have replaced that philosophy with one of altruism and subjectivism, of the worship of sacrifice for others, instead of living for ourselves, and of substituting the opinions of the worst among us for our values, instead of knowing ourselves the difference between right and wrong.
Until we restore the recognition that the only moral and practical way for man to live is objectively, independently, selfishly, and productively, and that we must fight to protect that way of life, then we will only have ever more horrific Koreas, Vietnams, and Iraqs.
Lazarus on March 11, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Ummm…. am I the only one that has a real problem with that paragraph? Historically, it’s simply not true.
wccawa on March 11, 2007 at 1:20 PM
PinkyBigglesworth on March 11, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Agreed. Let’s save philosophy for verbal debates and bring disproportional response to the battlefield. You kill one of mine, I kill 1,000 of yours.
I think that Iraq is another great example of America ADAPTING to the changing conditions on the battlefield. No one could have anticipated what happened there (except the time-machine owning libs who “knew” this would happen). Yet we are prevailing.
Let’s not fool ourselves, this is a war against Islam and it will continue for our lifetime.
Mojave Mark on March 11, 2007 at 1:22 PM
So, if having *more* American TriggerPullers on the ground is *helping* Iraq, then it’s pretty safe to say that having *less* American TriggerPullers on the ground would *hurt* Iraq. Wow, imagine that, cause and effect, supply and demand, action and reaction. What would happen if we pulled out too soon? The place would totally collapse … and that of course would be Dubya’s fault.
Oh and by the way, we were NOT “defeated” in Vietnam, Nixon ordered Operation Linebacker 2, the unrestricted bombing of N.V. After only 11 days, THEY came back to the Paris peace talks. We won, so we left. (Granted, we should’ve had a DMZ like in Korea). Two years later, the Dems in Congress cut funding (sound familiar?) to S.V., the north reinvades and they win. Bottom line: South Vietnam lost the war, thanks to the Defeatocrat Congress. Now, the Dhimmicrat Congress wants the forces of Freedom and Democracy to be defeated again, anything to avoid an American victory under a Pubbie Prez. But guess what Dhimmis, we already won the Iraq War, just like in Vietnam, and if we leave too soon, the Iraqi democrats might lose the war, not us, and just as in S.V. and Cambodia, the blood of those murdered by the millions will be on *your* hands.
Tony737 on March 11, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Duurr…you mean sending reinforcements and changing the ROEs for struggling and dieing troops actually helps?
Wow, how could that work?
The message always should have been, don’t goof around, build an Iraqi, Jihadi motel, let Jihadis check in and never check out.
Give our brave young men and women all of the help and tools they need and watch and be proud of their success.
Speakup on March 11, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Ah… but Ton737… that would mean the DEMS lost the war… somthing the media, and history, and our enemies, will never admit.
Romeo13 on March 11, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Clauswitz argued that war was politics by other means. Insurgents have learned that another way to fight wars is to use politics.
Terrorism by its nature thrives on death but also by using the media to portrait its messages of death. And our media hungerily swallows down whatever meal the jihadists set out for them.
During Gulf war 1 learned the message that controling the media is as important as fighting the war. Because the media is clueless and frankly doesnt care if it is manipulated by jihadists.
We meet the enemy and it is the MSM
William Amos on March 11, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Kagan
Well it’s a good thing no one is asking, because they wouldn’t do it.
And if Kagan reads ITM, should the rest of us read them too?
billy on March 11, 2007 at 2:31 PM
No, you’re right wccawa. America was defeated by a peasant uprising in Vietnam. I know it’s true ’cause I seen it in all the movies.
billy on March 11, 2007 at 2:36 PM
No, I had a problem with it as well.
In this war there are no insurances or terrorists with tanks, armor personal carriers, or military production capabilities. The insurances and terrorists use money and equipment that is mostly supplied from other governments. The insurgents are not centrally controlled nor do they follow a single chain of command. Any comparison to the Vietnam war is just an attempt to label this war a failure.
This is a complete fabrication as the only threat to victory comes not from the battlefield through military action by the insurgents, but from the home front through political intervention in the conduct of the war. It’s not the insurgents that may cause us to fail, it is the Democrat control of Congress and their attempt to commandeer the President’s authority in military matters, specifically the command and control of our troops in Iraq.
