I contend that the "surge" is but one tool (tactic) in a new population-centric strategy. Unfortunately, the new strategy was introduced late in the game and after several years of either living in denial that an insurgency even existed and, once acknowledged, adopting the enemy-centric approach to COIN. Also in the minus column is the time factor – our domestic political situation is pointing to a September “blow-up” that may seal the fate of the surge tactic. Still, in order for a population-centric approach to COIN to succeed there has to be at least a semblance of security for the population and other non-military actors. Using the old maxim that COIN is 80% political and 20% military – the surge is part of the 20% that is intended to enable the 80% to begin in earnest.

Initiatives such as the one you posit – and there are many good and well-meaning proposals out there – do not even have a fighting chance until there is some degree of normalcy and security in Iraq. Moreover, successful execution of any COIN strategy will take years, not months. The surge is but the pointy-end beginning and should not be scrapped simply because it is misinterpreted as a long-term strategy.

Moreover, any strategy that is dependant on the Iraqi government for success has a long and difficult road ahead. The national government seems to be “broke” and this may force us into a bottom-up approach to transforming Iraq into a stable and responsible state. I have always been a proponent of a bottom-up approach but that is not how our elements of national power seem to like to do business. The early tactics of the surge will most likely serve as the first step in that bottom-up approach. Please see Bing West’s latest SWJ trip report and blog articles at Westhawk and The Belmont Club for more on this.