Iraq: Debate on the Baghdad surge

BBC

A debate is raging in Washington about whether the so-called surge of US forces in Iraq is likely to work.

Tension is growing between the political pressure to get results and the military imperative to give the plan time.

The critics include not only Democrats but Republican Senator Richard Lugar, who said in a speech on 25 June that the prospects that the surge strategy would succeed in the way envisaged by President Bush were "very limited".

He called for a Plan B that would downsize the US military in Iraq and concentrate instead on what he describes as "diplomatic and economic options".

Operation Phantom Thunder

On the other side are proponents like commentator Frederick W Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, one of those who first proposed the plan.

He has written in the Weekly Standard magazine that Operation Phantom Thunder, as the operational phase of the surge is known, "is so far proceeding very well".

He concluded: "There is every reason to be optimistic about its outcome."

Counter-insurgency plan

Informing the debate is a key article in the Small Wars Journal, a discussion forum founded by former members of the US Marine Corps.

On the site's weblog, the Senior Counterinsurgency Adviser in Iraq, David Kilcullen, an Australian expert, has written about how the plan is supposed to work. He withholds judgment on whether it is succeeding or will do so. On that, he simply observes: "Time will tell."

He points out that major operations in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces started only on 15 June. "This is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing," he said.

"These operations are qualitatively different from what we have done before. Our concept is to knock over several insurgent safe havens simultaneously... Unlike on previous occasions, we don't plan to leave these areas once they're secured.

"These ops will run over months, and the key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police."

Kilcullen tries to redefine a number of terms used by the media. For example, "holding territory" does not simply mean taking an area.

"When we speak of 'clearing' an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK," he said

This is very far from the body count approach used in the Vietnam war.

He admits, however, that the practice of the policy is "mixed" and says that it will be a "long, hard summer, with much pain and loss to come".

Lessons

Frederick Kagan claims that lessons have been learned from previous US operations such as Falluja in 2004, including the need for more US troops and the Iraqis to fill in behind them. The reinforcement has seen the number of US troops increased by about 30,000 to 160,000.

"The United States has not undertaken a multi-phased operation on such a large scale since the invasion, so it is unsurprising that many commentators are confused about how to report and evaluate what is going on. Indeed, the current effort differs profoundly from anything US forces have tried before in Iraq," he writes.

"There is every reason to believe at this stage that the current operation and its likely successor will dramatically reduce the level of violence in Baghdad, and do so in a way that will prove sustainable."

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, wrote the US Army's counter-insurgency manual himself. This, too, stresses the long-term nature of such operations.

"Counter-insurgents should prepare for a long-term commitment" is a typical sentence from the manual. "Offensive operations are only the beginning" is another.

Critic

However, Senator Lugar, a moderate Republican who was formerly chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is still the senior Republican on it, sees things differently.

His speech on the floor of the Senate was gloomy.

"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," he said.

He urged a new diplomatic strategy along the lines recommended by the Iraq Study Group last year. This would include reducing the number of US troops in Iraq and widening contacts with surrounding states.

"We need to be preparing for how we will array US forces in the region to target terrorist enclaves, deter adventurism by Iran, provide a buffer against regional sectarian conflict, and generally reassure friendly governments that the United States is committed to Middle East security.

"Simultaneously, we must be aggressive and creative in pursuing a regional dialogue that is not limited to our friends," he concluded.

General Petraeus is due to make a report in September.

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk