This Week at War: What if the Surge Didn't Work?

A new study asks some troubling questions about what really caused Iraq's reduction in violence.

BY ROBERT HADDICK | APRIL 15, 2011

Do troop surges really work?

As springtime arrives in Afghanistan, the coalition's soldiers and commanders are bracing for the annual acceleration of combat against the Taliban. The "surge" of over 33,000 additional U.S. soldiers, ordered by President Barack Obama in December 2009, has been in place since last fall. Everyone expects another violent summer, just as occurred after "surge" reinforcements arrived in Iraq in 2007. But the Iraq surge appeared to work; in 2008 and thereafter, violence declined dramatically. The Iraqi government and its security forces are now fully in charge, and the last U.S. troops should be gone by the end of the year. Advised by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, and Gen. David Petraeus, Obama is hoping that the success these surge proponents brought to Iraq will occur similarly in Afghanistan.

But did the U.S. troop surge in Iraq really win the war? Maj. Joshua Thiel, a U.S. Army Special Forces officer, thinks not. In a study written for Small Wars Journal, Thiel performs a statistical analysis that correlates the arrival of the surge reinforcements into Iraq in 2006 and 2007 with subsequent levels of combat incidents in 2007 and 2008. Using data gathered from each of Iraq's 18 provinces and incorporating lags to account for the time required for new combat units to become effective in the field, Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in the level of violence in Iraq's provinces. Some provinces received reinforcements; others did not. Combat incidents went up in some provinces and down in others. But the connection between surge troops and the change in the level of incidents seems entirely random.

Overall violence in Iraq declined steeply in 2008. But Thiel attributes this to other factors besides the arrival of U.S. combat reinforcements. These factors include the Sunni Awakening against al Qaeda in Anbar province, the completion by 2008 of sectarian ethnic cleansing in the Baghdad area, the erection of security barriers between neighborhoods in Baghdad, a unilateral cease-fire by some Shiite militias, the increased dispersion of joint U.S. and Iraqi combat outposts in Iraq's cities, and perhaps most important, the maturation of Iraq's security forces. These factors could all have occurred without the arrival of additional U.S. forces.

What does Thiel's study portend for Afghanistan this summer? Much more important than the number of U.S. reinforcements added in 2010 is how they are employed. Thiel seems hopeful that various local Afghan militia programs sponsored by coalition special operations forces will successfully blunt Taliban efforts to reintegrate their cadres into areas that were recently cleared.

According to the Brookings Institution's monthly report on Afghan security, violence of all kinds continues to climb. A combination of disparate events, some catalyzed by coalition actions and others not, brought Iraq back from the abyss in 2008. If Afghanistan is similarly salvaged, the reasons will likely be as varied and complex as they were in Iraq.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

KILGORE_NOBIZ

1:58 PM ET

April 15, 2011

So called "Surge" more than just additional troops

I think this article oversimplifies the so-called "surge" and completely skirts around the fact that "the surge" was actually a comprehensive strategy that included procuring tribal buy-in from both select Sunnis and Shiites as well as the use of walls/barriers around certain neighborhoods, and placing the onus on Iraqi forces to step up. Many of these "other" factors sited in the study were a part of the overall "surge" strategy. The "surge" was not simply a matter of dumping 33,000 troops in country and hope everything works out. One could actually take the basic facts underlying this article, place them into their proper perspective of "surge" strategy, and actually make a very strong case that Petreus was spot on.

 

WESTERNSKEPTIC

5:16 PM ET

April 15, 2011

Did you read the same article I did?

Both you and the author are on the same page here. The question is not whether the change to the "Petraeus Doctrine" was a good idea, but whether there is any correlation between an increase in troops and a reduction in kinetic activity. I would highly suggest you read the original study by Maj Joshua Thiel, as it contains the statistical evidence to back up the claim that the actual surge in troops was insignificant in reducing violence. The study does not examine the complex variables that may have led to the actual drop in violence, but it does speculate as to some possibilities, which include some examples cited in the article and in your comment. Since the study only examined the correlation between the number of battalions in a province and the number of reported violence (SIGACTS), the only empirically proven conclusion that surfaces is that there is no significant correlation between troop levels and levels of violence.

