To Surge, or Not To Surge...

It seems as though most everybody in town now expects the President to adjust force levels in Iraq in the range of +30,000 or so personnel, whether through out-and-out additions or shifts in rotation policies. And while everybody expects a "surge," few lawmakers, including Republicans already steamed by the Administration's handling of the war over the last few years, are enthused by the prospect. Adding to the concern is the fact that most observers seem to think that the "surge" will be just that... a short term increase that will do little to support the long-term strategy of "clear and hold", which folks smarter than myself on counterinsurgency think is the only viable military strategy for Iraq. Moreover, to truly be effective "clear and hold" must be combined with a more effective political and economic strategy for Iraq... which, frankly, I'm not even sure we have.

So, given all of the above, and plenty more not mentioned, can a "surge" really help the situation?

I'm not optimistic. It seems likely that simply too many insurgents and their supporters are too well entrenched in the Baghdad area for our troops -- both current and +30,000 -- to deal with. Moreover, we would require significant support, or at the very least non-interference, from Iraqi security forces in order to be effective... and that simply isn't going to happen. The bootleg video of Saddam Hussein's execution simultaneously demonstrates the sectarianism and incompetence of the Iraqi security forces. Until they have even a modicum of reliability and impartiality, "surging" won't work.

Well, except for one thing... a change in US rules of engagement. But that is for another post at another time...