Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
actually, ratbastid, I think it depends how you define the "surge." Is it jsut the increase in manpower or the change in command and strategy that called for the increased manpower? It seems obvious (to me, at least) that changing to a more population-based strategy under a counter-insurgency expert (Petraeus) has enabled the US military to react more flexibly and creatively, and to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the sheikhs reasserting their authority when AQI overstepped its bounds and got the population pissed off at them.
I wouldn't say it's the only cause, but clearly it has contributed mightily to the increasing stabilization of the country, the return of refugees, the improving economy, etc, etc, etc. A lot of that is also the Iraqis themselves getting tired of the ongoing instability.
|
That's exactly my point. To say "The surge is working" is to approve of a Bush plan and therefore Bush. I mean, my God, how many months were they hard-selling us on that? The idea that more feet in the dirt would solve the whole problem? And it was a hard sell, because at the time it looked like just sending more American meat into the grinder.
"Surge" was defined as "more troops". Going back now to redefine it as "the prevailing situation as it stands now including all factors" it is disingenuous and is, as I mentioned above, the most transparent of political wordsmithing.
I suspect that other strategies, combined with the other factors you mention, WITHOUT a troop escalation might have produced the same results. It's the approach that should have been taken starting right at "Mission Accomplished". So, I guess I should congratulate the Administration and those accountable for the war effort for only using up three years and 3000+ body bags before they got their heads out of their asses?