In light of growing evidence that "the surge" is working, that even Brian Williams couldn't ignore, Robert Kagan asks an interesting question.

It would be wonderful if the surge "worked". It seems to me it's much too early to say much about the surge. Kagan should have waited a year before writing this column. As other have noted, there is a watch and wait attitude among the Iraqis. If the new tactics we use work, wonderful, but that does also mean we have to keep doing what we are doing for years since the Iraqis are nowhere near ready to take over. In other words, if the surge works we have to be there for years before we can consider any draw down. Looks like 2003 redux, roll the dice again with a better plan and much improved leaders (Gates, Petraeus).

offside,
I've been waging a war of words with anon over at another of Rand's postings, but let me address you here along similar lines.

Why is it that we need to make provisions to exit Iraq NOW, but Kagan needed to wait to write his article? As a matter of fact if the anti-war crowd had their way we'd be long gone from there in a year. So there would be no article to write. I have never noticed the MSM waiting even ten seconds to say something negative about he war, why should Kagan wait to give his opinion of something positive?

It would seem that pressing the fight against the insurgents and pressing the flesh with the locals is working. Let it work, lets see what happens for a month or two. Yes that means more troops die and get wounded. It's a war, not a Sunday afternoon picnic. It's what all military people signed on to do. Follow orders and possibly die.

Define "working"

For me, one key is to get the Iraqis to carry the ball concerning their own security. A "surge" combined with a threat to leave if the Iraqis refuse to carry the ball themselves may be exactly what is needed. Many people say the Iraqis need to face a "good cop/bad cop" scenario: "Start making progress or we are out of here!"

The GOP pulls the wheel right and the Democrats pull the whell left and the car drives down the middle of the road.

Heh! Maybe that will work after all, if the two forces balance each other out. A

Steve, I read your post elsewhere and before I say anything else let me say how much I appreciate the reasoned manner in which you presented your case. Rest assured that many, many of us are with you in your prayers.

The MSM and media in general today is awful. There is absolutely no patience; the response they want is in milliseconds not years. This is a REAL problem in an age of instant gratification. And then there is another form of media, talk radio that is equally or more destructive of reasoned calculation or of creating a unified nation.

That said, my issue with Kagan on this is that as an author of the surge he should have allowed other to comment on the improved conditions and stayed out of a self-congratulatory op-ed piece until it was undeniably evident to all, even if that takes a year.

The basic point on which I agree with you and Jonathon is that if this is to be done right, we are talking not a surge but a commitment for many years, probably a decade before the average Iraqi has enough positives to trade that they can buy into a self identification different from tribe and sect.

I'd like to see Kagan explain "Last Throes".

When the cops are on the streets the criminals stay home. Isn't that pretty much what this is?

Jolly good I think, provided we can keep them there long enough.

AS I have said all along, there is an 70-80 percent chance that the surge will work.

If it does then the idiots who rejected policies like it three or more years ago are going to look even more stupid.

Don Rumsfeld comes to mind.

Dick Cheney is another.

DUMB Ideological hacks.

Robert

But Robert -- what about those who were calling for this surge previously, but are against it now?

What are they?

Why you wingnuts persistently listen to these neocons who have been wrong on just about everything when it concerns Iraq is just beyond. Notice that his brother is the architect of the "surge". Disclaimer

Why you wingnuts persistently listen to these neocons who have been wrong on just about everything when it concerns Iraq is just beyond me. Notice that his brother is the architect of the "surge". Disclaimer

The reason I believe the surge will be a failure, is
that it's been tried before. Siginificant increases in
force were done for the Elections, the handover of
CPA authority and one other event.

That didn't work then, there is no reason it will work now.

But Robert -- what about those who were calling for this surge previously, but are against it now?

What are they?

Posted by McGehee at March 11, 2007 12:41 PM\\

Political hacks.

There are a certian group of people in the country on both sides of the extremes who are "for" everything that their side offers and against everything that the "other" side, whatever that side is offers.

Unless (and a big UNLESS) the political winds are blowing very stiff in one direction or another.

Most of the "anti Bush" people in terms of Iraq policy are simply utter political hacks. I'll use Edwards but there are others...they were loud cheerleaders for this effort when the politics were overwhelmingly for it...

And now that the politics have swung the other way then they are well back to their true nature.

There are "honorable" politicans on Iraq who dont agree with Bush. I dont know (and almost no one does) what Gore's views on the surge are, but his views on the war in the first place were completly honorable. They were completly consistent with his previous views.

Gore in his San Fran speech raises coherent questions that should have had coherent answers before we set one boot on the ground. McCain was all for going (I disagreed with that BTW) but like Gore his views were well thought out and consistent with his previous beliefs.

If Clinton or Gore had sent forces to Iraq and things were this screwed up, the "rah rah" people here would be burning him in effigy for EXACTLY The same policy.

And the folks who are beating the drums of "run away" in the dem party would be saying "stay the course"...

Robert

That didn't work then, there is no reason it will work now.

Posted by anonymous at March 11, 2007 06:17 PM

It is not the same...there are some significant differences this time around. FINALLY someone has read Pershings book on this AND there is a SecDef who is busily firing incompetents.

Robert