Jul 24 2008
Liberal SurrenderMedia Displays Their Ignorance Of The Military Again
The liberal SurrenderMedia was so focused on helping the Surrendercrats try and stop the war in Iraq that they ignored all the debate about The Surge and how it really is shorthand (for those simple minds that think in shallow sound bites) for counter-insurgency tactics. All through the first 6 months of the debacle that is the current Democrat Congress’ reign the SurrenderMedia just tuned out what was going on – and now they and the Surrendercrats are shocked that The Surge was more than increasing the troop levels in Iraq. Here is CNN demonstrating their ignorance as they claim McCain is trying to change the meaning of The Surge:
McCain broadens definition of surge
The Arizona senator told reporters Wednesday afternoon that when he refers to the surge, it encompasses not just the January 2007 increase in troop levels but also the counter-insurgency that started in Iraq’s Al Anbar province months prior.
“A surge is really a counter-insurgency strategy, and it’s made up of a number of components,” McCain said. “This counter-insurgency was initiated to some degree by Colonel McFarland in Anbar province, relatively on his own.”
For the liberals who have trouble grasping this very important distinction let me point out we could have increased the troop levels, yet had them sitting in bases and not going out into the community to identify willing allies and help them secure areas of Iraq and defeat al-Qaeda. And it is a fact that the effort began in the fall of 2006 in Anbar and created the climate for the Sunni Awakening with was born in Anbar because of the local counter-insurgency “surge” in that province.
I mean really, how thick do you have to be to be liberal?? The SurrenderMedia needs to bone up on terms used in the military so they can understand at least some of what they are trying to report. Otherwise they aren’t reporting, they are showing off how clueless they are – and we see way too much of that already.
32 Responses to “Liberal SurrenderMedia Displays Their Ignorance Of The Military Again”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You would think, the way that the media chided McCain, that they didn’t even know there were troops in the Anbar Provence before the “surge” began. It was indications of the Awakening, supported by the troops already there, that made the surge possible, and the timing relevant.
By the way, I don’t believe for one second that the reporters didn’t know the depth and breath of the surge. I believe they reported that Bush was sending more troops, without the details on purpose, just when the Dems won the 2006 election and promised to bring the troops home. Why, to show that Bush listens to no one. Numbers were more important then the strategic plan, it fit the Dems paradigm.
AJ,
This Counter Insurgency operation we now call ‘The Surge’ has been active since late 2004. I would like to reference a number of posts from ‘The Belmont Club’ as early descriptive evidence:
The River Wars
The River Wars II
For those who rant and rave about Rumsfeld – and I do include Senator McCain – the battlefield has to be prepared.
And, now everyone should review two posts from ancient history (for Libs ancient history is less than six months ago). From 2003:
Strategic Overview
and,
The Three Conjectures
A challenge to all ya Libs out there:
Provide posts posts that have stood the test of time. Please…
This is possibly why so many, in late 2006/early 2007, said “What difference can 20,000 troops make?” They did not understand these were combat troops, using COIN tactics, in many instances backing up newly combat ready IA forces.
wow you jumped right on the mccain talking point didn’t you? i’m suprised, although i guess i shouldn’t be. you do deserve credit for recognizing the importance of the awakening very early on. but it only cheapens you and mccain to make this stretch. the surge has always been used as short-hand for the 20% troop escalation. i’m willing to bet if i looked i could find places in your archive where you say the surge wasn’t even in place until june so it’s too early to tell if it’s successful. if you have to re-define something to make your point…then it’s not much of a point. the 20% troop escalation, the awakening, and the ethnic cleansing that has happened all had roles in increased security. political reconciliation has still not happened and so, by bushs own stated goals, is unsuccessful. no matter how you try to redefine things to rationalize your stand.
Yeah Norm, I understand military terminology and what it means. All of us who know a modicum about the military ‘jumped into the McCain talking point’. And you and the clueless left keep parading your ignorance like a badge of honor.
Doesn’t that make you ignorant to the power of 2?
BTW, the big Iraq-wide Surge was being put in place in 2007. The Anbar ’surge’ was done in 2006 as a pilot program. It’s smashing success led to the Iraq wide plan.
