Until the Samarra bombing in February prompted a higher level of violence between the Shias and Sunnis, it appeared that we would be able to draw down our forces gradually over the course of 2006. We might have gotten down to 100,000 troops by the end of the year but for the violence prompted by that attack.
Instead, we are at 150,000 troops and looking to increase the numbers of Iraqi army units.
And we are looking to benchmarks for the Iraqis to reach in order for us to hand off primary responsibility for the fight to the Iraqis.
These are both logical responses to the changes on the ground that prevented us from carrying out the original draw down.
The mid-term elections have made the idea of changing our strategy in Iraq high profile with some wanting us to pull out fast and others wanting us to add more troops to win more quickly.
Given that we have been in the process of adjusting our approach, the elections may not change things as much as might be assumed. Although the elections, the appointment of Gates to replace Rumsfeld, and the rumors of the Baker commission make any talk of change seem like a panicky response to the elections, the fact that we have been looking to change things prior to the election should indicate that we aren't in a panic.
Further, given that I firmly believe our basic approach is correct--that we must support the creation of Iraqi security and governing entities that can win the war--the already apparent objectives of creating more Iraqi army units and creating benchmarks for the Iraqis to achieve are things we should be continuing.
I take some comfort from the fact that the military has been looking at change:
"I think we have to maintain our focus on what objectives we want for the United States, and then we need to give ourselves a good, honest scrub about what is working and what is not working, what are the impediments to progress, and what should we change about the way we're doing it to ensure that we get to the objective that we've set for ourselves," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on "The Early Show" on CBS.
Although he declined to state specifically what would change, Pace said what changes were needed were being evaluated by Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, and Gen. John Abizaid, the head of the command that oversees U.S. forces in the Mideast, as well as the joint chiefs.
"We're making our recommendations, we're having our dialogue, and we'll make the changes that are needed to get ourselves more focused on the correct objectives," Pace said.
Turning over responsibility to Iraqis is counter-insurgency 101. There is no reason for the election to change that basic truth. It has been evident for many months that we were not going to be able to hand off primary fighting responsibilities to Iraqis on the schedule we'd hoped for in January. My hope is that the military recommendations are independent of the reaction to the election and will get us back on track to turning over responsibilities to Iraqi units capable of fighting the enemy inside Iraq.
But I can't help but worry that the election, Gates, and Baker will result in changes that will violate counter-insurgency 101. And I don't know whether disastrous changes will include getting the Hell out and counting on the good will of Syria and Iran to cover our surrender with a decent interval before they go all out to defeat our friends; or whether there will be a foolish decision to ramp up our troop strength in Iraq a great deal in the misguided idea that we can win quickly in what is inherently a drawn-out mostly non-military process.
I fear our President has gone wobbly but I hope he is focused on victory and the election is just noise that distracts from months-long focus by our military on how to get back on track to carrying out counter-insurgency 101.
So what will it be? Panic or persistence?
