There is an article in today's WaPo on what the troop 'surge' in Iraq means. The article spells out that the 'surge' is meant to last at least 18 months and that it is intended as part of a greater effort to go after militant groups like that Al-Mahdi army in Baghdad and so forth.
This is the WaPo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600773_pf.htmlThe Right Type of 'Surge'
Any Troop Increase Must Be Large and Lasting
By Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan
Wednesday, December 27, 2006; A19
Reports on the Bush administration's efforts to craft a new strategy in Iraq often use the term "surge" but rarely define it. Estimates of the number of troops to be added in Baghdad range from fewer than 10,000 to more than 30,000. Some "surges" would last a few months, others a few years.
We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad -- the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development -- is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.
The key to the success is to change the military mission -- instead of preparing for transition to Iraqi control, that mission should be to bring security to the Iraqi population. Surges aimed at accelerating the training of Iraqi forces will fail, because rising sectarian violence will destroy Iraq before the new forces can bring it under control.
Any military strategy must of course be accompanied by a range of diplomatic, political, economic and reconciliation initiatives, but those alone will not contain the violence either. Success in Iraq today requires a well-thought-out military operation aimed at bringing security to the people of Baghdad as quickly as possible -- a traditional counterinsurgency mission.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600773_pf.htmlLarry Johnson had a link on his web site to a PowerPoint presentation that detailed what the 'Go Big' proponents wanted in a 'surge.' This is some eye-opening reading and the points raised should be the focus of a lot of talk in DC in January in all the Committees that will be holding hearings on Iraq, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600773_pf.htmlI draw your attention to slide #48, where the designers of this war escalation ask themselves if this will mean a bump in the number of US casualties. Here is there answer:
More Casualties?
•Yes
•Short-term increase in casualties is not a sign of failure
•As troops actively secure the population the enemy will surge its attacks on coalition troops and Iraqi civilians
•Long term casualties over a nine month period will decrease as the population is secured
As of Dec 13, 2006