I mean “Duh” – how hard is this Norm?
from a jan. 19th post of yours; “…the ’surge’ continues to show results before it is even in full swing as we find an failry high al qaeda leader was captured in iraq…” according to the above the surge was already in full swing well before this date.
and here’s something from a february 25th post of yours; “…the U.S. military is preparing for a spring offensive against sunni insurgents and al qaeda fighters in the lawless city of ramadi as part of the troop surge to impose security in iraq.
u.s. and iraqi security forces are currently performing a security crackdown in baghdad, where they have already killed more than 400 suspected militants, according to iraqi prime minister nouri al-maliki.
with the battle to secure the capital under way, the fight for control of ramadi in anbar province to the west will mark the second phase of the surge…” so the second phase of the surge was yet to take place in anbar.
and here’s something else from a post of yours in april of 2007. “…speaking to reporters about the new u.s. strategy to curb sectarian violence in iraq launched two months ago, based on a u.s. troop increase, petraeus said: “we are ahead, i think, with respect … to the reduction of sectarian murders in baghdad…”
do you get dizzy spinning so much?
Yes Norm, that was the Iraq wide Surge – if I knew I had to spell it out for you I probably wouldn’t have anyway. Your ignorance is not my problem and your own fault. No one claimed the Anbar Surge was Province wide dude!
Sucks to be so out of the know, doesn’t it?
yes aj and it was the iraq wide surge that mccain was refering to when he said that the surge began the awakening. why is it that you consistently have to lie and misrepresent and redefine things to make your arguments?
according to your redefinition when mccain said about the surge; “…”i can tell you that it is succeeding. i can look you in the eye and tell you it’s succeeding. we have drawn down to pre-surge levels…” he was actually refering to pre-anbar awakening troop levels? of course he wasn’t. (forget for a minute that he was also flat out wrong about the troop levels) the ridiculousness of your argument is stunning. like i said you were way ahead on the awakening. but this is just stupid.
mccain; “…the surge, we have drawn down from the surge and we will complete that drawdown to the end — at the end of july. that’s just a factual statement…” i guess we have drawn down from the anbar awakening — not the 20% troop escalation that bush announced in jan of ‘07.
AJ,
Oh my god, I feel so stupid for not understanding that the “Surge” includes the “counter-insurgency” tactics that led to the Sunni Awakening. So being naive about all this military stuff, let me just make sure I understand.
The Sunni Awakening started in August of 2006 when the Sunni sheiks approached the US military to agree upon an alliance to get Al Qaeda elements out of Anbar. So when McCain said on CBS that “because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening,” he was talking about the part of the “Surge” that the US military implemented before August of 2006. Unfortunately, I’m still struggling understanding a few minor inconsistencies – I know, I know, I’m having difficulty grasping the distinction.
The US military leadership had not yet taken a position on whether or not to recommend that Bush adopt the “Surge” in August of 2006. Here is a link to a December 19, 2006 WashingtonPost article that leads with the following: “The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477_pf.html.
Silly military leaders, they didn’t even know that the military already had implemented the “Surge” several months ago.
President Bush’s January 2007 address to the nation described the “Surge” as “new strategy” several times. Here is what he said: “The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror” *** “This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. “***”In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html.
Silly Mr. President, he didn’t even know that the “Surge” had already been implemented several months ago. Probably is embarrassed that he didn’t know being the commander-in-chief and all.
President Bush didn’t appoint General Petraeus, who supposedly was responsible for implementing the “Surge,” until January 2007. Silly Mr. President, you are supposed to appoint the guy carrying out the “new strategy” before you implement it, not months after.
President Bush didn’t send any additional troops to Anbar until months after his January 2007 speech announcing the “Surge”. Also, then-Colonel MacFarland wrote a military review noting that the success of the Sunni Awakening happened before the surge troops arrived – between June 2006 and February 2007. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-gets-history-of-th_n_114419.html. I wonder what military resources McCain thought enabled us to “protect that sheik and others,” including the lead shiek, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who was subsequently assasinated?
So, it all makes sense to me – except for the part where it seems like nobody, including the President and top military leaders, realized that the Surge had been implemented in August of 2006 and wasted 5 months arguing about a new startegy that had already been implementred. Yup, clear as mud!
Too funny, I can’t believe the B.S. you guys buy sometimes. I also have no idea who is running McCain’s campaign – giving his first statement responding to this contraversy at a grocery store in front of the cheese aisle? Are you kidding me? Well, it turns out that CBS also cut another portion of McCain’s interview to save him from making another huge gaffe. Here is a link to a video of McCain’s CBS statement where he refers to the Iraq War as the “first major conflict” since 9-11. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/another-john-mccain-gaffe_b_114797.html
Hello – Afghanistan War? Yeah, the media sure is out to get McCain – more like help him out so he can stay competitive longer.
hey norm:
You do not know what you are talking about. AGAIN.