I believe that the “surge” can be very effective but that will never be accepted by the Democrats as long as a Republican is Commander and Chief. The ’slow bleed” and ‘cut and run’ strategies are being purposed by Congress to weaken the President’s authority in the conduct of this war so the Democrats may dictate the outcome in an attempt to cause this war to fail. That is the desired outcome for Democrats so they may blame the war and it’s results on the Republicans and thus achieve and maintain power in Congress and the White House through the manipulation of negative public opinion of the Republican party in future elections.
The only war the Democrats will, and are fighting right now, is the one they are waging on this Administration in particular and Republicans in general. The Democrats do not care what happens to the Iraqi people as long as Democrats win the war against the Republicans for control of America.
RedinBlueCounty on March 11, 2007 at 8:19 PM
I am confused…
If we are still at War in Iraq, who is at war with us? I thought we defeated the Iraqis?
Have we not won the War already?
If Bush declared that we won the war, is he worried that Congress will cut the funding for the War on Terror and reconstruction effort that remains in Iraq?
Someone help me please.
faraway on March 11, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Yes, you are.
Well, there is this guy…or this guy…
No, we haven’t
He hasn’t. There is this
but many, many people have tried to explain this to people like you
Yes, he is. And so am I.
I can’t. Try paying a bit more attention to the world around you.
billy on March 11, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Yeah, but public opinion is a fickle thing, and don’t forget that the Dems have been massaging the numbers, conflating people who are unhappy with the how the war’s been going with people who are anti-war (hey, close enough for government work). If more positive news about the surge continues to come out, different questions will be asked by the pollsters, and the numbers could swing against the Dems in a heck of hurry, because of how bogus they were to begin with. Believe me, one thing these Dems aren’t is principled, and they’ll drop their current positions as quickly and disingenuously as they dropped their knowledge of the danger of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. But in a campaign, with tons of attack ads flying, it won’t be as easy to sweep under the rug. And then–then they are way out on the corner of that limb that they’ve been painting behind themselves. And we’ll have a new word in the political lexicon–”chicken-doves.”
smellthecoffee on March 11, 2007 at 10:22 PM
What war, faraway? We’re all dead, because of Ronny Raygun’s nukes in Europe, remember?
smellthecoffee on March 11, 2007 at 10:25 PM
It is called the Chicagoland way:
Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I’m saying is, what are you prepared to do?
Ness: Anything and everything in my power.
Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way because they’re not gonna give up the fight until one of you is dead.
Ness: How do you do it then?
Malone: You wanna know how you do it? Here’s how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
Ness: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so.
Malone: Well, the Lord hates a coward. Do you know what a blood oath is, Mr. Ness?
Ness: Yes.
Malone: Good, ’cause you just took one.
Tim Burton on March 12, 2007 at 2:00 AM
A complete lie.
We won the war. We were never defeated in battle. We had achieved a peace treaty. We had pulled out of Vietnam as the treaty-provided guarantor of South Vietnam.
In December of 1974, THE DEMOCRATS outlawed all future (1) military activity in Vietnam, and (2) All military aid of ANY KIND to South Vietnam.
On December 13, 1974, North Vietnam attacks Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE PARIS PEACE ACCORDS. The United States does not respond because THE DEMOCRATS HAD ALREADY PROHIBITED IT.
On March 10, 1975, the “final offensive” begins
The following excerpt from “The History Place,” comes this timeline:
Liberals: LIARS THEN, LIARS NOW.
Liberal Democrats: TRAITOR THEN, TRAITORS NOW.
The Democratic Party MUST NOT be allowed to force America to lose this war the way they did the Vietnam War.
georgej on March 12, 2007 at 4:35 AM
Thank you for the history lesson, georgej–especially on behalf of all of those who’ve never heard it before, which probably includes pretty much anyone who went to public schools since Vietnam. The liberal teachers’ unions had a vested interest in burying the Democrats’ responsibility for abandoning our allies and condemning millions in Vietnam and Cambodia to death, all because they refused to honor U.S. treaty obligations. And now the Democratic “leadership” can’t wait to do it all over again in Iraq, and could care as little for the millions of Iraqis who’ll die if we cut and run before Iraq is stabilized as they did for the Vietnamese. Hell, none of those people can vote Democrat, so why would Pelosi, Reid, and their ilk care?
ReubenJCogburn on March 12, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Comment pages: