Monday, November 20, 2006

Political Surge

Our military is studying what to do in Iraq separately from the Baker commission. Our troop level is part of the long debate on how many troops we need to win in Iraq.

I've long said that discussing 20,000 more troops for Iraq is pointless given that winningt is mostly a political problem with a military component and not a military problem. Further, 20,000 more US troops doing what our current 140,000 troops are doing won't much matter in affecting the situation inIraq, but will just strain our Army more. Though the method of overlapping units coming and going for a longer period makes this a one-time strain rather than a new strain. We'd drop down within 4-6 months to the baseline after a gradual increase in the first half of that time frame.

The military's basic solution is to stay in Iraq long enough to train the Iraqi security forces. This is Counter-Insurgency 101. But the public and domestic opposition want change, so:

The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.


The article says 20,000 to 30,000 more US troops. Note that the talk of ending violence is not the prime reason for the increase given by our military. Oh, as long as they are in Iraq they will do as much as possible. No point in them twiddling their thumbs. Use 'em while they are there.

But the main point for increasing troop strength is as a political signal to Iraqis that we are not abandoning them but helping them in a different manner.

However, as much as the symbol is directed at influencing Iraqis to hang tough, I worry that the hype of sending more US troops will lead to a more rapid public loss of support here in America when the additional troops inevitably fail to win in short order. Iraq is not a military problem (not since we toppled Saddam's regime, anyway) so more military force doesn't help us win faster.

I'd rather find another way to sate the desire for change and to reassure the Iraqi government and public of our commitment. As is true for so much that goes on in Iraq, the impact of increasing US troop strength is likely to be felt far more here at home. And not in a good way.