The whole point to the surge was not just troop numbers, it was about a change in rules of engagement and a different approach to dealing with the Iraqis themselves. None of these things are mutually exclusive. What you are doing, and your little friends are doing, is now that you can not ignore the progress in Iraq you are trying to redefine it so that it fits your overall narrative.
Pathetic.
And we are drawing down troops in Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan. Besides, considering what an idiot Obama looks like when he tries to talk military strategy maybe you guys should stick to yammering about health care.
Terrye,
I can’t speak for Norm, but what I am doing is showing how utterly ridiculous it is for McCain to excuse his CBS comments by pretending that the surge really did start before the Sunni Awakening. How is that possible when there is uncontraverted evidence all over the internet (I linked to several sources) that Bush didn’t decide to pursue the surge until January 2007 and there was intense debate within the military right up until that decision. These are verifiable facts – McCain cannot just pretend them away.
I know you all hate Obama, but why McCain’s lack of understanding about basic foreign policy issues is not of concern to you and other conservatives is beyond me. He’s confused Sunni and Shite groups, can’t remember what countries border Iraq, thought the Iraq war was the first major conflict since 9-11 and now revealed his ignorance about the timing and significance of the Sunni Awakening. I still can’t believe that he responded to Obama’s statement giving credit to the Sunni Awakening groups in contributing to the security improvements as “a false depiction of what actually happened.” Talk about a bad week!
conman:
Well considering the fact that Obama does not even seem to know what the surge is, how it works, if it was successful and yet you do not have a problem with that I think your remarks about McCain are silly.
Nitpicking nonsense from people who are trying to change the subject when it comes to their own candidate.
And McCain is a lot closer to right on this than you are. McCain knows more about the military than you ever will.
You do not understand the scope of the surge. One part of the surge was the troop increase, but the other part, the part that really made the difference was the change in the Rules of Engagement. That policy was created by Patraeus and was first employed during his time in Mosul some time earlier. If people such as yourself had spent half as much time reading milblogs as you do hanging out at Kos and doing your circle jerk over there you might learn something. The Awakening was part of the overall policy, but it was not all of it by any means.
BTW, after Obama lured a bunch of Germans in with a free rock concert and did his cult like WE are the World Speech he informed the military in Germany that he did not have time to meet with American soldiers. Too busy cavorting for his fan club.
Terrye,
I suggest you re-read McCain’s CBS interview – perhaps slower this time. Obama demonstrated an understanding of why the security situation improved in Iraq – it was a combination of the Sunni Awakening, Shite militias calling a truce and the additional troops Bush sent in when he order the surge. Just about every military analyst I’ve read agrees with this statement.
McCain was the one who demonstrated an incredible lack of understanding on this issue. He called Obama’s statement “a false depiction of what actually happened” because the surge supposedly “began the Sunni Awakening.” So apparently McCain believes that the Sunni Awakening was not significant to the improvement in the Iraqi security situation (even though it largely achieved its objective of regaining control of Anbar before the additional surge troops even arrived) and that the surge led to the Sunni Awakening in the first place. I challenge you to find a single official or analyst that agrees with McCain’s assessment prior to yesterday. Also, if McCain really intended to use the term “surge” broadly to include the Sunni Awakening when he spoke on CBS, why would he say that the surge “began the Sunni Awakening”? Why would McCain say that the surge begin something that is already part of the surge? Wow, McCain’s parsing of words would make Bill Clinton proud.
Up until yesterday, EVERYONE referred to the surge as the new military strategy that Bush ordered in January of 2007. The Sunni Awakening occured well before the surge and was a Sunni, not Bush or US military, initiated agreement. Now McCain and all of the die-hard GOPers are ignoring this fact and pretending like the term surge really is a loose term that means anything that contributed to the improving security situation, even if it occured well before Bush decided to pursue the “surge”. It is not a good sign when the best damage control McCain’s campaign could come up with to cover his gaffe is to literally ignore facts and make stuff up. Has it really gotten that desparate for McCain? I can’t wait to hear McCain’s response to his other gaffe about the Afghanistan war that CBS tried to cover up – maybe McCain will pretend like everyone has always assumed that the Afghanistan war was not really a “major conflict” after 9-11 because we won that war so easily . . . at least until we diverted our resources to Iraq!
Read Arthur Herman’s “How to win/Lose in Iraq” article.
