The Surge

With the ongoing election there has been a lot of talk about the Surge in Iraq, mostly in the "They didn't think the surge would work, bastards!" kind of way. I think that few people would look at Iraq today compared to Iraq 3 years ago and say that things have not improved. I think that very few people out there understand why and I think that understanding the reasons why the surge was successful is going to be extremely important in planning future military action. This has been something I have been interested in for a while and I'll try to start writing more about this on this blog without veering into politics (which I like to avoid here).

I remember listening to experts around the time the idea of the surge first started circulating who mostly thought that it wouldn't work due to a lack in sufficient number of new troops. If you compare the pre-surge numbers to the post-surge numbers (which I have to admit I don't know exactly) you will see that the percentage difference is really not that great, mostly because more troops were simply not available. I think that everyone at the time already agreed that the proper way to go into Iraq (ignoring the question of whether that was a good idea) would have been with a number of troops comparable to what we had then to make sure that non of the instability started in the first place. AT the time of the surge it seemed difficult to fathom how a small increase in troops would be able to stop the insurgency that was then in full force.

I think this relatively small increase is crucial to understanding the actual process: most people think the surge simply meant 'more troops' and everything else happened magically. From my current understanding it was quite the opposite: a serious of new approaches that required more people to work but also meant changing the behavior of the troops that were already on the ground. David Petraeus' counter insurgency manual gave the first indication of how one should deal with the problem and Tom Barnett points out two key reasons for its success:

The surge works for two key reasons, both of which couldn’t have been exploited to the point of solidification without additional bodies: 1) all Iraqis were tired of conflict and were looking for a way out: 2) the “awakening” due to al Qaeda’s over-reach. Fair enough.

Barnett then goes on to point out the lack of a 'diplomatic surge' on the political side to further help slow the insurgency and help American lives that I think points to a larger issue with US security policy:

I agreed with the logic of more troops (my SysAdmin-bias allowed me no other opinion). My problem with the surge was the lack of the diplomatic counterpart, now bequeathed to the next president, because I felt the lack of one meant—again—too many American lives needlessly lost and whatever gains we achieved logically held hostage to their neighbors and their willingness to wait us out and start trouble once we inevitably had to draw down, possibly making this whole success a complete illusion and thus wasting more American lives to no good end (not to mention those we waste in the future). 

The United States is fortunate to have an extremely capable military (with many brilliant leaders) that when faced with a new challenge/threat in the field is able to adapt to it and overcome it. David Petraeus deserves all the praise possible for fixing the military's approach to Iraq, like many in the military he has done an exceptional job of taking a difficult situation and improving it. I think that US military commanders are generally very pragmatic once they are on their ground and troops lives are at stakes: they want to protect their soldiers and make their mission a success instead of worrying about particular ideological approaches. The real problem is what assignments and situations the military is given by its civilian leaders.