GlobalSecurity.org In the News

Boston Globe January 11, 2007

Some doubt increase will stem violence

By Bryan Bender

WASHINGTON -- Many military analysts and former senior officers expressed doubt yesterday that an additional 21,500 US troops in Iraq will be enough to bring the raging violence under control, and some said they fear that any escalation will fan the flames of the anti-American insurgency and civil war.

Bush insisted last night that a dramatic increase in forces in Baghdad would give troops far greater ability to clear and hold neighborhoods, and that the Iraqi government has pledged to ensure that sectarian battles would not derail the operations against insurgents as in the past.

In nearly a dozen interviews, however, critics predicted that deeper American involvement will damage broader US national security interests by eroding an all-volunteer military already showing cracks from repeated deployments, and thus making it more difficult to respond to other crises.

"The up side is very speculative and the down sides are huge," said retired Army Lieutenant General Daniel Christman , former superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, reflecting the view of many retired generals and defense specialists interviewed by the Globe. "I am very uneasy and very nervous about it."

Several specialists said adding 21,500 troops -- an increase of less than 17 percent -- is not sufficient to seize insurgent territory and hold it, which commanders believe is necessary to bring security to the Iraqi population. Yet they said the new troop deployment would place additional strains on the Army and Marine Corps, with more personnel having to return to Iraq for another tour -- in some cases with little break in between.

Bush announced last night that he is ordering five more brigades to Iraq, increasing the number of US service members from roughly 132,000 to 153,000. Most of those troops will go to Baghdad, the scene of much of the recent violence, and about 4,000 will go to western Anbar Province.

The "surge," a combination of extending the tours of US troops already in Iraq and dispatching additional units, is designed to support Iraqi forces in battling Shi'ite militias and Sunni extremists. It also calls for substantially increasing the number of US troops embedded with Iraqi units.

The president insisted the extra troops could turn the tide.

He said in earlier phases of the war, "Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared."

The plan has the support of key White House advisers, generals, and outside specialists who maintain that an aggressive push is needed to bring order to Baghdad.

Army Lieutenant General David Petraeus , poised to take over as the US commander in Iraq, has long pushed for a strategy that focuses first on protecting the citizenry, as the Bush plan emphasizes. And General John Keane , a Pentagon adviser and former Army vice chief of staff, has called for more troops, writing in a report last week that "securing the population has never been the primary mission of the US military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority."

Military strategists yesterday revealed deep reservations that the additional troops can make a difference. And some said they believe it will make matters worse, in part by exposing more US forces to deadly urban warfare, raising the chances for more civilian as well as US military casualties and thus fueling anti-American sentiment.

Retired Brigadier General Kevin T. Ryan , who served as the Army's deputy director for strategy, plans, and policy from 2003 to 2005, said, "I don't see any convincing analysis that says we need to add troops to defeat the insurgency."

Even with the new troops, the overall US force will still not reach its zenith, which was about 160,000 in early 2006. "It wasn't adequate then," said John Pike , director of GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va., think tank. "Why is it adequate now?

Ryan and others also voiced concern abut the potential long-term consequences for the Army and Marine Corps, which are showing signs of stress.

The surge is "also committing a reserve when the rest of the world looks pretty damn dangerous," said Christman , the former West Point superintendent . "What do you do in the Horn of Africa, eastern Afghanistan, southern Lebanon, or some other contingency that is not foreseen?"

Nevertheless, some analysts expect the additional US troops -- with overwhelming firepower -- to bring additional security at least in the short term.

The problem is that those insurgents and radical militia fighters who don't stand and fight will simply slip away to fight another day, said Edward Luttwak , a security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"They cannot change the civil war culture that has emerged in Iraq," he said. "They will be able to subdue violence while they are there, but as soon as they leave everything will go back as they are."