The surge is a counter-terrorism strategy, in the case of Iraq it also included more troops. General Petraeus had already been in Iraq and had used the counter-terrorism strategy in his area of responsibility, so had other leaders, and it worked quite well. Not all commanders used the same strategy. When Petraeus got home he and others developed the strategy further and took it back to Iraq with Bushes blessings and the promise of more troops. The war didn’t stop in the interim, the Awakening was being worked on. It just didn’t happen one day. The point is alot came together to bring success to the Iraqi and coalition peoples. Get over it losers!
He called it false because it was false. My God, conman you are trying to rewrite history to cover for your candidate.
The original discussion about the overall surge policy, which includes that change in rules of engagement…that included take and hold territory…began years before it was implemented. McCain was one of the people pushing it. He actually showed up to work in the Senate and he pushed it.
Now, the left is saying all of this would have happened anyway as if they were all unrelated because they can not think of any other way to discredit McCain and revise history. And the Sunni Awakening is not just about Anbar. Btw, those same Sunni leaders are deadset against a timeline today and do not support Obama’s policies. Go look it up. They want those Americans to stay as long as necessary.
Part of the policy was the overall counter insurgency efforts and that included actively recruiting locals to work with. When AlQAida started killing civilians the Americans used this counter insurgency policy which was part of the overall strategy to help create alliances.
The militias began to fall apart both because of increased troop levels and because of a loss of support from the locals and improved performance on the part of the Iraqi military.
And no, not everyone did refer to it that way. Not if they actually knew what they were talking about. Look at Kagan, look at Patraeus and what his background is. The fact that you are informed is no one’s fault but your own.
The surge was more than just a troop increase. The fact that you do not know that is just your ignorance. The point is there was no way to successfully carry out all aspects of the policy without additional troop levels, but that was not the entire policy.
From protein wisdom
To: The proggosphere, the Opinionated Press, New York Times, et al.
Re: Attempting to claim John McCain is wrong about the counter-insurgency in Iraq
At the risk of sounding rude, how dumb are you, anyway? Starting an argument with John McCain over the timeline of the counter-insurgency in Iraq, e.g., the relationship between the Anbar tribes turning against al Qaeda and the “surge,” attempting to paint this as some big gaffe of McCain’s part is a dead-bang political loser for you. However, as you seem blithely ignorant to the history of the counter-insurgency in Iraq, allow me to briefly recap a few points.
As noted here yesterday, those of you who have relied on The Narrative of hotel journalists from the establishment media (as opposed to embeds and milbloggers) have missed the role of the US in helping the Anbar tribes turn against al Qaeda. You would be well-advised to read the material linked there, but at the very least the Small Wars Journal piece from Bing West and the timeline presented by the Mudville Gazette. However, if you insist on relying on the establishment media and are too lazy to click your mouses more than once, here is a Washington Post story from March 7, 2006:
Tribal chiefs in Iraq’s western Anbar province and in an area near the northern city of Kirkuk, two regions teeming with insurgents, are vowing to strike back at al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni Arab-led group that is waging war against Sunni tribal leaders who are cooperating with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. Anbar tribes have formed a militia that has killed 20 insurgents from al-Qaeda in Iraq, leaders said.
***
Members of the Anbar militia said the group comprised about 100 people who have had relatives slain by al-Qaeda in Iraq. The group is led by Ahmed Ftaikhan, a former Iraqi intelligence officer from the now-disbanded Iraqi army who lives in Ramadi.
[Khalaf al-]Fahdawi, the sheik from the Albu Fahd tribe, said the militia was forged in a series of secret meetings among tribal leaders, each of whom was asked to help form the group. Some contributed men, some money, Fahdawi said. U.S. military officers attended some of the meetings, he said, and helped “with “all kinds of financial support.”
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, denied that American forces were funding the militia…
Which no one with half a brain ever believed. The US encouraged and funded this movement from the outset, ultimately backing it with artillery and air support. The US did so as part of the evolving counter-insurgency doctrine that was ultimately formalized by Gen. Petraeus and his colleagues. It also did so as part of the ongoing counter-insurgency mission that came to include the increased troop levels which most think of when they hear the word “surge.” It is a mission McCain has supported and Obama has opposed.
