How can the "surge" overcome the following problems?

Question

1. The Mahdi Army and other militias laying low during the surge

2. Insurgents leaving Baghdad for less secure areas, and returning once the surge is over.

3. Insurgents picking up arms after US troops leave.

In other insurgencies, this is what has happened. For example, the French basically destroyed the rebels in Algeria, but that didn't stop them from popping back up. How can the US realisticlyfix the root causes of the conflict between the Sunni and Shia, when political solutions haven't worked til now? How can the US stop the flow of Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Syrian support for the various sides?

It seems to me that while General Petraeus may be a counterinsurgency guru, the issues I have listed make any victory in the conventional sense unlikely. If what I have said is even somewhat true, won't it be impossible to tell if the surge actually worked until it has been over for a couple of months?

Serious answers please. Try not to be partisan.

Follow up question: If after the surge violence rises to previous levels, will you then support a withdrawl, or do you still feel an open ended commitment is the best course of action to take?

Answer 1

Unfortunately everything you have said about the surge has a high probability of happening. That is the problem with dealing in the Middle East (especially Iraq and Iran) where there are no Arab democracies. The US can't fix the Sunni and Shai problem unless we use overwhelming force and military law in Iraq (essentially acting like a new Saddam regime). Sunni muslims make up the vast majority of Islamic faith, however Iraq is now ruled by the Shia muslim majority in the country. This is a civil war for power of the country. The US can't stop the flow of support from Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia unless we militarily engaged these countries and put down the "iron hand" on these countries. And that is very likely not to happen.

The Middle East is obsessed with military might and following the Islamic faith which has no room for western-style democracies. The surge will only result in a higher percentage of the US military being injured and/or killed and frustrated. I say frustrated because this "surge" in troops level is mostly an extention of the existing military tours already in Iraq.

The Arab world sees the double-sided rhetoric of the US and other western democracies when we say we want a democratic Iraq and yet when the Palestinians elected to put Hamas in positions of authority, the Palestinians lost international support and aid.

The American public won't tolerate trying to outlast the insurgents at the expense of military lives and taxpayer dollars. If the surge works (meaning less attacks?), then Bush has "I told you so" political credit than can be used by the Republican party in upcoming Congressional races and the 2008 Presidential race. However if the surge fails to accomplish a quelling of the violence in Iraq in 13 months, Bush can probably kiss Republican party chances for the 2008 Presidency and other Congressional seats goodbye.

Answer 2

Let's just say they lay low or get out of town. Let's just say the "surge" works fairly well in restoring law, order and a fair degree of tranquility to Baghdad. Okay.

They are depending on the average person getting to like being able to walk outside without fear. After a while it might become addictive, to send their kids to school, to shop at the market to work a job and see life become somewhat normal.

Once that happens they hope the good people simply will not stand by and let the scum-bags return and plunge their lives back into hell a year or two from now.

I don't know if it will work. But that's your answer.

Answer 3

The concerns that you point out in your question are very real and are echoed by the commanders on the ground in Iraq.
Thus far, the sweep through Baghdad has been seemingly both successful and effective. The terror attacks have decreased by almost ten fold.
The question is simply, are we truly routing out the insurgents, or are they simply lying low due to the presence of a force that will actually fight back - rather than the market place crowded with unarmed and innocent shoppers? Unfortunately, their blood lust, hatred and resolve are factors that are not in our favor.
As you point out, if the terror resumes in a couple of months or so, we will know the answer. Until then, we can be optimistic and, as the president requested, give this new strategy a chance to work.

Answer 4

We are there until the Iraqi Government can get on it's feet. ie training Iraqi Soldiers.

If Iraqis don't wake the hell up and defend their own country, then we have no choice but to continue to stay and protect, or leave and let it fall back into terrorist hands.

The problem is that most Americans still think we are fighting a "war" in Iraq with real enemies, but all we are fighting are ******* who hide behind women and children while shooting at our troops. They call themselves "warriors of islam" and they're hiding behind women and children. Then you hear that a child dies and the World feels sad, so America is labeled the bully.

Meanwhile, most libs are busy working for rights for robots (I'm not kidding).

Answer 5

The simple answer is that you take the hill and keep it. You don't take the hill and then walk back. They made us do that in Vietnam. It didn't work.

The correct answer, in any scenario, is for the Iraqi Army to take over the security operations in Iraq. This has finally begun to happen.

Answer 6

Its good to see you post this, people have very little idea how complicated things really are. We may have to stick around and stop and backlash, and the support-there's where we need our economic sanctions. You're either with us, or not. Suffer the consequences!