‘The Surge’ Shows That Numbers Matter
by Darin MillerWhile President Barack Obama prepares to discuss potential military strategies for the war in Afghanistan today, the nation prepares to honor veterans of our nation’s wars. On the Monday before Veterans Day, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Institute for the Study of War took a constructive look at major military efforts in Iraq. The Institute presented “The Surge: The Untold Story,” [which you can watch in full below] a 30-minute briefing on the strategy that brought about a massive swing in the course of the Iraq war in a matter of months. The film premiered at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
“The Surge” is really a snapshot, briefly summarizing the events of late 2006 to deliver key background, setting the stage and highlighting key strategic elements implemented in 2007 that ultimately pushed terrorist groups out of Baghdad, with the help of an emboldened Iraqi nation.
The story is told in a fast-paced, modern style, transitioning between interviews, live footage and pictures with military-style cuts and zooms. The interviews are very informative, though there were two problems. First, there is little if any negativity reflected in the film when analyzing the Surge strategy. Some opposition would have more effectively recaptured the atmosphere surrounding the controversial troop increase, and also lent further credibility to the effort’s effectiveness. The reason no negativity was shown, however, is that the generals, and now most politicians, agree that the Surge worked exactly as it was supposed to.
Additionally, the film is simply too short. It analyzes key components of the surge strategy, and also gives a broad overview, but it left me as a viewer hungry for more information. Fortunately, a panel of experts spoke after the viewing, providing more than sufficient information on the strategy. The film’s website contains extensive information for further research as well as a streamed version of the film.
The discussion panel that followed the film consisted of:
- General John Keane, a retired U.S. Army four-star general. Keane was one of the architects of the Iraq troop surge.
- Dr. Kimberly Kagan, the founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War. Kagan has written on the Surge strategy for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Foreign Policy Magazine.
- Colonel David Sutherland, a colonel in the U.S. Army. Sutherland commanded the 3rd “Greywolf” Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division in Diyala Province during the Surge.
- Lieutenant General James M. Dubik, a retired lieutenant general for the U.S. Army. Dubik oversaw the generation and training of the Iraqi Security Forces in the second half of 2007.
- Michael R. Gordon, the New York Times’ chief military correspondent. Gordon is currently writing a history of the conflict in Iraq from 2006 to the present.
The film’s highlights, which include never-before-seen interviews with General David Petraeus and General Raymond Odierno, reveal a complex strategy. Instead of simply throwing troops at the Iraq problem, President George W. Bush authorized generals to carefully install selected numbers of troops in areas of need, providing crucial stability and allowing the U.S. to mount an offensive.
The U.S. military was not the only one to carefully plan. The Surge was necessary because violence was increasing not in a random way, but in a systematic one designed to undermine the fledgling Iraqi government. The film points out both the plans, and cowardice, of the enemy quite clearly. Shi’a death squads and al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) fought each other, but in a nontraditional way by attacking civilians. This terrorist strategy backfired due to the Anbar Awakening and the Surge, two fundamental changes in a joint effort to stabilize Iraq.
One strategy the film clearly illustrates through interviews and footage is the importance of building relationships with locals, and also the ability of our armed forces to do so quite effectively. The Surge troops secured the locals, working among them and giving them a reason to rely on U.S. military might, rather than the manipulative AQI. Once the locals felt safe, they began to share the who, what and where of AQI and Shi’a weapons caches and safe houses. This fundamentally changed the war.
Such effective strategy should not be ignored, but analyzed and reused. General Stanley McChrystal’s request for an additional 40,000 troops, while significant, could do in Afghanistan what the Surge did in Iraq. While the countries differ, the troops do not, and American soldiers have shown themselves time and again to be the friends of repressed peoples and the bane of oppressors. Through the last century this hasn’t changed, and the people of the United States, can be confident when they celebrate Veterans Day today that this fact will be as true in Afghanistan as it was in Iraq.





Subscribe via RSS
19 Comments
Afghanistan is a tough nut to crack…
As the Brits, and Russians have found out much to their chagrin. Hell, the Afghans have been defending the Khyber pass against all comers for millenia.
Without the Pakistanis TOTALLY on board this will be a continuous problem. And they are experts at playing both sides against the middle.
A surge of troops- coupled with a reformed Afghan government and REAL effort from the Pakis to police their own border region- can work.
We shall see…
Afghanistan has indeed been conquered in the past. Several times. (Really? But the MSM said….).
Comparisons to Kipling's redcoats and their bullock-drawn train, or to the crude and incompetent Soviets, are hardly germane. Yes, Afghanistan presents a number of geographic and cultural challenges. But it's sheer dimwittery to mouth platitudes like "Afghanistan is where empires go to die."
"Those who only remember shallow, facile versions of history are condemned to repeat mindless bromides."
