Victor Davis Hanson: The Surge Gamble. All eyes now turn to Baghdad and Sadr City

NRO ^ | January 11, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

This was not Churchill, not FDR, and not JFK Wednesday night, and there was not quite enough about winning and victory — but the content was still good enough.

Many of us were skeptical of a surge/bump/increase for an obvious reason: Our military problems in Iraq have been tactical and strategic (too-slow training too few Iraqis, arrest/release of terrorists, too many targets off limits, patrolling in lieu of attacking, worry over our own force protection rather than securing the safety of Iraqi citizens, open borders with Syria and Iran, etc.) — and not a shortage of manpower.

So the increase — no one knows whether the 20,000 number is adequate — could make things far worse by offering more targets and creating more Iraqi dependency if we don’t change our operations. But if the surge ups the ante by bringing a radical new approach on the battlefield as the president promises, then it is worth his gamble.

All the requisite points were made by the president, almost as if were quoting verbatim Gen. David Petraeus’s insightful summaries of counterinsurgency warfare — an Iraqi face on operations, economic stimuli, clear mission of clearing terrorists out of Baghdad, political reform, a “green-light” to go after killers — while addressing the necessary regional concerns with Syria and Iran.

Will these “benchmarks” work? Only if the Maliki government is honest when he promises that there will be no sanctuaries for the militias and terrorists. So when the killing of terrorists causes hysteria — and it will, both in Iraq and back here at home — the Iraqi-American units must escalate their operations rather than stand down.

The American people will support success and an effort to win, whatever the risks, but not stasis. We saw that with the silent approval of Ethiopia’s brutal rout of the Islamists in Somalia, and our own attack on al Qaeda there.

The subtext of the president’s speech was that our sacrifices to offer freedom and constitutional government are the only solution for the Middle East — but that our commitments are not open-ended if the Iraqis themselves don’t want success as much as we do.

But why believe that this latest gamble will work? One, things are by agreement coming to a head: this new strategy will work, or, given the current politics, nothing will. Two, the Iraqis in government know this time Sadr City and Baghdad are to be secured, or it is to be “see ya, wouldn’t want to be ya,”  and they will be on planes to Dearborn.

Finally note the pathetic Democratic reply by Sen. Durbin, last in the public eye for his libel of American troops (as analogous to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others”). There was no response.

Durbin simply assumed credit for the Bush policy of deposing Saddam, fostering democracy, and then blamed the Iraqis and said enough was enough. Not a word followed about the effects of a rapid withdrawal. In other words, the Democratic policy is that anything good in Iraq they supported, anything bad they opposed. And they will now harp yet do nothing — except whine in fear the surge might actually work.

So where does that leave us? All eyes now turn to Baghdad and Sadr City and our courageous Americans fighting in them. If they are allowed to rout the terrorists, all will trumpet their victory; if we fail, President Bush alone will take the blame.

In other words, as in all wars, the pulse of the battlefield will determine the ensuing politics. So let’s win in pursuit of victory, and everything else will sort itself out.

 — Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.
 

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson 
            His website: http://victorhanson.com/    
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link!    http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[kellynla]

I hope everyone will keep the troops in their prayers.


Semper Fi,
Kelly

[KeyLargo]

Poll to freep

Did Bush's speech last night convince you it is essential to send more troops to Iraq?
Choice Votes Percentage of 33 Votes
Yes 7 21%
No 26 79%
Thanks for sharing your opinion -- check back here for results later, or check them by watching NBC5's 6 p.m. news.

http://www.nbc5.com/index.html

Scroll down right side of page.

[bnelson44]

Always, Kelly, always.

[Tolik]

...So let’s win in pursuit of victory, and everything else will sort itself out

i.e. There is no substitute for victory

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Basics here:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There is this:

Shiite leader [Al-Hakim] calls for Iraq to hit law-breakers with an 'iron fist' [sic]

[hlmencken3]

Pres. Bush has been so sufficiently neutered that he will order a backdown by forces in Iraq as soon as the first MSM hit pieces whine about 'targeting civilians'.

Then GWB will spend the rest of his term on his 'legacy' - more taxes and regulations.

[PolishProud]

The good and bad news of Bush's surge: The bad news, the MSM and the Democrats have invested too much in the administrations failure and no matter how well this new plan works, it will be defined as a defeat. The good news, with the embed of troops in the Iraq army, any loss can be blamed on the Iraqis as the US cuts and runs.

[dforest]

This guy would make a good president.

[kellynla]

yep, the same morons as the Viet Nam antiwar crowd...Kennedy & Klan.
deja vu all over again...

[tomcorn]

Seems tome that GWB is making the same mistake Lyndon Johnson did. Creeping incrementalism. The way to defeat a guerrilla insurgency is not though small percentage increases but an overwhelming force that crushes the enemies will to fight.

20,000 additional troops is a gesture not a stategy. By our own tactical doctrine we need 300-350 K troops on the ground to win.

[pgkdan]

...an Iraqi face on operations, economic stimuli, clear mission of clearing terrorists out of Baghdad, political reform, a “green-light” to go after killers — while addressing the necessary regional concerns with Syria and Iran.

I hope the ROE are not just changed, but radically changed. No more police tactics, fight this war like a war and kill the bastards.

I hope Hanson is right and we clear out Sadr City ASAP. I'd love to a video of Muqtada's execution.

[DaveyB]

...The way to defeat a guerrilla insurgency is ... an overwhelming force that crushes the enemies will to fight.

We are not fighting their will, but them. They are fighting agaist our will with their allies the ACLU and the MSM. The way to win is to crush them - kill them.

Islam does not think like westerners, the faithful are more than willing to die - (I say we accommodate them). Most just will submit to the biggest bully around, because Islam is not about the authentic condition of the heart (as in "love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your might and all your mind...Love your neighbor as your self")but outward submission only.

If we really want to win, we will crush the faithful jihadists and send missionaries to re-educate and evangelize them. But then we would also have to crush the ACLU.

But as long as the ACLU has any legitimacy - it will be our will to win is what will be crushed.

[livius]

Very well put!

[dashing doofus]

VDH is an advisor to Mitt Romney according to this report in Boston Globe (see comment near end of article):


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/11/romney_supports_a_troop_increase/

[dforest]

A plus on Romneys side. Good to know he picks a good conservative for advice.

[ANGGAPO]

My understanding is that the gloves are off, alSadr and his army have become targets for terror, our rules of combat have been explained to Iraq's president. Based on this I can support the increase in troop level.

[Interesting Times]

Here's Dr. Hanson's take...