During the recent semantics debate over whether to refer to Bush’s new Iraq policy as a “surge” or an “escalation,” part of the discussion focused on duration. As Spencer Ackerman explained, a surge is “a temporary infusion of troops.” This didn’t appear to be what the Bush plan had in store.
With this in mind, Michael Hirsh’s piece for Newsweek couldn’t be more important in highlighting what Americans should expect.
The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying — and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation.
How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.
But don’t take my word for it. I’m merely a messenger for a coterie of counterinsurgency experts who have helped to design the Petraeus plan — his so-called “dream team” — and who have discussed it with NEWSWEEK, usually on condition of anonymity, owing to the sensitivity of the subject. To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant “do-over.”
I don’t think the country appreciates what this “do-over” entails; the White House and conservative war supporters in Congress certainly haven’t acknowledged the details publicly. As Hirsh explained, the new policy is premised on the notion that “the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago.” No more pretending that Iraqi security forces are taking the lead, no more pretending that Iraq’s government is credible. As one former U.S. Army captain said, “We’re putting down roots.”
Roots which will take years to take hold.
It seems terribly common in our political discourse to hear grudging war supporters argue that they want to see whether Bush’s policy is working in 90 days. Or six months. Or maybe a year. If Iraq isn’t on track within (fill in the time), then they’ll consider serious alternatives, including redeployment.
But this entirely misses the point of what’s happening. The Newsweek article describes a long-term, open-ended commitment, during which U.S. troops, largely on their own, take the lead. Indeed, Petraeus and his team appear to be counting on it. The “surge” will go on indefinitely.
That U.S. casualties will be higher as a result of the policy is practically a given.
Casey sought to accelerate both the training of Iraqi forces and American withdrawal. By 2008, the remaining 60,000 or so U.S. troops were supposed to be hunkering down in four giant “superbases,” where they would be relatively safe. Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. […]
“This is the right strategy: small mini-packets of U.S. troops all over, small ‘oil spots’ [of stability] spreading out. It’s classic counterinsurgency,” says one of the Army’s top experts in irregular warfare, who helped draft the counterinsurgency manual that Petraeus produced while commander at Fort Leavenworth last year — the principles of which the general is applying to Iraq. “But it’s high risk and it’s going to take a long time.”
This should be a conversation-changer. Talk about whether we’ll see progress in the spring, summer, or fall is irrelevant; the new administration policy is a five- to 10-year approach that puts more U.S. troops “right in the middle of the action.”
Is this what congressional Republicans want? Is this what the country is prepared for?