Fresh American troops may be headed to Iraq as part of a so-called “surge” to turn the course of the war. The effort is likely to mean a tour of duty for perhaps 10,000 or more U.S. troops, although the numbers and time frame are still in flux.
If that is true, President Bush will need firm answers to overcome some intense public opposition. What will the troops’ mission be? A push to secure Baghdad? A move to train more Iraqi troops to take control of their country? A drive to vanquish the bloody Shiite militias of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr? A new offensive against the Sunni death squads and foreign terrorists tormenting the country?
There are those who argue that security trumps all and that the troops should be used mainly to douse the relentless violence in Baghdad. That strikes us as short-sighted. It’s a military solution to what has become mostly a political problem.
Yes, more troops might briefly tamp down violence in the capital, at least in some areas. But there’s no guarantee of that; a similar attempt last fall failed. And remember, a surge is a temporary maneuver, designed to get quick results. If we know it, then the enemy does too.
As the Iraq Study Group report said: “Perpetrators of violence leave neighborhoods in advance of security sweeps, only to filter back later. Iraqi police have been unable or unwilling to stop such infiltration and continuing violence. … Security efforts will fail unless the Iraqis have both the capability to hold areas that have been cleared and the will to clear neighborhoods that are home to Shiite militias.”
If there is a mission for a surge of American troops, it will be to help Iraq stand on its own sooner. That may mean doubling or tripling the number of American advisers in Iraqi units. It can’t mean doing the job for them.
As former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned in an interview with columnist Cal Thomas published last month in the Tribune: “The more troops you have–particularly American troops, who are so darn good at what they do–the more they will do things and the more dependent the Iraqis will become, and the less independent they will become.”
More troops means more targets for insurgents. More troops also feeds the image of America as an occupier, which may further fuel the insurgency. Gen. George Casey, the top-ranked commander in Iraq, added this caution: The more troops, the more Iraqi leaders “can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are, at base, their problems.”
Their problems. That’s about as candid as a serving general gets.
Prevailing in Iraq will require a different sort of surge, one of better trained, more committed Iraqi troops and military leaders. Most important, it will demand Iraqi political will. As the Iraq Study Group concluded: “The fundamental cause of violence in Iraq … is the absence of national reconciliation.”
So far, unfortunately, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government have been unwilling or unable to take the tough political steps to reconcile all sects and factions. The disgraceful taunting of Saddam Hussein by his Shiite executioners provided an appallingly stark reminder of how divided–splintered–Iraq is.
As Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno told Newsweek: “You now have different groups … trying to vie for power within Iraq. That’s what makes this extremely more complex than this has been in the past. It’s not simply Sunni insurgents or Al Qaeda that we’re fighting anymore–fighting is the wrong term–we’re trying to influence (Iraqis) to operate within the confines of the government.”
A surge of American troops runs risks. It may buy the Iraqi government more time to avoid hard decisions. It may buy Iraqi leaders more time to not confront the Shiite militias that are fanning brutal sectarian violence. Or more time to avoid bringing Sunnis into a full political partnership and enlist their aid in reining in Sunni death squads.
If Bush is to sell a new mission, it must be guided by one fact: Only the Iraqis can put an end to the violence.
