Posted on 11/23/2008 1:06:35 PM PST by neverdem
THE surge in Iraq has been one of the most impressive military accomplishments in recent years. It has been so successful that the emerging consensus is that what may now be needed in Afghanistan is a similar surge of American forces. President-elect Barack Obama campaigned on his intention to do so, as did his former opponent, John McCain.
As one who is occasionally — and incorrectly — portrayed as an opponent of the surge in Iraq, I believe that while the surge has been effective in Iraq, we must also recognize the conditions that made it successful. President Bush’s bold decision to deploy additional troops to support a broader counterinsurgency strategy of securing and protecting the Iraqi people was clearly the right decision. More important, though, it was the right decision at the right time.
By early 2007, several years of struggle had created the new conditions for a tipping point:
•
Al Qaeda in Iraq’s campaign of terrorism and intimidation had turned its Sunni base of support against it. The result was the so-called Anbar Awakening in the late summer of 2006, followed by similar awakening movements across Iraq.
•
From 2003 through 2006, United States military forces, under the leadership of Gen. John Abizaid and Gen. George Casey, inflicted huge losses on the Baathist and Qaeda leadership. Many thousands of insurgents, including the Qaeda chief in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, were captured or killed and proved difficult to replace.
•
The Iraqi Security Forces had achieved cohesion, improved operational effectiveness and critical mass. By December 2006, some 320,000 Iraqis had been trained, equipped and deployed, producing the forces necessary to help hold difficult neighborhoods against the enemy. By 2007, the surge, for most Iraqis, could have an Iraqi face.
•
And the political scene in Iraq had shifted...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Soory Rummy...you screwed the pooch in Iraq, itt ook Heaven and Earth being moved and even then...Rummy would not think about a Surge..
Rummy was a piss poor SecDef...no way around it, compaore pre Rummy and post Rummy...no contest...he failed to adapt, he deserves his fate.
I lived in fear of those during his reign.
I didn’t like Rumsfeld as SECDEF, but I don’t disagree with this article.
Yes, he was inept but who could ever forget his unforgettable quote when he was asked why there were few Euro allies who signed up to invade Iraq and his response to Germany and France:
“We have new Europe like the Poland, Czech republic..Germany, France?..they’re OLD EUROPE.”
If Rumsfeld had employed the surge strategy at the beginning of the war, the Republicans would be holding on to the Presidency and be in a much stronger position in the Congress. He blew it with the constant drip of bad news coming out of Iraq in 2005-2006.
the problem wasn’t timing imho. It was strategy. Rumsfeld was a advocate i think of light boots on the ground. He wanted to balance security with sensibility of the resident. He was concerned we might look like occupiers with so many troops in the city and on the street. The troops basically went in, hit a few spots then left
Petraeus took a diferent approach. Massive surge of troops into trouble spots and they stayed and lived there
If nothing else, this puts the Obama administration on notice for what they could get into and that their feet can be held to the fire if they blunder. (Something that Democrats are notorious for with our armed forces.)
Obama was opposed to the surge in Iraq and to this day will not admit it was a success but, he is for a surge in Afghanistan suggesting we deploy two brigades there. I wonder if he knows what a brigade is and what would he have them do?
Maybe, maybe not.
I’d argue that many Iraqis had to have their bloodletting before deciding that maybe that wasn’t such a good idea.
Germany and Japan were totally destroyed in achieving victory. The people no longer had the will to fight or hang on to the past and simply wanted peace. With Iraq it was gentler kinder war and the people were never really defeated and therefore wanted to settle old scores instead of peace.
The horror that followed is what made the difference. An earlier “surge” would have only postponed that lesson.
See #10.
Kind of hard to win a war when traitors within your own country are attacking you from the rear. Rumsfeld was demonized just like W and the troops. Sounds like some of us here bought their crap.
It is amazing that people actually believe that. For three years the Sunni's fought us because they thought they could take the country back once we left. We could have put 2 million troops in Iraq and that wouldn't have changed the Sunni mindset one bit.
To end the war, the Sunnis had to be convinced that they couldn't take the country back no matter whether we left in 6 months or 6 years. They didn't become convinced of that until after the Golden Mosque bombing in February of 2006. After that point, the Shiite death squads (with the tacit help of the Shiites in control of the military) went after the Sunnis in Baghdad proper and its suburbs. It took about 8 to 9 months of killing, but the Sunnis were finally convinced that they couldn't beat the Shiites in a straight-up fight. Only then did the Anbar Awakening happen.
Once the Anbar Awakening happened and Al Qaeda was deprived of its base of support, then the surge was put into in effect in March of 2007 and did wonders because we had the help of the Sunnis populace in tracking down and killing Al Qaeda.
Here are several links to articles that discuss what happened. First is a link to a quote by David Petraeus discussing how things were going reasonably well in Iraq until the Golden Mosque bombing in 2006.
Second is a link to an article by Michael Totten discussing what was going on in Ramadi during 2006
Third is a link to a Bill Roggio article about the closure of the headquarters of the Association of Muslim Scholars. Here is the money quote:
Lastly, I would note that with regard to the great work our military did prior to the surge - there was one factor that has not been widely discussed. Simply put, when Bob Woodruff was blown up by an Al Qaeada IED in early 2006 - that aided the war effort immensely. The reason is that after Woodruff got hurt, the MSM stopped sending cameramen into the war zone. The subsequent lack of nightly war footage enabled our troops to take the gloves off - as is discussed in the Michael Totten article.
You would think that after Buckhead's expose we would be immune to their 'crap machine'.
I'm not a believer in "perfect", but Mr. Rumsfeld came close.
Good takes.
I hold Rumsfeld in high regard and I think he was a very efficient Secretary of Defense. I also agree with his article save for his praise for Abizaid’s term. I think that Bremer, Abizaid and Sanchez appointments were mistakes. Having said all of this Iraq matters would be closed by 2006 if not for dems and media doing everything possible to ensure “Bush’s” defeat in Iraq.
Failure of the Iraqis, out of fear of terrorists, to support the 'freedom' mission , required a new strategy be developed, for an enemy of embedded terrorists rather than of armies.
Hence, Gen. Petreus, Gates to spearhead the new, now successful 'Surge' strategy. It was time for fresh blood to continue our goal for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thank you Rummy for an outstanding job as SOD.
Padre, you are a victim of the MSM. Shame!!
In other words, he was the ideal person to tell individual senators, representatives, etc. to 'eff off when they complained that their pet projects in their states/districts were being eliminated.
Rumsfeld's only problem was that this "streamline/efficiency" model was totally unsuited for a major military campaign in Iraq -- and it really showed.
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.