Analysis: Can a Troop 'Surge' Save Iraq?
Council on Foreign Relations
January 5, 2007
Prepared by: Lionel Beehner
President Bush has reshuffled (WashPost) his top political and military advisers on Iraq ahead of a major speech on the war in which he is expected to call for a “surge” of U.S. forces. That the White House is even considering this plan indicates the dire state of affairs in Iraq, says Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, widely credited as author of the plan. His rationale was, “In case of emergency, break glass and execute this plan,” Kagan recently told reporters. “We think we’re there now.” But the plan—which calls for a temporary deployment of between twenty-five thousand and thirty thousand forces to Baghdad and Anbar province—has drawn heavy criticism from some quarters. Middle East analysts say a political solution, which includes some kind of national reconciliation—as this new Backgrounder outlines—is what Iraq needs. Counterinsurgency specialists dismiss the plan because the force ratios are too low, given Iraq’s size and population. Critics on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, worry a surge would only deepen U.S. engagement at a time when the majority of Americans favor a swifter exit strategy (AP).
The whole “surge” debate, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies tells CFR.org’s Bernard Gwertzman, is “almost completely irrelevant.” Cordesman says if a military surge “or any other development is to have meaning, there has to be progress in political conciliation or at least in finding some form of nonviolent coexistence.” Kagan counters that his surge proposal has been misinterpreted by the media.
Read the rest of this article on the cfr.org website.
Copyright 2007 by the Council on Foreign Relations. This material is republished on GlobalSecurity.org with specific permission from the cfr.org. Reprint and republication queries for this article should be directed to cfr.org.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