Terrye,
I think I finally got it. The “surge” already started long before the military started debating whether to recommend this strategy to Bush and/or Bush actually adopted it as a new strategy. The surge Bush announced in January of 2007 by definition retroactively includes any activity our military conducted since March 2003 that can be characterized as a “counter-insurgency” tactic. When McCain said the surge started the Sunni Awakening, what he really meant was that the Sunni Awakening started the Sunni Awakening because the Sunni Awakening and the surge are one in the same. How silly, who would question the fact that the Sunni Awakening started itself. Well now this all makes perfect sense . . . oh wait, now I’m confused again. Please pass the cool-aid, I’m starting to have rationale thoughts again!
Conman,
Some things in life will always be beyond your grasp…
aj…what’s beyond your grasp is that neither you or terrye have yet to pose a vallid argument to explain the blaring inconsistencies in either mccains statements or your own posts. i fully understand the counterinsurgency tactics involved. i also fully understand that “surge” as used by mccain and you in numerous statements and posts refered to the 18 month long 20% troop escalation. similar strategies have been used throughout history. they were in fact used by the early colonists in this country. so by your so-called “logic” the surge dates back to the 1600’s. you are tragic.
sorry…i misspoke…it is not a strategy. it is a tactic that should be used in service of a strategy. but by definition that would reqwuire a strategy to begin with. far right fringies are unable to think in terms as complex as that.
ConMan, Norm,
There are ’surges’ and there is ‘The Surge’.
The Ink Spot COIN strategy is not a new one for anyone familiar with anti-insurgency operations. And, there are other strategies for dealing with insurgency problems. And, those strategies overlap. And, we and the Iraqis have chosen, modified, and implemented various flavors of COIN over time. In fact, the purple finger election was part of a COIN ’surge’. In fact, early support of Anbar Awakening uprisings when they started fighting what was then termed ‘red on red’ battles near the Syrian border was part of a COIN ’surge’.
‘The Surge’ was a large scale ’surge’. It had to wait till the Iraqi Army was large enough and well trained enough to take and hold territory, till they were respected enough to get the support of the Iraqi population. ‘The Surge’ as defined by ‘The Media’ was a national COIN Ink Spot strategy where we supported the military and political and civilian fight against ‘the insurgency’.
Regardless, electing to draw down military assets as the civilian population gets massacred is not part of any COIN strategy.
Senator Obama’s strategy, like that of much of the Democratic Party, was the strategy of ‘surging’ off the rooftop of an embassy without honor and without victory. Losing the trust of allies the world over. Emboldening the will of enemies the world over.
Been there, done that.
Conman,
Not even close.
The current success of the surge was predicated on the US Army and USMC developing a human intelligence network in Iraq that mapped the “Human Terrain” and told American commanders which tribal chief could be trusted, which could be bought and which could be turned if Al-Qaeda thought they were informants for the Americans.
US Army National Guardsman and Reservists of both services put together criminal data bases of the tribal & criminal personalities involved in Iraq. The US Military also drew on Israeli advice from their experiences with the Palestinian intifahta to tweet its information gathering techniques.
See this:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20080629.aspx
In the United States, it’s quite common for police to join the reserves. They don’t always end up doing police work, but they have their experience with them always. In Iraq, reservists who were detectives and police commanders quickly saw the need for databases and developing informant networks. That led to the Israeli connection. Israel had been at war with Palestinian terrorists since 2000, and had cranked up their already extensive informant network in the Palestinian territories, and throughout the Arab world. Israeli advise turned out to be critical. But one bit of Israeli wisdom was decidedly unwelcome. Setting up a reliable informant network in Iraq would take time, and there was no way to rush it.
The “surge offensive” of last year was largely possible because the informant network had grown to the point where commanders were confident that many Sunni Arab tribes were ready to switch sides. They knew this because the Special Forces had taught so many officers how to “drink tea” (sit down and talk with local Iraqi big shots). Israeli intel experts advised on how to work an Iraqi neighborhood to find people willing to talk, and how to persuade them to do it even in the face of terrorist threats.
U.S. intel troops, mainly U.S. Army, persevered, and now that’s paying off. You can tell by the confident pronouncements from U.S. generals about success in Iraq. It’s career suicide to make such statements, unless you are very confident with your resources, especially your intelligence capabilities. Naturally, no one will talk openly about this stuff. Can’t risk giving the enemy anything. But in a decade or so, if not sooner, lots of details will come out. It’s quite an epic adventure.
In addition, the US Military took a page from the world of open source intelligence, data mining and predictive analysis using the data base structure described above to create predictions of enemy intent to kill the enemy.
Anyone who has watched the TV show NUMBERS about an FBI unit that uses these techniques will be familiar with what the US Military did.
