3
3
0
Did the surge work in Iraq?
Were the gains sustainable?
Where you there?
Were the gains sustainable?
Where you there?
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 16
2
2
0
Statistically and operationally speaking yes? The biggest failure (in my lonely opinion) from the start of the war in Iraq is that we went in "in the middle" with regards to our capabilities and strength. What I mean is, we should have went in light (SOF forces only, over an extended period) or super heavy (surge-like numbers). We went inbetween.
However, when you commit to occupy, you need to occupy. We needed the SOFA to extend and we needed to set up camp. Iraq could have turned into an oversees tour like Korea...over time.
Now, it seems we are starting from scratch with a slight advantage of learning from our past mistakes.
However, when you commit to occupy, you need to occupy. We needed the SOFA to extend and we needed to set up camp. Iraq could have turned into an oversees tour like Korea...over time.
Now, it seems we are starting from scratch with a slight advantage of learning from our past mistakes.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
This also fits the invasion question posted earlier. But I agree I thought out dismissing the secretary of the Army was not wise, even then. The surge may have provided your point.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes! At the time, it worked. But our hasty departure made it all a huge waste of time and men/women....
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Did the surge work? For a time, the increased presence may have made enemy C3 more difficult. However whether it did more good than harm? That is hard to say, and I'd argue dependent on region. Were the gains sustainable? In the long-term, no. Just as with every other tactic, the enemy adapts. Successful COIN is more difficult than just throwing more and more troops at the problem.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As the entire Iraq conflict was perpetrated, it was a huge distraction that unecessarily cost the lives of a lot of my friends and too many of our most precious commodity, our young men and women.
We should have stayed focused on Afghanistan. What was the point?
We should have stayed focused on Afghanistan. What was the point?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
I was there when the surge was announced, extending our time. It did work based on the number of attacks and also showed our resolve.
Many of the Iraqis were scared that without us, things would turn bad. That is why when we decided for the surge they were emboldened to work with us to root out the militants. Attacks from early 06 to late 07 fell drastically.
Many of the Iraqis were scared that without us, things would turn bad. That is why when we decided for the surge they were emboldened to work with us to root out the militants. Attacks from early 06 to late 07 fell drastically.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
See
President George W. Bush's chilling warning on Iraq in 2007
Remember this? Chillingly prophetic words from then-President George W. Bush in 2007 on criticism of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
See
Report: CIA Bought Hundreds of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction in ‘Operation Avarice’
A mysterious seller. Internationally condemned chemical weapons. Until recently, the whole thing was a secret — and even now the Pentagon is cagey about its involvement. Working with the U.S. military, the CIA purchased some 400Borak rockets from an Iraqi seller between 2005 and 2006, uncovering...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google