December 23, 2006
U.S. Commanders In Iraq Set for 'Surge' In Forces?
Dan Riehl posts that US commanders on the ground in Iraq, including General Casey, are apparently prepared to go with a "surg"e in forces as part of any new strategy. The article Dan links to points out that some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain skeptical of a surge, and are unconvinced that it will yield more positive results than other recent military operations to secure Baghdad or Iraq.
So, more troops and "surge" on, or not?
We've never had enough troops in Iraq and we've never seriously engaged the enemy - the real enemy - Iran, Syria, and Muqtada al-Sadr. However, sending more troops now without changing the rules of engagement is a complete exercise in futility. What would that entail? Victor Davis Hanson offered some suggestions the other day at PJM:
Putting Iran and Syria on notice that we will bomb terrorists flocking across their borders (edit: And their military as well if they don't stop the terrorists themselves).Send more troops? It depends on just what the hell we're going to do when they get there!
Give an ultimatum to militia heads, especially Moqtadar Sadr, to disband or face annihilation from the United States.
Expand the rules of engagement in all matters dealing with IEDs, with a shoot on sight rule concerning anyone found implanting or aiding such efforts.
Enlarge the planned Iraqi security forces to near 400,000, and embed far more Americans in those units.
Recalibrate the ratio of support to combat troops, so that we don't simply create bigger compounds to facilitate larger troop levels to end up with more stationary and more numerous targets--and ever more enclaves of Americans behind thousands of acres of bermed reserves.
So spell out the mission, the new rules of engagement, and then, and only then, surge--if need be-- more troops.
Cross posted from Hyscience
Posted by Richard at December 23, 2006 10:30 AM