it's one thing to send just enough to settle the situation, but quite another to realize that, with the rotational strain coming to a head, there's still no question--despite the expected operational success of the surge--that the drawdown and pullback must occur, so the larger issue remains: What have we done diplomatically in the region to adjust to that inevitable pathway?
Here the news is far less sanguine: we've done little to nothing, instead teeing up Iran for air strikes that are unlikely to get us what we want in either Iran or Iraq, and with Gaza in shambles, this would likely flare too. So yes, kudos to Petraeus in particular and CENTCOM in general for finally getting the strategy right in Iraq, but it comes so late (blame to Rummy and Cheney) that the strain on our forces dictates the drawdown unfolds no matter what, and with Bush & Co, not prepping the regional security environment at all for this outcome, our current gains are unlikely to be sustainable.
Barnett got it right.
And DOD and the US Army screwed this war up so bad it is unbelievable.
Right now we are back at phase 1. This is much closer to what we should have been doing 4+ years ago when SF first reported the insurgency. But at least we are in phase 1 again.
OK, so we have backed up into close to a good game plan for phase 1. What is phase 2?
Don't schedule the parade yet. The surge cannot win this thing. The surge is merely and at best a temporary solution to a long term problem.
Now what? And then what? are the bigger questions begging for answers. No one is offering answers yet. And I don't think most Americans are going to like the answers.
I don't see an honorable and effective way out for at least 10 years. That is a long time to leave our troops in harm's way.
If we leave too soon, I agree with Barnett when he says, "our current gains are unlikely to be sustainable." |