This, again, is from strategypage.com:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20080723.aspx
For years, there have been calls from Iraq and Afghanistan for more intelligence analysts, computer techs and geeks of all types. It’s easier to get good infantry than it is an effective intelligence analyst. None of this gets covered much in the media, because the military, especially the army, doesn’t want to talk about it. That’s because they don’t want the enemy to know too much about how U.S. troops can predict what the enemy will do, who they will do it with, and how they will do it. This sort of predictive analysis is nothing new. Been used for years in the commercial world. But even there, not many people paid much attention to what the bean counters and geeks were doing. However, most of the time all this analytical stuff, and the math it is based on, does work. ISR has saved thousands of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s saved even more Iraqi lives, because it enables U.S. troops to go after the enemy with more precision, and fewer casualties among nearby civilians. So it’s no wonder that the generals, and troops, want more ISR.
When the “Anabar Awakening” happened, The US Military had version 1.0 of this “Predictive Human Intelligence Map” to watch what was going down and intervene to achieve decisive results. These results were analyzed and made into the campaign plan that became “the Surge.”
When Gen Petraeus got the okay to do the surge, he took the troops out of the FOBs, changed the Rules of Engagement (ROE) and exploited previously gathered intelligence with the additional troops.
US Army and Marine boots on the ground provided the validated HUMINT targeting data, the ROE change (removing the layers of lawyers who previously had to approve attacks) for precision guided indirect fire weapons (Guided MLRS in most instances) killed the enemy in Urban areas, and the 20% troop increase allowed rotating temporary major troop increases in those urban areas the terrorists had been driven out of so the local warlords could effectively stand up their own security forces (”Concerned Local Citizens) to keep the terrorists from coming back.
The Air Force Role here was to kill the insurgents flushed into rural areas by the Army and Marines. Once disentangled from urban collateral damage considerations, the USAF’s full weight of “high collateral damage” 2000lb JDAMS could be used to kill the insurgents.
This was the small war equivalent of hunting down and killing a retreating truck column of a defeated Army.
So saying that the US Military didn’t win the war in Iraq is reality denial that ranks right up their with denying the Nazi Holocaust happened.
boghie you are still not explaining the inconsistencies in mccains statements, or for that matter aj’s posts. mccain said that “the surge” — which based upon his other statements can only mean the 18 month long 20% troop escalation — started the anbar awakening. as usual it is just a flat out wrong statement. you can rationalize and redefine all you want. it doesn’t change anything.
Norm, here is the passage:
The Arizona senator told reporters Wednesday afternoon that when he refers to the surge, it encompasses not just the January 2007 increase in troop levels but also the counter-insurgency that started in Iraq’s Al Anbar province months prior.
“A surge is really a counter-insurgency strategy, and it’s made up of a number of components,” McCain said. “This counter-insurgency was initiated to some degree by Colonel McFarland in Anbar province, relatively on his own.”
“General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops,” McCain added.
“I’m not sure frankly that people really understand that a surge is part of counter-insurgency strategy which means going in, clearing, holding, building a better life, providing services to the people,” he continued.
In an interview with CBS’s Katie Couric on Tuesday, McCain said that the surge led U.S. forces to ally with Sunnis, “And it began the Anbar Awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.”
McCain had pressed for a surge of troops and extensive use of COIN strategies for almost two years prior to ‘The Surge’. That is why he was so angry at Rumsfeld – who wanted to continue with another policy that did not include ramping up American forces in the region.
Could the al-Anbar ‘surge’ have survived if Baghdad and the Shiite south had remained in chaos? Now, I think you may be complaining about the following:
“General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops,”
Again, how successful would the Awakening been if we had evacuated Baghdad and Basra and Mosul in the face of al-Qaeda and al-Sadr? Would it have been sustainable? Successful?
McCain is not known to be a great speaker like Hitler. In my opinion, neither is Obama.
But, McCain would not have left the Awakening to fight al-Qaeda and the Shiite militia alone, eh.
Norm and ConMan,
Can you provide the military review or wargaming scenario that Senator Obama, et. al., used as the basis of their strategy for victory in Iraq?
COIN is a known concept. Ink Spot is a known subset of COIN strategies.
Given that the Democrat Party – and Senator Obama, in particular – must want victory in Iraq can you provide a think tank paper or military review that promotes Senator Obama’s plan?
Norm,
Engram makes my point better than I can.
In ‘An Alternate Reality’ he directly addresses your argument.
Were does that leave you…