The Myth about the Troop Surge

The party line for both Republicans and Democrats is clearly celebratory about the "success" of the increased troop level in Iraq. Both sides seem to be in accord about the surge success and both sides have severely missed the point on how to obtain stability, if not peace, in Iraq.

It is a mistake to view the troop surge as anything but a short term band-aid for the wounds in Iraq. The increased level of troops has two goals but those goals are mutually exclusive. The first goal is to quell the acute violence that has plagued Iraq with the objective of making the U.S. troop pull out easier. For this goal "the surge" may be successful, still pending the last part of this objective. However; the other goal, of obtaining stability and peace in Iraq is actually undermined by the increased level of troops. American troops are not neutralizing and pacifying the violence in Iraq, they are merely putting a temporary lid on its intensity. The opposition is not being destroyed. It is being dispersed. Shiite opposition is merely playing a waiting game, moving out of rifle range temporarily. What is worse, the surge has weakened rather than bolstered the present Iraq regime. It has made the regime even more dependent on American support for its existence. Since the American troop presence cannot be seen as a permanent structure the opposition is simply playing a waiting game. The troop pullout, whether in one year or five years, is inevitable. For now, the opposition has moved to other fronts (Afghanistan) or has gone underground to wait out the surge. They are not dead. They are just in hiding. When the inevitable pull out of American forces does occur what does the American government think is going to happen to the opposition? Is the propped up Iraqi government stable enough to withstand an internal civil war by a large Shiite majority funded by its neighbor? Has American policy done anything to actually provide long-term stability in Iraq? Has the present Iraqi regime shown any ability to produce a consensus that is critical to a peaceful resolution of the conflict? The painfully obvious answer to all these questions is no.

In the end, the troop surge will do little more than the Hanoi bombing campaigns of the Vietnam war. In both (Operation Linebacker and the "Christmas bombing" at the end of 1972) the United States achieved its short term goals only to find they had destroyed their long term objective. There is only one way to succeed with these offenses and that is with total obliteration of the enemy. It is one thing to punish the opposition and force them to make short-term strategy changes. It is something else entirely to destroy the opposition's ability to wage further conflict. As was demonstrated in Vietnam, the air offensives succeeded in providing a temporary window for the truce that would allow the American government to remove its armies. It did not succeed in pacifying the opposition so as soon as the American forces were gone that opposition moved rapidly to a final conclusion that was the exact opposite of the American objective.

It is puzzling how little the American government has learned in the 30 years since Vietnam. Before singing the praises of a temporary success it is necessary to look at the bigger picture. Iraq is a tinder box of conflicting ethnic and religious factions. It should be remembered that Iraq is not a historically united nation. It is a conglomeration of competing groups conveniently packaged together by the West. Iraq had its first monarchy forced upon it by the British and has been succeed by a series of strong arm leaders that held the country together with force. Can Iraq stabilize with a weak central government and an unmotivated, divided, and corrupt military? It has never shown this capacity in the past but optimists within the Bush Administration seem to believe they can change this dynamic. Unfortunately, the added troop levels have done nothing to further this change. More