More targets [Oliver North opposes the proposed "surge"]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For months, advisers to President George W. Bush have been trying to convince the commander in chief that more U.S. troops in Iraq will improve prospects for victory. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), both recently returned from Iraq (and a courageous surprise stopover in Ramadi, capital of bloody Al Anbar Province) also support adding more American troops. Unfortunately, they are wrong.

"I believe there is still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province in order to bring the sectarian violence under control," McCain said after his visit. For his part, Lieberman said the idea of sending another 30,000 troops to Iraq is "exactly" the course of action he hopes to see the president take.

McCain and Lieberman talked to many of the same officers and senior NCOs I covered for FOX News during my most recent trip to Iraq. Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: "We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops," was a common refrain. They are right.

The call for incrementally increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq -- a "solution" that was first proffered last summer as the congressional election campaign heated up -- sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson's plan to save Vietnam in the mid 1960s. Johnson saw "gradual escalation" as a way not to lose, and to avoid the unpleasant necessity of directly confronting North Vietnam. Regrettably, that also meant we could not win.

Adding 10,000 or 20,000 more U.S. combat troops -- mostly soldiers and Marines -- isn't going to improve Iraqi willingness to fight their own fight -- an imperative if we are to claim victory in this war. While putting 200,000 American or NATO troops on the Iranian and Syrian borders to stop infiltration might make sense, that's "mission impossible" given the size of U.S. and allied armed forces.

A "short-duration surge" in U.S. combat strength also ignores progress that is being made on the ground in places like Al Anbar province, where few of the so-called mainstream media dare to spend much time. In Ramadi, long a hotbed of Sunni terrorism, new National and Provincial police forces are increasingly effective. Calling themselves "The Sons of Al Anbar," thousands of young Iraqi males have volunteered to defend their cities, villages, homes and families from terrorists.

Just days after McCain and Lieberman left Ramadi, I went to a police recruiting center and watched as hundreds of young Sunni males were being processed to become cops. Interestingly, the detailed screening of each volunteer was being conducted by police officers from Pittsburg, New York, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and a half-dozen other American cities. Those who passed the background check, medical and literacy tests and physical exam -- about 70 percent -- were then dispatched to Jordan for a six-week training course.

These new police recruits had all responded to the call of Sheikh Abdel Sattar Baziya. He is Al Anbar's most powerful Sunni tribal leader and the instigator of what he calls "The Awakening" -- self-determination through Sunni cooperation with local U.S. military commanders and the Shia-led government in Baghdad. In conversations with Sheikh Sattar at his home, and later at Camp Phoenix, where Iraqi police receive tactical and human-rights training, this populist Sunni chieftain made it clear that this is a war that the Iraqi people must win for themselves. Sheikh Sattar's analysis of the situation is shared by Al Anbar's Sunni governor, Maamoun Sami Rashid al-Awani. Though a Baghdad appointee, Gov. Maamoun, who I have now interviewed on three separate trips to Iraq, is convinced that more U.S. combat power is not the answer. He too wants more U.S. trainers and civil affairs personnel. On more than one occasion Gov. Maamoun, Sheikh Sattar and every military commander with whom I spoke, described the Police Training Teams (PTTs), Military Transition Teams (MTTs) and Civil Affairs Groups (CAGs) as unsung heroes and the keys to victory in Iraq. All of them are advocates for more trainers, improved supply support from the central government and assurances that the Interior Ministry implement responsive administrative and pay systems for the police. One U.S. logistics expert complained that he was receiving no assistance whatsoever from our embassy in helping the Iraqis overcome the belief that "a full shelf is a good shelf." None suggested more U.S. combat troops as a solution. And they all wonder if anyone in Baghdad or Washington is listening. A "surge" or "targeted increase in U.S. troop strength" or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets. Oliver North is the host of "War Stories" on the FOX News Channel. To find out more about Oliver North, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC

Oliver North is the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of The Assassins .

Be the first to read Oliver North's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.Sign up today!

On more than one occasion Gov. Maamoun, Sheikh Sattar and every military commander with whom I spoke, described the Police Training Teams (PTTs), Military Transition Teams (MTTs) and Civil Affairs Groups (CAGs) as unsung heroes and the keys to victory in Iraq.

Funny, the MSM never heard of this.

I heard a story recently which is very instructive. During the Vietnam war, the Americans and their South Korean allies had a very different approach to the locals. The Vietcong would launch mortars into American bases - while the Americans would fight back, there were no consequences to (most) villages known to harbour the Vietcong. The response was "nuanced" and "selective".

A similar attack made on a South Korean base received a different response. The Koreans made it clear to the village known to harbour the Vietcong that if there was another attack, the village would be decimated. This resolve was tested, the South Koreans were as good as their word, and it should come as no surprise that the Vietcong tended to leave the South Koreans alone.

I suggest that the Islamists are even more depraved than the Vietcong. As such, high minded tactics are even less likely to work in Iraq than they were in Vietnam.

Regards, Ivan

I suggest that the Islamists are even more depraved than the Vietcong. As such, high minded tactics are even less likely to work in Iraq than they were in Vietnam.

Precisely! Strategic bombing is the correct tactic, but won't be acceptable to the PC crowd (or our political leadership).

So what kind of cooperation did the South Koreans get from the surviving villagers from what was left of the hamlet?

So long as our stated mission is to help Iraq build it's society we can't go around and wipe out the local inhabitants regardless of provocation. If we reach the point where we decide that the whole population is suspect and should be leveled on sight then what the hell are we doing there to begin with?

