Surge, Then Ebb
The great military analyst and historian John Keegan on the ’surge’:
President George W. Bush is about to launch a final push in Iraq with a large reinforcement of American troops in the hope of crushing the insurgency before America embarks on a large-scale withdrawal of force from the country.
The size of the force is commonly set at about 40,000-50,000 troops. The aim of this surge will be to inflict severe damage and loss on the problem-making elements within Iraq, including both Shia and Sunni militias, and to increase training of the Iraqi security forces under American supervision.
…Military logic requires that any reinforcements should contain a sizeable number of armoured vehicles. Insurgents, though they have had some success in attacking tanks and armoured fighting vehicles, are not properly equipped to resist a heavily armoured enemy.
The object of the surge deployment should be to overwhelm the insurgents with a sudden concentration, both of numbers, armoured vehicles and firepower with the intention to inflict severe losses and heavy shock. The Mahdi Army in Sadr City should prove vulnerable to such tactics, which would of course be supported by helicopters and fixed-wing aviation.
Hitherto most military activity by coalition forces has been reactive rather than unilateral. Typically, units have become involved in fire fights while on patrol or on convoy protection duties. During the surge, the additional troops would take the fight to the enemy with the intention of doing him harm, destabilising him and his leaders and damaging or destroying the bases from which he operates.
The cost of such tactics is likely to be high but not unbearable if enough armoured vehicles are used to protect the attacking troops. The advantage of committing recently arrived troops to such operations is that they will come to operations fresh and enthusiastic. Though there is the disadvantage that they may not be familiar with local conditions or topography, this need not be a disqualification since the purpose of a surge strike would be to create a shock effect, not to alter local conditions by informal action.
The British contingent recently demonstrated that such overwhelming tactics have their effect. After their surprise move into Basra with massed columns of fighting vehicles and Challenger tanks, they succeeded in dominating the chosen area and evoking respect from the local militias.
In any case, the sending of such force will be a necessary preliminary to any reduction in strength, since it would be necessary to cover the withdrawal. Retreat is a complicated operation of war which paradoxically always involves far more troops if it is to be brought off successfully. The reason for that is that the spectacle of withdrawal tempts the enemy to interpret the time of withdrawal as an indication of weakness, and so risks infliction of passing shots and the launching of farewell attacks. It is vastly important to have additional troops on hand at such a time.
No mention in that analysis, however, of what I see as the necessary companion to the surge, and that is the attempt to form a new parliamentary ruling bloc of relative moderates. I’m very concerned about that effort, which definitely seems to be a more remote possibility than it did a few short weeks ago…
Where are these 40,000 – 50,000 troops coming from?
By which I mean, where, from the available areas, will they come, at what cost, and on what timetable? It seems irrational to me to have all this discussion about Surge vs. No-Surge without being specific about those details.
too many steves, Keegan does cover that (albeit not in great detail):
A major consideration is where the troops are to be found. Some formations of the regular American army and some national guard formations remain within the United States, but much has already been deployed to Iraq and it may prove difficult to find the necessary soldiers. Also problematic is the task of transporting them and their equipment to the fighting zones. How are they to be moved and where are they to be based?
Despite the deployment to Iraq already made and the number of units and formations elsewhere in the world (specifically in Afghanistan), the US Army and Marine Corps still maintain a large deployable reserve in America. There should be no difficulty in finding a regular or national guard army division or a marine division.
Its equipment could be transported in the designated huge transport vehicles of its C-lift reserve fleet, while the personnel could be flown by the vast fleet of C-5 transports. The obvious point of entry is Kuwait, from which the invasion of Iraq was launched in 2003.
Yes, I saw that and should apologize for not making it clear my question is really intended for GWB. It seems to me this surge strategy has been the preferred (maybe only) plan since Rumsfeld resigned and it irritates me that we are waiting to implement it with the public excuse being that the President is off building consensus on the specifics of the plan, which, in circular fashion, I believe has already been decided and therefore just a show. It is as if we are in a long drawn out “trial balloon” exercise. It is all too Clinton-esque for my taste.
To my eyes, George Bush is like the guy at the poker table who lost most of his chips and keeps throwing more on the table in hopes of somehow getting even. To quote Kenny Rogers: sometimes you gotta know when to fold them.
The Bush administration has gotten nearly everything wrong in Iraq, from the rush to war to the present. There is no reason to think that it will be any different in the future. The President who said he will defer to the judgment of his military leaders is apparently ready to sack Casey (which is like Woody Allen’s response when his shrink tells him that Annie Hall is wrong for him: he gets another shrink). Despite the judgment of the ISG, world opinion, and an electoral mandate, Bush not only thumbs his nose but goes in the completely opposite direction and escalates. Maybe the better metaphor is being a bus passenger in “Crash,” where you can’t get off and you can’t control what the driver is doing.
If you were a Democrat in Congress, would you enforce the will of the American people by refusing to fund an escalation? And if not, why not?
Well, peter, we have a republic instead of a direct democracy precisely because the founders wanted to give our leaders space to lead, instead of being always beholden to the tyranny of the majority – but suppose I take you at your word and concede for the sake of argument that the American people want out, and they want out now – you still have to deal with the consequences of Keegan’s last paragraph quoted above, where he states the necessity of increasing forces for a successful withdrawal (and believe me, the man is the very definition of an expert)…
I don’t claim any expertise on military campaigns or tactics, but I’m skeptical that the surge is being executed to effect a withdrawal –
To be sure, I don’t think it’s the MAIN reason for the surge – the main reason is to clamp down on security. But it might be a necessary prerequisite, if Keegan is right…