Replies

Yes, the surge represents a change in plan, dictated by changing circumstances on the ground.

My point was that I think the President is to be commended for his steadfast commitment to the overall war effort, and his fortitude in giving the original specific strategy enough time to work - or not.

The downside of this determination is that perhaps he remained committed to the original “small footprint” approach for too long, but I think that is hindsight.

I would rather have a steady hand at the helm, than a nervous nellie who blows in whichever wind seems to be prevailing in the moment.

It seems that the President now has the correct commander in Petraeus, and a working strategy with the surge. The news has been trending positive for several months. God willing, it will continue to do so.

With any luck, the situation will be so strongly stabilized by the time President Bush leaves office, that victory cannot be undone by his successor - whoever she may be...

Franks, in his book, "American Soldier," says emphatically that the generals rejected the "big footprint" early. They doubted that enough troops could be brought in soon enough (even with Turkey and the 4th ID), and expected Saddam's men to fight.

Consider Iwo Jima: in ALL our previous invasions, the Japanese had fought at the water's edge. Suddenly, they completely changed tactics and retreated to inland caves and tunnels. But on Okinawa, the original plan was for them to change AGAIN and fight on the beaches so the Imperial Japanese Navy could sail in with suicide attacks and destroy the landing craft. The Army changed its strategy without telling the Navy, and reverted to the Iwo Jima plan.

The point is, as you say, all war is fluid, and "the enemy gets a vote." No enemy responds exactly as you expect, and strategy is constantly developing.