I’m sure most of you have heard the talk of “surging” troops to Iraq. The oft-quoted magic number is 30,000. Well, according to the Washington Post, Sen Joseph Biden (D-Del), the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is going on record as being opposed to any increase in U.S. troop strength.
“I totally oppose the surging of additional troops into Baghdad, and I think it is contrary to the overwhelming body of informed opinion, both people inside the administration and outside the administration.”
Opponents like to say that an increase in troop strength will delay the development of Iraqi Security Forces. I completely disagree. The resulting improvements in security will make it easier to turn portions of the country over to ISF.
Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan both feel that a surge is not only needed, but that it should last at least somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 months. They make some good points in their letter to the Washington Post.
…reducing the violence in the Sunni and mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad is the most critical military task the U.S. armed forces face anywhere in the world.
The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent “just enough” force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there’s no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn’t work this way. The only “surge” option that makes sense is both long and large.
Sounds good to me. It is certainly a better proposition than anything the Iraq Study Group brought to the table.
H/t to Thunder Run for both articles.
The one thing I haven’t seen: How many of these 30,000 would be actual combat troops?
….that is the question.
surge.
SURGE needs to equal an OFFENSIVE to re-claim the triangle areas and block insurgent suport coming in over the border_ Need some old school ass whooping cigar chompin leadership from a Ragin Cajun type of GO
It is as it has always been. What we need in Iraq, is the same that is always needed during an insurgency. Overwhelming force applied directly on the problem. Ending the life of a cockroach with a bazooka may seem like overkill, but there is little chance that any of the cockroaches buddies will step up to take his place……
To some extent you’re correct Joe. But I’d emphasize that there is a very clear, well-defined line between overwhelming force and indiscriminate force.
In a war where we simply must win the population, blurring that line is risky.
It is a question of us providing what we have failed to provide since day one of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech… SECURITY!!! While Iraqis looted their country and dismantled what little was left of their administration and services, we sat by and watched. Thus began the downward spiral. We simply had too few troops to accomplish the task.
I support this surge, but fear it may be too little too late.
GREAT Pont on overwhelming vs indescriminate force or unnecessary.
jp