For the Surge

by Milton Solorzano

Senior Staff Writer

Our nation, Democrats and Republicans, Bush supporters and opponents, liberals, conservatives and libertarians alike, is engaged in a global War on Terror that was viciously inaugurated on 9/11. Our enemies kill Americans indiscriminately and, thus, we will all shoulder the consequences of American policy abroad, including in Iraq. We therefore have a responsibility as citizens in a democracy to acknowledge that, regardless of our opinions on the war, we ought to pursue that strategy most capable of securing victory.

Unlike in Vietnam, where in Saigon in 1975 we abandoned thousands to a violent death but largely escaped any retribution from our enemies, the War for Iraq will have reverberations in the most volatile region of the world. Defeat in Iraq, which is not inevitable, would wreak inevitable damage on US interests at home and abroad. While the planned surge may not guarantee success in Iraq, it is a sound strategy fundamentally grounded in counterinsurgency theory. The plans of the President’s critics, on the other hand, are both largely incoherent and, where they prescribe withdrawal, are noted by the most recent National Intelligence Report to have a high chance of increasing violence in Iraq should they be implemented.

The major provisions of the President’s plan include both a visible troop increase, by approximately 21,000 combat units, and a dramatic new design of US-Iraqi troop interaction. The call for more troops is not, however, unfamiliar: once a darling of the left, Gen. Shinseki is famous for having drawn significant attention prior to the war to what he regarded as inadequate troop levels—an assessment pooh-poohed by the administration, but later vindicated by events on the ground.

Additional criticisms point to the fact that the US has already attempted a temporary surge to protect Baghdad, Operation Together Forward (OTF), and that the failures of this campaign serve as foreshadowing for this effort. These criticism fall short because OTF featured a relatively small surge of about 7,000 troops, and the President’s plan today includes dramatic shifts in tactics and operational structure. For example, Prime Minister Maliki has created a new Iraqi command for the city of Baghdad, and President Bush has injected the top American command with fresh leadership—including the notable mind and leadership of Princeton educated (Ph.D.) Gen. David Petraeus, whose expertise in counterinsurgency has already won him tremendous kudos for successful command in Tal Afar. Additionally, tactical improvements such as embedding troops with Iraqi units and an increased focus on training will finally allow troops to execute the “hold” phase the government’s “Clear, Hold, Build” strategy.

There is a popular consensus among the President’s critics that there must be a ‘political’ solution in Iraq first, before we can attempt to secure a physical or military solution. However, to expect that political compromise can be reached without a precondition of security is simply unrealistic. Imagine you are the Sunni victim of a brutal Shia death squad attack, having recently suffered the loss of your brother and husband. How will you approach “negotiations” between the sects? In contrast, the assumption of the President’s plan is that such political negotiations can only occur when the average Baghdadi can live a relatively normal life. As the situation is now, and as it is guaranteed to continue as under a no-surge policy, the average citizen’s first concern is security, at any cost. True, a political solution will ultimately be necessary for the long-term success of an independent Iraq, but it is not a magic cure-all that can be sought, and certainly not expected, without security provisions.

The road ahead in Iraq will be difficult and costly. However, the President’s plan offers both hope of victory and a commitment of support to the true victims of this conflict—the Iraqi people themselves.