 

CASSANDRAAA

7:51 AM ET

April 17, 2011

Continuous war

The important thing about our multiple wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya) is that winning is not the issue. We can't even agree on what that means. The whole point is just to keep executive egos intact and the money flowing for the military contractors and suppliers -- and to provide cover for the government to infringe or revoke a wide variety of our rights as citizens.

We are now the embodiment of Orwell's "1984" where the population of Oceania was kept in a state of alarm by reports of continuous war and shifting alliances, summarized by the famous slogan, "war is peace."

 

STEVEM

2:39 PM ET

April 17, 2011

"Surge"? Meh...

Cassandraaa, you got that right. We could have engaged in selective bribery in 2004 and gotten out of Iraq with the same fractured results.

The Myth of Military Exceptionalism promulgated by Bush and sustained by Obama implies that uniformed leadership has superior intelligence and wisdom.

Only those "warrior" guys ain't that smart either...

 

NICOLAS19

6:19 AM ET

April 18, 2011

I agree with both of you

Naturally, there will be "boots on the ground" in Libya within months, as the government needs an alternative to Iraq by the end of this year, another war to frighten people to obedience with.

 

ODYSSEY8

10:48 AM ET

April 18, 2011

Bulls eye!

Bulls eye, Cassandraaa! The military-industrial complex has taken over. They own the government at this point. Anyone who believes we are living in a "democracy" is just kidding themselves!

Unless and until the people of this country rise up and pull down the system as is, our country's economic problems will only get worse. The powers that be DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE AVERAGE PERSON ON THE STREET! From their point of view, we are collateral damage, nothing more.

 

HYPATIA

11:46 AM ET

April 18, 2011

Continuous war

Thou hast said it, Cassandraaa. To the MIC and its corporate/congressional facilitators, we are the "useful idiots (Lenin's phrase) who are supposed to swallow blindly whatever patriotic bilge they choose to feed us.

 

ADAMC7

9:12 PM ET

April 17, 2011

I dont think so...

The "surge" wasnt simply a matter of dumping 33,000 troops in country and hope everything works out. One could actually take the basic facts underlying this article, place them into their proper perspective of "surge" strategy, and actually make a very strong case that Petreus was spot on. Just Like bed bugs, they will never go away!

 

HYPATIA

11:44 AM ET

April 18, 2011

What if the surge didn't work

It should read: "What if the surge HADN'T worked." It's in the past, so you need a past perfect.

(Dinosaur grammarian steps down)

 

ASJIBRASDA

2:06 AM ET

May 11, 2011

The study does not examine

The study does not examine the complex variables that may have led to the actual drop in violence, but it does speculate as to some possibilities, which include some examples cited in the article and in your comment.Amazon Affiliate Since the study only examined the correlation between the number of battalions in a province and the number of reported violence (SIGACTS), the only empirically proven conclusion that surfaces is that there is no significant correlation between troop levels and levels of violence.

 

MUGA336U

1:08 AM ET

May 12, 2011

Using data gathered

This is nicely said: "Using data gathered from each of Iraq's 18 provinces and incorporating lags to account for the time required for new combat units to become effective in the field, Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in the level of violence in Iraq's provinces.Some provinces received reinforcements; others did not."

 

MUGA336U

1:14 AM ET

May 12, 2011

actually I wanted to say it different

This is nicely said: "Using data gathered from each of Iraq's 18 provinces and incorporating lags to account for the time required for new combat units to become effective in the field, Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in the level of violence in Iraq's provinces. linkbuildingserviceSome provinces received reinforcements; others did not."

 

MUGA336U

2:48 PM ET

May 12, 2011

I am wondering

I am wondering if they use of private jets over there. There is a lot of talk about not spending too much and I really do not know whether private jets are really that important. On the other hand it could be very well be needed.