Posted by
on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:36:54 PM
More good news on the Iraq surge from the NY Post and Rich Lowry. The Post is discussing why the surge is working:
'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added.
Petraeus, the new commander managing the "surge" of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. "Sure we see improvements - major improvements," he said in our interview, "but we still have a long way to go."
What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen." ...
BINGO! And it's no easy task when the Iraqis are able to see the partisan defeatists over here trying to kill the war. But the success in the surge thus far has emboldened the public in Iraq to help the US and coalition forces, and the Iraqi security forces. They understand now that we aren't going anywhere until the job is done, and that the president and General Petreus are going to fight for them. They also understand, as is evident in the Iraqi Parliament and their threats to Maliki to straighten up, or they'll toss him out.
But Rich Lowry picked up on this, which has been a sticky subject for us when it comes to the war, in general:
Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been "clarified." "There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long," Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary - even harmful - restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.
"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue."
The ROEs were a consistent gripe of ours, and General Petreus is correct: The changes made by junior officers weren't wise, or even helpful. If anything, they brought more problems to the engagements we had with the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq; usually with deadly consequences. And to quell the fears of those on the Left who worry about civilian casualties, yes I'm sure we're still taking care to avoid it when it's at all possible. BUT, in a firefight where our enemies may be using them civilians, directly or indirectly, as shields, our troops aren't going to sit on their triggers like many reports we have seen come from CENTCOM. They WILL return fire to protect themselves, and take the best care to avoid civilian casualties.
Detractors and critics of the surge need to remember that areas of Iraq -- Baghdad and the Anbar Province, specifically -- are still hotbeds. There's still fighting in those areas, and barring a complete removal of civilians, there will be casualties. Need we remind those same critics that while it was tragic in World War II, we didn't not strike a target or engage the enemy because too many civilians were in the area. When you go to war, you do so unconditionally, and with all assets at your disposal. Some will be hurt, and some will die, but not nearly as many if we cede the field to the enemy. Remember, our enemy used to go into towns that US, coalition and Iraqi forces labled as "secured," and behead the men in town.
General Petreus is the leading anti-insurgency expert in the Army. We think it's high time the Democrats zip it, quit trying to interfere, and let the professionals finish the job. They're not helping anyone with their continued antics.
Publius II