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood and Fernando Colon, Vicki Cunningham . Vicki Cunningham said: RT @bighollywood: ‘The Surge’ Shows That Numbers Matter http://bit.ly/2ydq8q [...]
agree with your thrust; however the lessons learned- and forgotten- of the British and Russian engagements are completely germaine to the issue. It is a dark , brutal, and backwards place only significant for it's strategic position.
The Afghanis, unlike the Iraqis- are almost hopelessly backwards. And not only the Taliban, but Al Qaeda and the Pakistanis want it that way. Remember, the Taliban is a creation of the ISI, Pakistani intelligence.
And we give them billions in aid.
So while we feel the conflict to be capable of a positive resolution- do not underestimate the will- and effort- that will be needed.
It may take some time, but eventually Pakistan will have to finally deal with their issues, once and for all. They've got bombs going off in major cities almost daily. They're only going to put up with their crazy cousins in the mountains, for so long.
Afghanistan is where empires go to go broke.
It's just not worth the cost to tame.
If we are going to treat General McChrystal as the infallible authority here, it would be nice for him to explain just why he submitted Pat Tillman for a Silver Star, when such an award is NOT given for friendly fire deaths. McChrystal participated in a coverup with Tillman's death, and ought to be given a chance to explain himself fully before being held accountable.
I won't pretend to know what the General was thinking, but I think you may have answered your own question. Because it's not awarded for friendly fire.
The point is that McChrystal tried to give Tillman a posthumous award that he didn't earn. Just how long was he going to go along with the lie that Tillman died in an ambush and not in a tragic accident.
Remember, the Tillman death was announced the same day as the world learned of the Abu Ghirab photos. Don't think it was a coincidence.
No it wasn't a coincidence. Pat Tillman got a lot of press when he left the NFL to join the army. From a human stand point, any loss of soldiers is a tragedy. From a PR standpoint, losing Tillman to friendly fire was nightmare.
I'd like to think he did it to save the Tillman's even more grief. Its hard enough sending off a family member to war. Its almost too much to bare to bury them. But to learn their death was nothing more than a mistake, I don't know how anyone could live with that.
At this point I'm willing to give the general the benefit of the doubt out of respect for the military. But I'd be a fool to not recognize the image of Tillman with a hero's death as a recruiting tool.
dcase,
I tend to agree. But I don't see quitting as an option.
It is hard to attempt building civilization someplace that really does not even have roads…
They persuaded Karzai to agree to a run-off with "Gallons of Tea" and a roasted goat… Hard to see that working most places.
Regardless, American's have solved difficult problems before and we can do so again.
I think we need to completely secure the few metropolitan spots, and clear and hold the tribal area's. I would like to see what might happen with a pincer move where the Pakistani put pressure on their "tribal" areas and we do the same on the A-stan side.
quitting is not an option- it would be yet another failure of US will against an entrenched foe. That said, we must be circumspect in what both our goals- and mission statement- is. And we do need an honest Afghan government.
That so far we do not have…
dcase,
Agreed. As to the honest govt. Heck we need one of those here at the moment…
But similar to the roads comment, they have no culture of honesty and integrity, we must build all of that infrastructure as well.
As has been true for most of our recent wars, we have no choice but to work with the allies we have…
We can wish for better, but…
good point on the lackof honest governments… can't really expect a 6th century feudal system to improve overnight while our 250 year old experiment is as corrupt as ever…
I cant speak for the British engagement in Afghanistan, but the Russians were going along at a decent pace destroying the will of Afghanistan, until we started selling arms to the mujahideen. That stopped Russia in its tracks pretty quickly. So without our help, who knows how that would have turned out.
it was the stinger AA missles that the CIA made available to -who else- Bin Laden… best laid plans of mice and men, you know…
The real untold story is the story of why we needed a surge (anywhere) in the first place.
The surge worked because we turned Iraq into a segrgated prison! Sunnis and Shiites were relegated to their own areas, 12 ft blast walls were built around entire neighborhoods with only one way in and one way out. So I guess you think the Berlin Wall was a good idea too…You then contradict your "more troops surge" mentality by CLEARLY stating, "One strategy the film clearly illustrates through interviews and footage is the importance of building relationships with locals"
EXACTLY!! It's not guns and bombs that "win the hearts" it's aid and assistance. The reason the bombings have increased again is the walls were taken down, the checkpoints removed and security left to corrupt Iraqi's. Now the "Prison guards" are leaving and we wonder why it's getting worse?
According to the GAO we spend $1M a year for each soldier deployed…So the 40K more Soldiers requested is only $40B a year in tax payer dollars added to the already $200B we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan each year….Ask the tea baggers, we have $240B in tax dollars to spend over their each year just laying around.
"It's not guns and bombs that "win the hearts" it's aid and assistance"
Aid and assistance are only possible after security. For which you need men.
Idiot. Believe me, I would happily slash $240B from the welfare budget to pay for the war.
You must be logged in to post a comment.