SURGE AND VICTORY IN IRAQ: THE BIG LIE

AMERICA’S "SURGE" IN IRAQ A COSTLY SUBTERFUGE

MEANT TO DECEIVE THE REAL ENEMY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Even while our British allies are planning a pull back of all forward forces in Afghanistan and Canada has announced withdrawal, American generals, based on what they know to be total lies, are asking for troops to duplicate America’s "victory" in Iraq. Do our generals realize they are beginning to believe their own lies? 

In truth, the "surge" was nothing but a ploy with no real results other than to deceive the American people.  The policy that ended major combat was the division of Iraq into 3 countries, and the massive bribery of Sunni leaders and Shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr.  The entire enemy force, the Sunni militias and the Shiite Mahdi army was put on the US payroll.  This, and improved implementation of anti-IED technology ended most US casualties in Iraq.  

General David Petraeus began dispensing tens of millions of dollars, to Sunni leaders, making them independent of the Shiite government in Baghdad, contingent on their ending all combat against American troops.  There was no more reason to fight.  Not only was the enemy given exactly what they wanted but they were put on the US payroll to boot.  It might have been a brilliant move but it had absolutely nothing to do with winning a war with a troop "surge."

Thousands of insurgents who were fighting the US began getting a monthly check from the American people.  Yes, the surge worked, we sent out a surge of cash.

With top Shiite leaders on the payroll too and Sunni’s terrified of Iran’s powerful influcence over the Shiite led government in Baghdad, we have entered an endless cycle of stripping Iraq of its oil reserves while playing one side against the other, an easy task when all sides are growing fat on American taxpayer dollars.

If we want to call this victory, so be it.  This is the kind of decision making I expect from people who got their prom dates from escort services.

With President Obama being asked to implement the same solution in Afghanistan, I wonder if anyone has bothered to tell the president exactly what that solution was and how it can only work with a massive outlay of funds and a permanent occupation force.

The problem, of course, is that the divisions in Iraq, with a large independent Kurdish minority and well armed and powerful Sunni militias isn’t duplicated in Afghanistan.  The country is virtually all Sunni with a small Shiite minority near the southern border with Iran. 

The surge that beat no enemy, stablized no country, outwitted no insurgency is going to be taken to Afghanistan.  Our military geniuses want to use the same tacts that never existed in the first place in a war that has absolutely nothing in common with Iraq. 

Is the requested "surge" simply a plot to cover a hasty retreat, hoping Pakistan, our primary ally in the region won’t notice us "missing in action?"  Thus far, the US has shown absolutely NO capability of supporting advanced positions in enemy held areas and gaining both the confidence and cooperation of the indigenous population.

In fact, the exact opposite has happened. 

Anyone who thinks 34,000 troops will overwhelm an enemy capable of holding 340,000 at bay for decades, is, as described in the words of General Norman Schwartzkopf,

"He is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he’s a great military man."

Nearly 2 decades ago, General Schwartzkopf was describing Saddam.  Is anyone ready to hear those same words aptly applied to our military leadership?  What our ill informed leadership hopes will be dozens of Khe Sanh’s, duplicating the famous stand of Marines against overwhelming odds in Vietnam is more likely to resemble Dien Bien Phu or Stalingrad or Bataan.  Delusion has bred too much hubris and too little common sense or strategic reality.