The Surge - a lousy term for a successful strategy.

One thing I have never liked about all this talk of the "Surge" being successful is it actually trivializes the real accomplishments of the US military. Public perception is that merely introducing 28,000 troops into the Iraq is the sole reason for the improved situation. We Americans we like things that are quantifiable and can be put in Power-point form.

In actuality improvement in Iraq started once the ideologues back at the Pentagon were removed from the picture and the military could use all avenues at its disposal to reduce hostility to US forces. This started even before the troop levels were increased. One big avenue was the ability to dispense sacks of money instead of bullets and bombs. When we originally invaded Iraq the Saudis offered us the best advice they could: "Pay the Iraqi army". To the Rumsfled's of the world this struck them as ludicrous that we should reward our enemies and use taxpayer dollars to do it. After disbanding the military and civil administration these disenfranchised people were impoverished and all too ready to do the dirty work of planting road side bombs and other attacks, all on the pay of the militants who provided bonuses if a good video could be obtained of the attack. In the new US strategy local sheiks were sought out and liberal use of sacks of money and development projects were allowed to align these people more in line with us than with the militants. Was some of this money wasted, squandered and not accounted for? Who cares, small potatoes! Our former Pro Consul Paul Bremmer would have had none of that. Keeping your hands lily white is fine for a bureaucrat but matters little on the field of battle.

While the Sunnis were afraid of the Shiite militias, the new Iraqi army and the Iraqi government itself, the US military started to provide support for local groups that would protect their neighborhoods and not attack US soldiers. The US military tolerated many of its former enemies to come together into local militia organizations to protect their neighborhoods. US soldiers had to grit their teeth as they worked with people that had ambushed and killed their comrades. Gradually the US military was seen more as an intermediary between with Shia dominated Iraqi government and the Sunni populace. Al Qaeda only offered more death and destruction and lost support. The main difference is that General Petraeus would rather not worry that things that were not perfectly to our liking but that we actually succeed in what is required to obtain our objectives, and get outta there. Military men do not see the world through the ideological prisms that politicians do.

Several actions of the Iraqi government that were miraculously not quashed by the Bush administration helped the situation to improve further. The move of the Al Maliki against the Sadr's Shiite militia in Basra showed the Shiite government could actually move against Shiite militia units, gaining some credibility with the Sunnis. Al Maliki's diplomacy to Iran, while odious to the Bush administration, represents the fact that Iran is the big power in the region that can not be ignored. If Iran would help cooperate with the Iranian government things will improve on the ground. They did.

The US military has often gotten a bum rap for being unsophisticated and more of a brute force operation. Going back to the Civil War many of its actions have been derided with the derogatory term "war of attrition" similar smears. Of course Grant's Vicksburg campaign is anything but an unimaginative affair, but that fact seems lost on most of these foreign historians. After a lot of trial and error the US military has adapted well to its new challenges and should be recognized for it.

Lets hope it continues.