Evaluating "The Surge", aka, the McCain escalation

Pat Lang doesn't think much of what The Surge has accomplished in The "Surge" and its results Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008 blog:

Yes, more troops made possible a more complete application of Petraeus' revival of counter-insurgency methods and that was a plus, but that does not mean that the increased number of troops would have produced a similar result without the basic change in strategy.

In addition, the Sunni Revolt against the takfiri jihadis lies at the very heart of what has changed in Iraq. That revolt reached the point of "critical mass" at a time in which many people succeeded in convincing the American command in Iraq that predestination might be a feature of religious thought for many Americans but the idea of redemption as a possibility for insurgents would probably be a better operational approach. This serendipity (revolt plus counter-insurgency methods) made the difference this year in Iraq, not more infantry. Once again, the additional infantry were useful, but only that.

It is reasonably said by some that none of this matters because the underlying social and political causes of the internal problem in Iraq have not been solved. That is true, but I haven't given up on the possibility yet.

He also links to this article, Bush: Iraq force reduction is on track by James Gerstenzang Los Angeles Times 01/13/08. Our Dear Leader continues to hide his own decisions behind Savior-General David Petraeus:

Administration officials have spoken for several weeks about their goal of reducing troop levels by five brigades by July, from a high of 20. That would bring the number of U.S. troops in Iraq below 140,000, from the 158,000 in the country at the end of December. There were about 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq a year ago when Bush announced he was sending more.

Bush told reporters that, about the reductions, he had told Petraeus, "If you want to slow her down, fine; it's up to you."

Tags: iraq war, pat lang, surge