Marvin Olasky at World magazine's blog site commenting on Victor Davis Hanson's newest piece on troop surge:
Victor Davis Hanson, who knows his military history, writes that extra US forces in Iraq will help only if US tactics change: "Our past errors were not so much dissolving a scattered Iraqi military or even de-Baathification, but rather giving an appearance of impotence, whether in allowing the looting to continue or pulling back from Fallujah or giving a reprieve to the Sadr militias. So, yes, send more troops to Iraq — but only if they are going to be allowed to hunt down and kill the vicious and sectarian in a manner that they have not been allowed to previously. This surge should not be viewed in terms of manpower alone. Rather it should be planned as the corrective to past misguided laxity, in which no quarter will now be given to die-hard jihadists as we pursue victory, not better policing. We owe that assurance to the thousands more of young Americans who now will be sent into harm’s way."
I agree that troop surge alone is not the answer. Merely putting more boots on the ground is not a recipe for victory but if they are used tactically and offensively they can make a big difference. However, I'm not convinced that we should tie our victory to the success of "the establishment of a stable Iraqi democratic government, free from sectarian and terrorist violence" as Hanson suggests.
Democratic government has been established in Iraq but its stability will depend in the long term on the Iraqis themselves and the choices they make. I'm uncomfortable with owning the responsibility for something whose ultimate outcome is not under our control.
