Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
|
I take Kagan with a huge grain of salt, he is after all the author of the surge. He has a vested interest in seeing it succede. This is a typical response:
"We are not simply "squeezing the water balloon." Violence is up in the Baghdad belts because U.S. and Iraqi forces have been aggressively attacking al Qaeda bases in those areas that have been funneling weapons and fighters into Baghdad. Naturally when we attack his critical bases and lines of communication, the enemy fights back. The U.S. command has responded by sending more force into this area to exploit initial successes, which have played a role in keeping the AQI (al Qaeda in Iraq) violence in Baghdad under control."
It's a win-win situation for him either way...if violence is down that means the surge is working, violence is up...hey the surge is still working, we're forcing the bad guys to fight.
There are clear benchmarks to see if the surge is working; fewer civilian casualties, fewer troop casualties. Both have gone up or stayed the same since the surge has started. More troops=more targets, and insurgents still have space to operate in during this surge. The point of counter-insurgency is to deny insurgents space, and to do that we need even more troops. if we think 30,000 is enough send 60,000 to make sure, etc.