What McCain, Obama and Clinton Need to Know About the Surge

John McCain’s constant carping that the surge is working and his promise (threat?) that he will continue this policy is an amazing mixture of foolishness and ignorance. Fortunately, Senators Obama and Clinton have not engaged in the same mindless cheer leading. The truth is simple–the surge is irrelevant. The following articles by Mark Perry help set the record straight about what the surge has and has not accomplished. The reduction in violence is rooted in a shift of tactics based on an understanding of the tribal structure of Iraqi society. Pat Lang, a retired U.S. Army Colonel and Middle East expert, played a critical role in this process and produced the study in early 2006 that helped the Army find its bearings in conducting an effective counterinsurgency strategy.

These two articles by Perry explains the gap between the politicians at the White House and the soldiers on the ground. Please take time to read parts I and II. The money quote for me comes in the opening paragraphs of part II:

McCaffrey, who has often been outspoken in his criticism of the George W Bush administration’s counter-terrorism strategy, admitted that “an active counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq could probably succeed in the coming decade with 25 US Brigade Combat Teams”. But that would be more than one-half of the total available in the entire army - a level of commitment that simply cannot be sustained.

With US requirements in Afghanistan - estimated by McCaffrey at four brigades permanently engaged in a campaign that would last 15 years, a continued war on terrorism in Southwest Asia has become nearly impossible. Additionally, McCaffrey says, “The US Army is starting to unravel. Our recruiting campaign is bringing into the army thousands of new soldiers who should not be in uniform” - those with criminal records, who have used drugs, who have been given moral waivers, or who have not graduated from high school. A senior Pentagon official agrees. “We have increased our recruiting totals and tripled the number of our police battalions,” he says, bitterly. “We will soon have to build new stockades to handle the influx.”

War is not cost free. It drains our Treasury, spills the blood of our sons and daughters, and leaves hundreds of thousands of veterans with long term psychological and emotional scars. And we have not even begun to measure the cost for the Iraqi people and their neighbors.

US MILITARY BREAKS RANKS, Part 1
A salvo at the White House
By Mark Perry

For military officers in the Pentagon’s E-Ring (where the most important defense issues are decided), the shift in the public mood has been nearly miraculous: last September, on the eve of General David Petraeus’ Congressional testimony on the George W Bush administration’s ’surge’ strategy, the American electorate was consumed by the war in Iraq.

Now, just four months later, that same electorate has shifted its attention to the 2008 elections. Public polls reflect the shift. Iraq no longer tops the list of issues of concern to Americans - its place having been usurped over worries about the economy - and is competing for attention with healthcare and immigration. (The “war on terror” is a poor seventh - a stunning turnabout from the two years following September 11, 2001.) But the perceptible fall-off in public attention from foreign policy to domestic issues is hardly a palliative for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or America’s highest-ranking combatant commanders, all of whom continue to deal with the continuing uncertain military situation Iraq. (continue reading)

US MILITARY BREAKS RANKS, Part 2
Troops felled by a ‘trust gap’
By Mark Perry

How the “surge” succeeded - or even whether it has succeeded - is a source of constant commentary in military circles. In an “after-action report” written for the head of the Department of Social Sciences at West Point by retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey, who traveled to Iraq in mid-December, some of the problems that continue to plague US forces in Iraq were detailed.

McCaffrey, who has often been outspoken in his criticism of the George W Bush administration’s counter-terrorism strategy, admitted that “an active counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq could probably succeed in the coming decade with 25 US Brigade Combat Teams”. But that would be more than one-half of the total available in the entire army - a level of commitment that simply cannot be sustained.
(continue reading part II)