Kim Kagan argues we have to go slowly and carefully if we’re to maintain the remarkable progress made over the last year. She writes:
The "surge" was never intended to secure all of Iraq -- only to stabilize Baghdad and Anbar. Its unexpected success has also placed unanticipated strains on U.S. forces. We won more than we had hoped, and now we may need to defend it more than we had planned. …
Gen. Petraeus has attributed the downturn in violence to three factors: the offensives against al Qaeda and militias, the Iraqi population's rejection of extremists, and the slowly increasing capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. …
By the best estimates now available, 15 brigades is the absolute minimum force required to accomplish the mission that has brought us success in 2007. Any further reductions -- even by a single brigade -- may make that mission impossible.
Me: If we can separate long-term military and national security interests from short-term political calculations, we may be able to win this key battle against al-Qaeda and Iran. But that’s a big “if,” especially in an election year.
Kim’s op-ed is here.
Comments