My own personal opinion is that North is right. Additional troops won't make a difference because the bad guys know that they'll go away eventually and are willing to keep their heads down till that happens. Somehow the Iraqi people have to come to the conclusion that their own future is worth fighting for and get trained to accomplish that goal. How they will ever overcome the sectarian hatred is beyond me, and I think that that will be the eventual reason for failure. Not the military or the Democrats, but the fact that having saved the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein we could not save them from themselves.

More troops means nothing if we don't allow them to decisively win confrontations. We didn't in Vietnam and we seem to be doing more of the same in Iraq. We don't need more troops, we need to "take the gloves off" and let the military do what they do best. As for a real solution, Ollie North has the best advice of anyone I read.

So what kind of cooperation did the South Koreans get from the surviving villagers from what was left of the hamlet?

What kind of co-operation did the Americans get from those hamlets they left untouched? The Koreans wanted the enemy to die; they made it clear to the population that sheltering the enemy was a death sentence, and it was a message well understood.

As I recall, we punished the hell out of Germany and forced it to submit before reconstructing them. The problem with Iraq is that the Islamists are not cowed enough. Nor are there clear consequences seen for violating civil peace.

How they will ever overcome the sectarian hatred is beyond me, and I think that that will be the eventual reason for failure. Not the military or the Democrats, but the fact that having saved the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein we could not save them from themselves.

I believe that in future that no war should be based upon anything to do with "hearts and minds". Kill the enemy and go home.

Regards, Ivan

I will believe Oliver North before I would consider anything John McCain or Joe Lieberman has to say.

Ditto for me. Under the current rules of engagement, 30,000 more troops would represent 30,000 more targets. From the time it started, the idea of riding around in a Humvee waiting to run over an IED or be shot by a sniper seemed ineffective to me.

we can't go around and wipe out the local inhabitants regardless of provocation.

Actually we can. Jihadists understand that sort of approach. Every other approach means to them that we are cowards and nothing more and Allah has delivered us into their hands. We can kill ALL of the fighters in an area and prevent others from entering and more will rise from the population there. The Jihad mindset is absolute in its inacquaintance with reason. The Jihadist believes the highest honor is to die killing infidels and these jihadists are springing up from the sand and the rocks. The population has to be stunned so that the OS no longer functions and a new program can be downloaded.That tactic was successful in Germany and in Japan. That and we still have not entirely militarily left those countries. And in Iraq which has no connection at all with Western sensibilities or any culture based on reason, we mean to knock down some terrorists and boogy on home.The job will not be done until (there is no unless here, it is until)the war comes to the malls and the cities in the US and Americans finally understand the nature of the enemy.

You da man, Ivan. This limited war sucks. (and it's exactly what Bush promised NOT to do -- nation-building, 'religion of peace'.

I have come to the sad conclusion that Bush lacks the will and leadership abilities to bring this war to a successful conclusion. He doesn't 'get it' about barbaric Islam (rape, slaughter, Dhimmitude), even though his rhetoric AT TIMES might lead one to think otherwise.

Unless something lights a fire under his ass, he is headed for permanent political disgrace, and we have lost round One of the so-called GWOT.

You are dead right Ivan, we don't need more troops, we need new ROE. I agree with the DimRats that sending more troops is just sending more targets under current policies.

We need to have everyone in Iraq understand if you mess with us you are dead. That is the only way you win a war. If fire comes from a house, poof, the house disappears, from a mosque, boom, no more minarets (added benefit, the loudspeakers are gone.) For this we do not need more troops and/or strategic bombing, the Arty, choopers and A-10's in theatre are plenty.

and Americans finally understand the nature of the enemy.

They have no idea, 80-90%. They don't know history, and they can't see current reality due to the MSM blackout on Muslim horrors.

All they know is that we torture, murder and illegally incarcerate perfectly innocent people because they are different from us. (((SARCASM OFF)))

If I were President, this is how I would approach it -

Withdraw from the United Nations. THe UN is going to put up roadblocks to any action, and furthermore has been a nuisance to free countries while simultaneously providing a shield of respectability to regimes which do not deserve it.
Issue a warning to the Iraqi people, that the next "Fallujah" will be flattened.
Should that resolve be tested, flatten the city.
Additionally, any Iraqi political leader that does not toe the line in preserving civil peace should be captured and sent to Guantanamo.

Regards, Ivan

Somehow the Iraqi people have to come to the conclusion that their own future is worth fighting for and get trained to accomplish that goal.

What does the term "the Iraqi people" mean to you?

Do you believe there is such a thing as "Iraqi" nationality, and how would you define it?

Why do you believe they "have to come to the (any) conclusion"?

Do you support continued consumption of soldiers and Marines lives while waiting for something to happen "somehow"?

Agree entirely. If Lil' Mohammed plays suicide bomber, his entire family should pay the price. If the young men from a village join the jihadis, the village should be leveled and the headman and his family killed. We should hunt down and kill the people who preach jihad and recruit terrorists; we should destroy the madrissas where the jihadis are trained and kill all within. We should kill the people who fund jihad and their families.
There should be no place to hide and no mercy to be hoped for.

As the Israelis learned, suicide bombers' heads remain intact.

Any such head should be taken to a hog farm and fed to the residents.

The feeding frenzy should then be video-taped and played on television aimed at Arab audiences.

Psych war is important. Winning is essential.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.