Did The U.S. Surge In Iraq Change The Battlefield

From The Belmont Club:

Two assertions about Iraq ought to be challenged or at least examined more closely. The first is the idea that security improvements in Iraq and al-Qaeda’s defeat had little if anything to do with the US effort. The second is the assertion that the “real” strategic center of gravity always should have been Afghanistan, because the proper object of the War is to “get bin Laden”.

Take the question of whether the growing success in Iraq had anything to do with US effort. Once violence in Iraq began to wane and al-Qaeda was clearly being defeated, the search to find a non-American explanation began in earnest. For a while it was fashionable to credit Moqtada al-Sadr’s “ceasefire” with improving conditions in Iraq. The Guardian report of February 2008 ascribing nearly miraculous powers to al-Sadr typified the explanation that violence was down because he had turned it off.

Read more ....

More News And Comments On The Iraqi Surge

How Important Was the Surge? -- American Prospect
How Successful Was The Surge? -- NPR
Kagen says surge wasn’t necessary after his first visit to Iraq -- Journal Sentinel
Iraq's 'surge' has its limits -- Asia Times
Bush cuts Iraq combat tours for US troops as surge comes to an end -- Earth Times
Can Iraq's new calm hold? -- Yahoo News/Christian Science Monitor
Are we winning in Iraq? -- LA Times
Bush declares progress in Iraq war -- Yahoo News/AP
Bush hails 'durability' of progress in Iraq -- AFP
Bush: surge in Iraq worked -- LA Times
Iraq Gains May Mean More Reductions -- Time Magazine

My Comment: The Iraqis and American military believe the surge was one of many essential components for bringing peace to Iraq. Playing an armchair general .... if Iraq was a failed state now, I am sure that many would be blaming the surge .... since violence has gone done by 90%, credit has to go where it belongs. the surge did change the dynamics of the Iraq battlefield.