The surge had weakened the enemy in Iraq and so as the surge recedes, we will spread our forces out more thinly to maintain security. The surge was all about securing the people of Iraq while the Iraqi security forces were too green to do the job. The ability of friendly forces to secure the population has always been a two-part math problem--the strength of the enemy versus the strength of friendly forces. We've atomized the enemy even as we've strengthened the Iraqi security forces who will eventually take over from our forces.
But in the short run we are not risking losing ground by turning over secured ground to Iraqis entirely, as we did in the past prematurely in the face of robust enemies:
The command has already drawn down a brigade combat team and a Marine expeditionary unit. Another brigade combat team will leave the country this month. Petraeus said the command will “thin out” coalition forces as this occurs, and “not just hand off an area completely to Iraqi forces.”
“We will maintain a sufficient footprint with an adequate, generally substantial, Iraqi force of police and soldiers,” the general explained. “It provides situational awareness and a link to the enablers that we can provide – indirect fire, close-air (support), medevac, quick-reaction forces and so on.” The idea also maintains a fusion cell for intelligence.
“Obviously, as we draw down, (the Iraqis) have to pick up more of the responsibility, and that is the case,” Petraeus said.
The war goes on, however, despite our progress in winning. We have to go after the remaining jihadis in the north. But without risking the gainsin the center and west:
Al Qaeda remains the biggest threat, and over time coalition and Iraqi forces have killed, captured or run off substantial numbers of the terror group. But there is still a lot of work to do in the Diyala and Tigris river valleys, and in Iraq’s second-largest city of Mosul and surrounding Ninevah province.
“We are going after al Qaeda relentlessly wherever they are, and wherever we can find them, we put our teeth into their jugular,” Petraeus said.
Mosul is an important place to al Qaeda. “Analysts have said that while Baghdad is critical for al Qaeda to win in Iraq, Mosul and its area is critical for their survival,” the general said. Recent successes notwithstanding, Petraeus warned, a “final battle” with the terrorist group is not imminent.
“Al Qaeda is incredibly resilient,” he said, “and they are receiving people and supplies through Syria – although numbers through Syria are down as much as 50 percent.”
Coalition and Iraqi forces will take on al Qaeda in the north, but will do so on their timetable and according to their plans, the general said. He will not start shifting U.S. and Iraqi forces willy-nilly around the country.
“The key is to hang on to what you’ve got,” he said. “You cannot, in your eagerness to go after something new, start to play ‘Whack-a-mole’ again. You have to hang onto the areas you’ve cleared; you have to have that plan to do before you go.”
Coalition forces are moving to Mosul and Ninevah, but Petraeus said he will not risk losing gains made in Baghdad, the belts around Baghdad and in Anbar province to do so.
Remember, as much as the old strategy of attacking the enemy but relying on Iraqis for persistent presence to protect the Iraqi people has been attacked by even war supporters, it was succeeding until the Samarra Mosque bombing in February 2006 changed the nature of the war and made that strategy ineffective.
And in the big picture, the goal of turning over the war to the Iraqis which we focused on through fall 2006 is still the goal. What the surge recognized is that the enemy was too strong to leave local security up to the Iraqis alone. But we have atomized the enemy enough to allow smaller detachments of Americans supporting more Iraqi forces in the field to hold the gains of the surge.
Eventually, by weakeneing the enemies and strengthening Iraqi forces which gain experience every day, we'll go back to our 2005-2006 strategy. But for now we can't risk the gains we've made from the surge that have bought time to win the war. Petraeus must weight many factors for his military judgment on forces needed to win.
President Bush, I imagine, has his own worries about the home front to consider.
As an aside, Petraeus should remain in his post to win the war. Winning the war right now will count for nothing if we fail after he leaves. Not that another general can't succeed, but Petraeus has proven he can succeed and no other mission for him is as important. He is the one who should build on the success of the surge he led.
