So Why Is Bush Sending in 30,000 Replacement Troops?
By Jon Ponder on 7/7/2008, 2:06pm PT  

Guest blogged by Jon Ponder, Pensito Review.

Last week, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared that his government has defeated terrorism in Iraq.

"They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it. But, thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them," al-Maliki declared, referring to recent government operations against Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

Violence in Iraq is said to be at its lowest level in four years, a factor that is attributed to the surge of U.S. forces into the country.

So if the surge has been so successful, can we bring U.S. troops out of Iraq and leave internal security to al-Maliki and the Iraqi military?

Of course not. We're sending more troops to Iraq.

Late in June, the Pentagon was reported to be preparing to send 30,000 replacement troops into Iraq in about six months in order to maintain 15 brigades in country.

What this means is that the surge is a success only in the sense that flooding the zone with security has tamped down violence and --- here is the real point --- neutralized Iraq as a domestic political issue in the presidential campaign.

Underlying the "success," however, the morass of internecine religious conflicts, intrigue and power struggles is far from resolved and will undoubtedly raise its ugly head again when U.S. troops come out, if they ever do.