Reply #6: The point of the Surge was not an injection of troops

[Bad Thoughts]

This is a difficult point to get across in normal political discourse: Democrats always said that the occupation of Iraq was undermanned and that more soldiers were needed.

According to its original mission, the Surge was supposed to create military conditions, particularly in Baghdad, that would allow Maliki to pursue reconciliation among Iraq's social and ethnic groups.

That mission failed. Maliki was both unwilling and incapable of pursuing reconciliation.

The resources dedicated to the Surge were then dedicated to supported a transformation already taking place. Sunni insurgents ended their accommodation with al Qaeda. They did not share the same vision of a theological state, and the two groups turned on each other. Patreus offered money, material and support to this movement after it was already half a year old.

Here's the kicker: the Surge armed the insurgents. It armed the Jihadists, many of the people who were killing our soldiers.

More soldiers would probably help in Afghanistan. European troops are better at peace keeping and nation building tasks, but they are being used for counter insurgency. More US soldiers could take over this task, and everyone would be doing what they do best. Arming the Afghani insurgents is risky, to say the least, and it was in Iraq.

I highly recommend Steven Simon's The Price of the Surge (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2008).