American Surge Strategy in Iraq Analysis Report (Assessment)

Introduction

There have been increased cases of terror attacks and the government has put her best effort to fight the war. The government has used various strategies to ensure that the war against terror is won and that all countries are made free of dictatorship leaders, thus creates more democratic space. The American government has had various allies who have assisted in the terror fight; such include the British and the Turkish government.

The fight against terror was intensified especially after the September 11^th attacks in2001. One of the nations that have been under pressure to fight terror and dictatorship has been Iraq. The US government expected that after toppling of Saddam Hussein and the democratic election of new leaders in Iraq would have brought changes in the country. But since the fall of Saddam, the Iraq war has not been won, and the government of America is not just yet ready to give up on war in Iraq as this might culminate into catastrophic effects in America.

The American surge strategy in Iraq

There have been various strategies at different in fighting the Iraqis. One such strategy was in 2003 when the American president (George W. Bush) set out a broad strategy that has been followed up to date to fight the war. At that time, the president said;

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will ensure a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more (National security council, 2005 p. 1).

Due to this broad strategy that was put forth by the president, the National Security Council had to lay down the strategies to make sure that the war is won. The success of the American government in the Iraq implies the overall win on terror. The national Security Council realized that in Iraq, the war will not be won by the enemies surrendering, nor it be signaled by a single event, but it is a process that had to take various steps, (National security council, 2005 p3). Whichever the case, the American government was not just yet ready to let go off the war in Iraq nor is it ready to loose. This is because the general out come of Iraq war will affect the whole of Middle East relationship with the US.

The strategy that the national Security Council laid down to win the war in Iraq completely was so ensure that the Iraq people have a new constitution with a government that upholds and respects human rights. The strategy “involved three integrated racks- political, security and economic- each with separate objectives but together helping Iraqis to defeat the terrorists, Saddamists and rejectionists and secure a new democratic state in Iraq”, (National security council, 2005 p8). For the strategies to make an impact in the Iraq war and thus win, the American government had to make the strategies conditional – based. It is only after conditions have been fully met that the United States will be certain that the war has been won.

Many challenges have continued facing the Americans fight against the terrorism in Iraq. This implies that the government has had to frequently change the strategies so as to make sure the war is not lost.

For instance, in Jan 2007 the US president had to come up with a new strategy to counter the challenges still posed by Iraq fighters. The new strategy was needed because many had thought that after Iraq election in 2005, there could have been victory and the Iraqis could comfortably govern themselves. But this was not to be as the fights continued.

We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops. But in 2006, the opposite happened, the violence in Iraq particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made.

These unexpected happenings in Iraq made the president to come up with different strategy to counter the same. “The most urgent priority in Iraq is security especially in Baghdad”, said George Bush. The president felt that the Baghdad war was lost because there were not enough American and Iraqi troops to secure the neighborhood that had earlier been cleared of the terrorist and insurgents. Another reason for Baghdad failure was because of the too much restrictions that were put on the American troops in Iraq. Therefore, this restriction had to be relaxed so as to make the war more successful. Furthermore, the government had to change tactics so that they involve both the Iraqi military and police in collaborating with the American troops so that the Americans will only be providing help to the Iraqi troops. For this to succeed the president said that, America [had] to change the strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their Champaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force level. So I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

This strategy also the president of America reiterated that it was not open. Thus its condition was for the Iraq government to provide maximum cooperation.

The new strategy that the American president rolled out in 10^th of January 2007 was rooted in six fundamental elements. These included, letting the Iraq lead in the war; That the American government was only to help the Iraqi protect the population; isolate extremists; help in the in the creation of space for political progress; diversify political and economic progress and finally saturate the strategy in a regional approach. In this perception it is also argued that the only way for America to win the war on terror is by winning the Iraqi war or else if they loose, then the subsequent war might be uglier to the American troops than the current war.

Most of the continued problems in Iraq stems from the fact that the applied strategies have been flawed. This strategy has been in place since the war in Iraq began. Some of the strategies that have been in place according to Zais (2007) include,

Fight the war on the cheap; ask the ground forces to perform missions that are more suitably performed by other branches of the American government; inconvenience the American people as little as possible; continue to fund the Air Force and Navy at the same levels that they have been funded for the last 30 years while shortchanging the Army and Marines who are doing all of the fighting”. This has made the war not to go well.

The fight on cheap has implied that the number of Soldiers and Marines in the war has to be minimal. The fight on cheap has come up because of the lack of America to fund, equip and train the Iraq military and police. Furthermore, the budget allocation to the military is small (3.8% of GDP) and finally, the machines being used is not replaced whenever there is break down and worn out (Zais 2007, pp 4).

Another thing that has made Iraqi fight not to be successful according to Zais is the involvement of the military in tasks that are more of other departments than to the military. This includes being involving in the activities like sewerage plant treatment, building of schools, roads construction and other infrastructures. This is not the work of the military even though they might have succeeded in doing it not because they like, but because of obedience (Zais 2007, p. 4).

Despite the continued effort by the American president to see that the American soldiers continue being in Iraq until they win the war, there is also opposition from the American backyard for the withdrawal of the American troops. This kind of disagreement in American politicians is also contributing to the unsuccessful fight in Iraq. According Biddle (2007),

the president shaky political consensus for the surge in Iraq is in danger of collapsing after the recent defections of prominent Senate Republicans… but this growing opposition to the surge has not yet translated into support for the outright withdrawal …few lawmakers are comfortable with abandoning Iraq or admitting defeat. The results have been a search for some kind of politically moderate plan ‘B’ that would split the difference between surge and withdrawal.

The other problem facing the war in Iraq is that the politics point of view does not fit the military realities that are in Iraq. This is because the politicians would like the combat reduced in Iraq while even the current number of soldiers in Iraq finds it difficult to carry out any meaningful military mission.

According to the Baker-Hamilton commission’s recommendation of December 2006, the military in Iraq was to be reduced and thus the mission remain to train and support the Iraqi security forces. But the military do not also feel comfortable with this proposal, because “ the politics make sense but the compromise leaves [the military] with an untenable military mission without a major US combat effort to keep the violence down, the American training would face challenges even bigger than those our troops are facing today”, (Biddle, 2007).

The biggest problem faced by the trainers of the military of the Iraq is presence of civil war in Iraqi especially from the sectarian factionalism. Different communities in Iraq are fighting each other and thus it becomes more difficult to unite groups that are fighting each other to obtain the same mission. Therefore military see that if the law makers feel that they cannot keep up with more surge then it is better for outright withdrawal.

Given all these happenings in Iraq. the best step the US government should take is to disengage. The withdrawal has to be carefully planned taking care of any punitive strikes that might be leveled against the withdrawing forces. The withdrawal will generally have an effect on both the Iraq and US depending on how the withdrawal is carried out. “A strategy of disengagement would require bold, risk –taking statecraft of high order and much diplomatic competence in its execution” (Luttwark, 2005, p. 27).

Work cited

President George W. Bush, Addressed to the Nation (2007).

The Whitehouse, Fact Sheet. The New Way Forward in Iraq (2007).

The white house, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (2005).

Zais, M. Mitchell, “US Strategy in Iraq” military Review, Vol. 87 iss.2 (2007).

Biddle Stephen Iraq Go Deep of Get out. The Washington Post.

Luttwark N. Edward. “Iraq: The Logic of Disengagement”. Foreign Affairs, Vol.84 iss.1 (2005), pp. 26-27. Web.