The Corner

The Troop Surge

Two important pieces out today highlight a concern I’ve had for some time about the troop surge move, which is that it is more a lowest common denominator of broad consensus than the result of a strategy.  Several folks recently back from Iraq have told me that even the rather small number of troops we have in the country aren’t allowed to do half the things they know they should be doing, out of deference to the Iraqi government.  I can understand that this makes people mad but think about it for a second.  It is logically inescapable in the overall strategy of transition to an Iraq that governs itself, that we should now be fighting with one hand tied behind our back, and that — in the best case scenario — we shall soon be fighting with two hands tied behind our back.  The reason is that the Iraqi government must succeed in establishing security with its own forces, and this means that it must establish central authority, even if this means subordinating the authority of coalition forces and constraining their freedom of action.  The success of the Iraqi government in this respect is the only real prospect of victory — I think we all agree on that.  Changing horses in mid-stream is hard enough — doing it under fire may be virtually impossible here. 

“Clear, hold, and build” may work as counter-insurgency strategy, but I can’t imagine that it can be as effective in a counter-terror or counter-death-squad mode.  Terrorists and death squads have a much easier time hiding among the urban population than a guerrilla force, which sooner or later cannot escape the necessity of controlling territory — or at least be able to openly challenge the territorial control of coalition forces.  It is one of the tragedies of the Iraq conflict that in the counter-insurgency dimension of the war, coalition forces were actually largely  victorious in 2004 and 2005.  But then Al Qaeda came up with its “civil war” strategy, and an effective counter-strategy has thus far eluded us.

In this WSJ op-ed (req. subs.) Johns Hopkins’s Eliot Cohen and former assistant secretary of defense Bing West write:

We prefer an offensive strategy based on three ironclad principles: take the offense immediately against the death squads in Sadr City, who are now unsettled; arrest and imprison on a scale equal to the horrific situation (or at least equal to New York City!); and insist on a joint say in the appointment of army and police leaders. If the Iraqi government refuses, we should be willing to disengage completely, and soon.

It seems to me that this suggestion is a step in the right direction in terms of shifting from counter-insurgency to a more police & intelligence-based concept, and also more properly focuses on the key political dimension.

In the Independent, from the other side of the political spectrum, General Wesley Clark likewise argues that under the current strategic concept, a troop surge is likely to backfire. 

Mario Loyola — Mr. Loyola is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the president of Loyola Strategies Research and Consulting. From 2017 to 2019, he was the associate director for regulatory reform at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Most Popular


The Democrats’ Disastrous CNN LGBT Town Hall

A few days after Donald Trump committed the worst foreign-policy blunder of his presidency by betraying America’s Kurdish allies in northern Syria, former vice president Joe Biden, the elder statesman and co-frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary, was on a national stage talking to CNN’s primetime ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith Resigns

Fox News Channel's chief anchor, Shepard Smith, announced on air Friday that he would be resigning from his post after 23 years with the network. “This is my last newscast here,” said Smith. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News. After requesting that I stay, they obliged.” He ... Read More
White House

What Is Impeachment For?

W hat is impeachment for? Seems like a simple question. Constitutionally speaking, it also appears to have a simple answer: to cite and remove from power a president guilty of wrongdoing. Aye, there’s the rub. What sort of wrongdoing warrants removal from power? I’d wager that the flames of ... Read More
NR Webathon

Don’t Let Michael Mann Succeed

I  enjoyed the running joke of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the great Dickens novel Bleak House, back when I first read it. Little did I know that one day I and the magazine that I love would effectively be caught up in a version of that interminable case, courtesy of a litigious climate scientist with zero regard ... Read More

Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State

Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is within the margin of error of non-existence, but in his failure he has found a purpose: expressing the Democratic id. His latest bid for left-wing love came at a CNN forum on gay rights, where he said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have to pay ... Read More